We design Questionnaires for leaders and labors in automobile service centers that about study on the impact of proactive personality and leader member exchange on Job satisfaction and performance. The questionnaire consists of four parts: part one is about the respondent’s basic information, including their work experience. Part two and three are to measure how proactive they are and leader-member exchanges by using 5 point scales indicates frequency, amount and size of idea. Part four is to measure job satisfaction by using 5-point scales with responses of 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree. Part five is the measure job performance by using the evaluation scale has five possible ratings: 5= Excellent, 4=Good, 3=satisfactory, 2=sometime unsatisfactory and 1=unsatisfactory. The last part is leader’s interview.
3.4. Measures
3.4.1 Proactive personality focus on labors was measured at Crant and Kraimer (1999) ten-item proactive personality Scale (PPS). Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed on a 5-point Likert-type faces scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
Proactive personality was measured using Crant and Kraimer(1999) 10 item measure. These items are summed to arrive at a proactive personality score.
Table 3.1 Proactive Personality Measure Item
1. I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life.
2. Wherever I have been, I have been a powerful force for constructive change.
3. Nothing is more exciting than seeing my ideas turn into reality.
30 4. If I see something I don't like, I fix it.
5. No matter what the odds, if I believe in something I will make it happen.
6. I love being a champion for my ideas, even against others' opposition.
7. I excel at identifying opportunities.
8. I am always looking for better ways to do things.
9. If I believe in an idea, no obstacle will prevent me from making it happen.
10. I can spot a good opportunity long before others can.
Source: Crant and Kraimer 1999
3.4.2 Leader–Member Exchange measures were adapted from previous studies, which included Liden and Maslyn (1998). Meta-analytical evidence indicates that the LMX 7 provides the soundest psychometric properties and the highest correlations with outcomes, compared to all other available instruments (Gerstner & Day, 1997). And explain the relationship with either leader or one of subordinates. For each of the items, indicate the degree to which think the item is true for response.
We measured leader member exchange by using questionnaire contains items that ask to describe relationship with leader or subordinates.
This is example result of Daniel Michael’s studied that presents about the descriptive statistics, reliability coefficients, and the correlations among the study variables. These results provide preliminary support for the research hypotheses. Specifically, LMX was positively related to SSC (r = .87, p < .001), employee interpersonal facilitation (r = .40, p < .001) and job dedication (r = .31, p <.001). Employee job dedication was positively related to employee task performance (r = .80, p <.001). SSC was positively related to job satisfaction (r = .57, p
< .001), interpersonal facilitation (r = .46, p < .001), job dedication (r = .35, p < .001), and employee task performance (r = .28, p< .001), and inversely related to turnover intentions (r
= -.61, p < .001).
31
Table 3.2 leader member exchange Items.
Measure Item
1. Do you know where you stand with your leader and do you usually know how satisfied your leader is with what you do?
2. How well does your leader understand your job problems and needs?
3. How well does your leader recognize your potential?
4. Regardless of how much formal authority your leader has built into his or her position, what are the chances that your leader would use his or her power to help you solve problems in your work?
5. Again, regardless of the amount of formal authority your leader has, what are the chances that he or she would “bail you out” at his or her expense?
6. I have enough confidence in my leader that I would defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not present to do so.
7. How would you characterize your working relationship with your leader?
Source: G. B. Graen and M. Uhl-Bien, 1995
3.4.3 Job Satisfaction - measuring of job satisfaction was taken from Hackman and Oldman (1976) and Baillod and Semmer (1994). Following Kunin (1955), participants were instructed to indicate how satisfied they were.
We measured Job satisfaction and motivate by using the six-factor measure developed and validated by Hackman and Oldman (1976), Lawler & Porter (1967) and Fried and Ferris (1987). The six-factors include Work Characteristics, Work in progress, Relationship between leader, Environment in workplace, Compensation-Reward and Equilibrium between work life and personal life.
Table 3.3 Job satisfactions Measure Item
Work Characteristics
1. The job allow me to make decision, decide and create about my work for develop thing that done.
2. Quantity of work suited for time that I have to work.
3. The job require me a variety of skill for complete the work
32
4. I am successful in your work during the time you worked in the past.
Work in progress
5. My position or duty to perform the work in progress later.
6. I am satisfied with my comment, colleagues and leader will listen to my comments and to make their decisions.
7. I am satisfied with my organization that supports me to be successful in their profession without change the job.
8. Get a promotion in my organization has to follow rules and justice.
9. I am satisfied with the job, because advancement opportunities than others.
Relationship between leaders
10. Leader are intimate, friendly, accept my comments and suggestions.
11. Leader willing to help when I have problems in both work and personal.
12. I satisfied relationship between leader and me now.
Environment in workplace
13. Prepare for emergencies and disasters in the workplace.
14. The lighting / ventilation enough in the workplace.
15. Don’t foul smell / dust in the workplace
16. Superior materials new technology and facilities in operation.
Compensation and Reward
17. I satisfied with the salary you received with my skill and knowledge.
18. I satisfied in all aspects of executive compensation in the form of salaries, incentives, other benefits.
19. I satisfied in the year, I have the opportunity to exercise a right to be compensated for financial and other (illness or disability as a result of the operation).
Equilibrium between work life and personal life 20. I often have to work on assignments overtime.
21. The work is not a barrier to family life and relaxation
33 3.4.4 Job Performance
Table 3.4 Writing with leader Writing Item
Job Performance
1. Discipline (punctuality) 2. Quality Performance
3. Work completed on schedule to be placed 4. Judgment and Problem solving
5. Interpersonal and Creativity
Interview - using real information that interview to examine, which would be measure opinion, attitude, relationship leader to subordinates, including framework and job performances of employee.
This writing would be measure job performances of worker by give managers give score for worker under their control.
3.4.5 Leader’s Interview
Table 3.5 Interview with leader Interview Item
1. Employees making decisions and open opportunities to comment.
2. The goal and specify work or contribution for employees.
3. The feeling that leader character has a role and important to labor (Respect and trust in capacity) though attitudes and relationships between labors.
4. The links of proactive personality of employee and job performance.
Control Variables -Prior research suggests that LMX quality may be related to similarity in leader and labor demographic characteristics such as age, education, and salary and job
34
experience. Age; the rating scale was 1 = 20-25, 2 = 26-30, 3 = 31-40 4 = 41-50, and 5 = over 51 years old. Education was measured by asking for a report of the highest degree obtained.
The rating scale was 2 = Certified, 1 = Bachelor’s degree. Salary was measured with one item asking for a report of the amount of money. Job experience was measured with one item asking for a report of the number of years in the company. The rating scale was 1 = less than 2 year, 2 = 2–5 years, 3 = 6–10 years, and 4 = more than 10 years. In addition, we controlled for the dyadic tenure of each leader and labor to partial out the potential familiarity effect (Green, Anderson, & Shivers, 1996).