Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Participative Leadership Model:
Reinventing Leadership Style for University Excellencies
In Indonesia

Samsu
Jainabee MD LS. Kassim

This paper focuses on the discussion on participative leadership style of university in Indonesia. Description of the participative leadership aspects of the university based on the concepts, theories and models that are not a part of the inseparable and inter-related. In fact, it can be said that participation in the leadership regarding the university's efforts to find a response back to the style of leadership of the university benefits from the previous period. But basically, this paper elaborates how the issue of leadership in the university has delivered the benefits at the state, especially in Asia worldwide.

Introduction

It can not be denied that the goal of education leadership in the university is to maintain the influence of leadership in an effective leader and increase the ability to run a university higher education and to provide community service at the local, national and international. At this level, it can be divided into three main categories, namely: (i) the purposes of the university leadership, (ii) administrative purposes, and (iii) the educational objectives. In the model of participative leadership, job performance is as an argument to strengthen the nature, power, influence, behavior and trust in participative leadership universities, increase faculty participation, and the stability of the university. Therefore, understanding this from the perspective of management education tends to define leadership as a participation of subordinate in the implementation of the university management. In other organizations, especially in the company, management as expressed by Thomas J. Barry (1997) had six elements of management that can be used as a participative element in the leadership as the transfer of authority through delegation, groups meeting, task forces, quality improvement teams, process improvement team, project improvement team and team-work to do the planning, decision-making processes, and to manage the functions of management-the implementation of basic and additional duties as a lecturer. These are can be seen as one way to encourage involvement in increasing subordinate job performance as a lecturer, and organization (university) that is now considered as a means to enhance, formulate and carry out what we called ' three duties of higher education' they are learning and educating, research and public service on the one hand, and to make the effectivity function of leadership, on the other hand.
According to the illustration above, if they compared with many other experts have a lot of difference. Hersey and Blancard (1974), Steven Altman (1985), Arthur G. Jago in Griffin (1986), Ralph M. Stogdill (1981) and C. Turney (1992) each provided the definitions of leadership with subordinate influence focus on the process to achieve the objectives of the organization. Unlike the M. Lipham (1974), Abdul Malik (1984), Aminuddin (1989), Ba'da (2001) have defined leadership as the behavior of a leader to influence the subordinate organization in achieving goals. Meanwhile, Yukl (2002), and Davis (2003) have stated leadership is an activity and the authority and be owned by a leader to influence subordinates. In fact, Fred E. Fiedler (1967) has argued that a leader is a person who is assigned to guide and coordinate activities related to the tasks that need to be carried out by groups in an organization.
From some of the leadership definition above, it can be concluded that leadership is a complex task that, not only limited to the process, and influence behavior, but also the need to involve the participation and sharing of tasks (participative). Although many experts, the fact that only give the definition of leadership that emphasizes the process to affect subordinate only to achieve the goals of the organization. This process would not affect the way duress, but what a leader is able to interact and inspire tasks to subordinates to implement the techniques in accordance with certain situations and conditions, so that what will be achieved can be success. This is in line with the opinion Cheryl Gray and Quentin Bishop (2009) that there are three keys of leadership development, namely: assessment, challenge and support.

Participative Leadership of University in Indonesia

Discussion about participative leadership in Indonesia can be elaborated through participative leadership concept, the participative leadership theory, participative leadership model and the issues of participative leadership of university in Indonesia.

a. Partisipative Leadership Concept

Participative leadership is an approach or step of participative management to comprehend lecturer behaviour. Bush and Glover (2007) have explained that "perticipative leadership is referred to as using democratic processes to succced in ‘bonding’ staff”. To succeed the process, Edward E Lawler III (1986) has stated that a number of researches indicate that participation of subordinate job or activity (employee) influences organization effectiveness, they are motivation, satisfaction, ability receives change, solving of problem and communications. Thomas J. Barry (1997) has stated that participation of subordinate can be done through participative management through six elements they are 1) delegation, 2) group meetings, 3) task force, 4) quality improvement team, 5) process improvement team, 6) project improvement team. All elements applicable to influence lecturer labour capacity. Participative leader played important role in succeeding labour capacity, In consequence, perceivable that labour capacity can be improved if constructive participative leadership in an university. Thereby, constructs lecturer labour capacity, must be constructed before hand the leadership style chimes in with problem faced by lecturer, that is in the effort constructing and increases they performance capacity.
Robiah Sidin (2003) has stated that the way of someone leads differing in one another. Leader of having style separate leadership based on situation, personality, structure, need leads and source of power of the leader. This factors yields different leadership behaviour. Lynn Marotz and Amy Lawson ( 2007) have stated one of the way of comprehend leadership style and how its the influence an organization is by considering who will to observe (controls) strength and power to make decision and how support and involvement of worker in the proces( Vroom, 1974).

b.The Participative Leadership Theory

There are some definition given to define partisipative leadership as effort to comprehend behaviour leader of in an organization (university) especially to influence labour capacity like laid open by Tony Bush (2003) has stating that participative leadership assumes that decision-making processes of the group should be become principal focus from the group. As leader emphasizing to partner (collegiality), participative leadership is normative model that based on three criterions, they are 1) participation will increase university effectiveness (participation will increase university effectiveness), 2) participation is justified by democratic principles), 3) in the context of site-based management, leadership is potentially available to any legitimate stakeholder. Tony Bush (2003) has stated that participative leadership is attractive modeling because this model emerges and gives opportunity to lecturer to involve in decision making. Bottery (1992) has stated that investment level (participation) may be differentiated as follows:1) pseudo-participation, in which influence is only apparent, 2) partial participation, in which there is limited influence ‘conditioned by the greater influence of others’ and 3) full participation, which involves ‘equal influence on decisions with all other’ interested bodies’.
This participative leadership is one model of the role of alternative leadership becoming emphasis in this research. Based from participative management model (participative management) Thomas J.Barry (1997) has giving emphasis at the importance 1) delegation, 2) group meetings, 3) task force, 4) quality improvement team, 5) process improvement team, 6) project improvement team.
a. Delegation. Delegation is important element in increasing performance capacity. Delegation gives opportunity to subordinate to work in more directional, convinces of, and accountable in duty laxative agent given by leader. In consequence, every leader as possible copes does delegation to the subordinate to increase they performance capacity as according to part which they must do. Failure of leader in giving good delegation to subordinate will make worse the quality and subordinate performance capacity. Thereby, can be told that delegation of a leader through participative leadership given will succeed subordinate in working their task that will be done. Told that way, because subordinate cannot do work which unmatched to task given. According to Thomas J.Barry (1997), presentation of leadership delegation to this lecturer is through 1) division of responsibility, 2) power (authority), 3) leadership role relating to execution of three duties of lecturer in the university (called “tridarma perguruan tinggi”), and 4) lecturer taking part in solving of problem faced by university.
b. Group Meetings. According to Thomas J.Barry (1997), the something important to built in group meeting is communication process taken place is one way between leaders with part and of leader or this part overspreads to subordinate. In the university, remembering a real lecturer duty and many leader, hence group meetings is separate constraint, because they face meeting time problem, activity and duty of lecturer and the leader, motivation, reward, and leadership of a leader in execution of duty. These problems can pursue execution of group meeting. Based from leader and leadership aspects, group meeting problem is medium for transforming value, idea, and policy which will be done by the university. While from lecturer aspect, possibility that group meeting can be seen as there is no the relationship with fundamental duty as lecturer, because this thing tends to will pass the time only, even possibly is looked into group meeting is a duty of leader only, not lecturer duties.
c. Task Force. According to Thomas J.Barry (1997), task force comes from organization of military. The task force is a corps or association of choice activity assigned at one particular selected issue what done by management. By task force, they analyse problem and only gives recommendation and they keep off in implementation from a problem solving (solution). If a recommendation have successfully is given, hence meetings group of this group desists in doing their task. Task force is step and strategy to do the meeting, conference, and trouble-shooting and education planning. By the task force, expected education program and lecturer performance may increase, causing contribution at improvement of quality of organization performance.
d. Quality Improvement Team. According to Thomas J.Barry (1997), quality improvement team is a group of association/task force at one particular ground which order in a structural area to identify a process/project which is not fulfill specified clauses.
e. Process Improvement Team. According to Thomas J.Barry (1997), process improvement team is a group of association/task force at one particular ground which order in a structural area to identify a task taking place to be finalized to reach output.
f. Project Improvement Team. Project improvement team can become spin-off of the process improvement team, task force, or group mettings based on by order in structure area focussed at special project. This thing will overcome elimination from defects in a process.

In the context of partisipative leadership as model, Janice Patterson & Jerry Patterson (2004) express that partisipative leadership is a leader working with colleagues or subordinate with a purpose to increases labour capacity like lecturer to reach purpose of university either in informal and also formal capacities. In formal context, partisipative leader generally controlled by the rector/dean/or their vices. They are all these assists department heads, leader of team mentors for new lecturers and staffs, peer coaches, and or members of quality, process and project development of task forces. While in an informal context, partisipative leader confessed by their colleagues because of credibility, relationship-building skills. This partisipative leader possibly offers support to beginning lecturers, design and implement staff development activities, does recommendation to the above of new lecturer candidate, writes fund for source benefit required, or even acts as expert by expansion of university technology. In Lunenburg and Ornstein 2000) perspective, partisipative leader consulted things relating to subordinate work, accomodates their opinion and periodically tries to applies subordinate idea in decision making. Beside that, participation of subordinate (worker) as term by Zivan Tanic in M.K.Singh and Battacharya (1995) including action-oriented is notions, this category consisted of concept of theory beside practical application.
Until now, level of work subordinate participation according to Dale in M.K.Singh and Battacharya (1995) are divided into four participation styles of subordinate, they are: 1) informal of cooperation, 2) advisory cooperation, 3) constructive cooperation and 4) joint determination. Firstly, with reference to information gathering, secondly doing consultancy, thirdly gives suggestion (suggestion) and fourthly of determination of decision to organization police. Schweiniz in M.K.Singh and Battacharya (1995) also finds other style, that is information-sharing, idea-sharing and problem sharing as a basic function and it is different from participative management system.



c. Participative Leadership Model

The scope of a participative leadership style is oriented to the subordinate participation in the process and the achievement of decision making consists of 14 style categories of achievement, the characteristics of individual behavior that are used to achieve them. Attainment model of participative leadership style of this domain consists of four main behaviors: leader interaction, subordinate work performance, a task master, and contributed to the team relations (see figure 1). Each domain is a characteristic that is expected to apply to the role of leader, and subordinate relationships of individual workers / teams.



Participative Leadership

Maximize Leaders Interactions


1. Entrusting (empowers)
2. Social (Networks)
3. Personal (Persuades)
Maximize
Subordinate Work Performance

1. Productivity of Work
2. Quality of Work
3. Teamwork
4. Iniciative
5. Problem Solving

Master Own Task


1. Intrinsic (Excel)
2. CompetitiveOutperforme)
3. Power (Take Charge)
Contributed to
the Team Relations


1. Collegiality (joins force)
2. Contributory (Helps)
3. Vicarios (Mentor)

Figure 1:
Participative Leadership Model
adapted from Jill.L.Robinson dan Jean Lipman-Blumen (2003)

d. The Issues of Participative Leadership of University in Indonesian

There are several factors which the structure of brace application of participative leadership in the university, that allows university leadership to run effectively. They are the behavioral factor, how the implementation of participative leadership, situation factors, and participation factor of the leader in his leadership.
Result of research covers aspects of respondent profile, participative leadership based on two components they are participative leadership and lecturer performance in IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi, Jambi University and Batanghari University in Jambi Province in Indonesia. There are six primary factors studied in both the participative leadership components they are delegation, group meeting, task force, quality improvement team, process improvement team and project improvement team.
The finding or result of this study answers the first problem about perception of group leader and lecturer on lecturer performance in third of the universities. The finding of this study also answers the second problem about lecturer performance based on element of work productivity, quality of work, task force, initiative, solving of problem. The problem of third study about the significance relationship between participative leadership and lecturer performance. Meanwhile, the problem of fourth study about the significance difference between participative leaderships in the third of universities. While the problem of the fifth study discusses about the significance difference between lecturer performance in the third universities. Last, the problem of the sixth study unfolds about variable influencing lecturer performance in the third of the universities.
Seen the measure of sample, total of sample (all populations) 394 samples and returning circulation of instrument 372; from the amounts, there is 74% than instrument which has been circularized has been returned. Percentage of highest of instrument returned by Batanghari University (86%), IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi (83%) and Jambi University (70%). This study focussed at leader of the universities they are rector/vices rector/dean/vice dean and lecturer as respondent of research. Focusses of this study to the leader and the lecturer, because they can apply partisipative leadership style in managing and implements the activity of university.
Number of samples (total population) of research as a whole based on demography factor (position, gender, serves in university and level of education) among leader and higher education lecturer (universiti and institute) Jambi province, Indonesia like in figure 2 belows.

Figure 2. Profil of Research Respondent by Questionnaire

Background
Respondent
Frequence
Procentage

Position
Group Leader
12
3.05
Lecturer
382
96.95

Gender
Male
295
74.87
Famale
99
25.13

Serves in University
<5 years
65
16.49
5-10 years
94
23.86
11-15 years
120
30.46
16-20 years
70
17.77
>20 years
35
8.88
Level of Education
Degree (S1)
14
3.55
Master (S2)
325
82.49
Doktor (S3)
25
6.35
N=394

As shown at figure 2 showing 394 respondent from 3 universities in Jambi Province, Indonesia has replied questionnaire circularized and returns questionnaire 74 %. Out of 394 respondent accompanying this study amount 12 is group leader, 382 lecturer. From the total amount 295 are male and 99 are famale. For categorizing serves in university, amount 65 has served less than 5 year, amount 94 has served between 5 to 10 years, amount 120 has served between 11-15 years, amount 70 has served between 16-20 years, and amount 35 has served above 20 years. For categorizing level of education; 14 lecturer level of education is degree ( S1), 325 lecturer level of education is master (S2) and 25 lecturer level of education is doctor ( S3).
The result of data analysis obtained from questionnaire on participative leadership by using mean score as a whole has been thought. As for decision shows that majority of respondent (subject) has given medium answers to participative leadership in IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi and Jambi University. While participative leadership in Batanghari University has given high answers. The complete information about mean score figuring partisipative leadership profile has been thought, and shown in figure 3 through 6 as belows.

Figure 3. Profil Mean of Participative in
IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi
Elements of Participative Leadership
Mean Score
Level
Delegation
3.34
Medium
Group meeting
3.28
Medium
Task force
3.34
Medium
Quality improvement team
3.06
Medium
Process improvement team
3.32
Medium
Project improvement team
3.41
Medium




Figure 4. Profil Mean of Participative in
Jambi University

Elements of Participative Leadership
Mean Score
Level
Delegation
3.24
Medium
Group meeting
3.06
Medium
Task force
3.07
Medium
Quality improvement team
3.30
Medium
Process improvement team
3.33
Medium
Project improvement team
3.36
Medium




Figure 5. Profil Mean of Participative in
Batanghari University
Elements of Participative Leadership
Mean Score
Level
Delegation
3.60
High
Group meeting
3.57
High
Task force
3.60
High
Quality improvement team
3.71
High
Process improvement team
3.68
High
Project improvement team
3.86
High




Profil of partisipative leadership as a whole in the form of histogram will seen like in histogram 6 as follows:
Description:
DL=Delegation, PK=Group Meeting, PSK=Task Force, PPK=Quality Improvement Team, PPP=Process Improvement Team, PPPr=Project Improvement Team.

Based on figure 3 through histogram 6 shown that mean score delegation of participative leadership at IAIN STS Jambi (N=107) as a whole follows element of participative leadership is medium (mean score 334). Jambi University (N=212) as a whole follows element of participative leadership resided in medium (mean score 324). While Batanghari University (N=75) as a whole follows element of participative leadership in high rank (mean score 360). The result of data analysis obtained from questionnaire on lecturer performance in the third of universities in Jambi, Indonesia by using mean score as a whole like figure 7 as follows:

Figure 7. Profil Mean, Frequence dan
Level of Lecturer Performance


Universities

Mean

Frequence
Level of Performance
1. IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi
3.37
90
Medium
2. Jambi University
3.76
150
High
3. Batanghari University
3.41
45
High





Based on figure 7 above, shows that lecturer performance in IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi as a whole follows element of performance is medium (337). While lecturer performance in Jambi University and Batanghari University is high. nevertheless, from five elements of lecturer performance there are differences. The highest mean score is in Jambi University (mean score 376), Batanghari University (score min 341), and IAIN Sulthan Thaha Saifuddin Jambi has lowest mean score (mean score 337).
Analysis of inferencial statistics is done by using program package SPSS Version 12.00. The result hypothesis by using analysis of inferencial statistics covers Product Moment Karl Pearson correlation applied for the problem of study 3 to test hypothesis H01, one way ANOVA test for the problem of study 4 and 5 to test hypothesis H02 and H03. While for the problem of study 6 to test study hypothesis H04.



Conclusion

Participative leadership style, in the recent times, has become a priority and a key element on leadership style in different parts of the educational institutions. partisipative leadership style is not just a process of implementing style of leadership style, but it’s a quality to be excellence by acting the leader interaction, subordinate work performance, mastering own task, and giving the contribution to team relations.
The result and the formulation about participative leadership and lecturer performance in the third universities in Jambi province, Indonesia can be made as a guidance to move the quality of service in universities. The result of this research has giving many implication leadership style aspect in universities. The implication of impression experienced is feeling antipathy to lecturer or contrary turns into empathy and partnership.
It can be formulated that participative leadership causing change of leadership style a leader stems than some problems; firstly, the happening factor of work that is increasingly heavy and complex faced by the leader. Without participating or investment of lecturer, hence leader will find difficulties in decision-making processes. In reality today, the load university work heaps to someone leader more because of power factor (authority) leader to give delegation in finalizing problem or takes decision burdened to him.
Second, the leader of university applies his power as university controller is a thing absolute, as a rights that is sticking at himself. The power places at position " policy is on leader", and the responsibility of activity and power, so that in totally indoctrinates academic cultural order in the university compares political influence of the leader to the lecturer. This is creating university culture having the character of rigid, slow and haves the character of monotone. Thirdly, based on the group theory; university activity as an organization cannot work itself without involving lecturer in academic activity, mainly in implementing of teaching and education, research and public service (it is called “Tridharma perguruan tinggi”). Based on the organization theory, generates impression that if there is a leader which do not want to work along with lecturer, hence can be disregarded in the problem and university activity. This thing is dangerous and can apply, while leader doesn't realize that lecturer must become part than university decision-making processes.
This research gets that the root problems of the importance of leader using this participative leadership style not solely because paying attention to leader importance, and lecturer only, but also concerning importance of university as a whole. This haves a meaning that participative leadership style gives opportunity to lecturer to be entangled or involveed in university decision-making processes to become increasingly haves a meaning of.

References:
Abdul Malik Hj. Mohd Hanafiah.1984. Pemimpin dan Kepemimpinan. Dewan Masyarakat. June: 23-25.
Abdullah Hassan dan Ainon Mohd. 2002. Komunikasi di Tempat Kerja. Malaysia, PTS Publication.
Alias Muda. 2001. Caragaya Kepemimpinan, Tingkat Kepuasan Kerja Pekerja-pekerja dan Hubungannya; Kajian Kes Pejabat Risda Negeri Trengganu. Latihan Ilmiah. Universitas Kebangsaan Malaysia
Aminuddin Yusof. 1989. Kemanusiaan dalam Kepemimpinan. Dewan Masyarakat. 22 (1): 29
Arifin Bin Ba’da, Komunikasi dalam Kepemimpinan Pengetua dan Kesannya Kepada Kepuasan Kerja Guru. Universitas Kebangsaan Malaysia.
As’ad, M. 1991. Psikologi industri. Yogyakarta: Liberty.Asnawi, S. 1999. Aplikasi psikologi dalam manajemen sumber daya manusia perusahaan. Jakarta: Pusgrafin.
Bambang Suharno, 2004. Bisnis Sambilan Langkah Awal Menjadi Entrepreneur. Jakarta : Elex Media Komputindo
Bambang Wijayanta, dkk, 2007. Ekonomi dan Akuntansi: Mengasah Kemampuan Ekonomi,
Brent Davies (ed.). 2007. Developing Sustainable Leadership. London, Paul Chapman.
Brent Davies (ed.). 2007. Developing Sustainable Leadership. London, Paul Chapman.
Bush and Glover dalam talian Jacky Lumby with Marianne Coleman, Leadership and Diversity: Challenging Theory and Practice in Education, London, 2007
C. Turney.1992. The School Manager. Australia, Allen and Unwen.
Cheryl Gray dan Quentin Bishop. 2009. Leadership Development, The magazine publisher, J Staff Dev. 30 no1 Wint 2009.
Chester I. Bernard dalam talian Steven R. Corman, et.al. 1990. Foundations of Organizational Communication: A Reader. New York, Longman.
Colleen Liston. 1999. Managing Quality and Standards. USA, Open University Press.
David Evans. 1981. Supervisory Management: Principles and Practice. London, Holt Business texts.
Davis, J. 2003. Learning to lead. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
Deli Anhar. 2007. Pengaruh Motivasi Terhadap Produktiviti Kerja Akademik Dosen Pegawai Negeri Sipil Dipekerjakan (PNS DPK) pada Universiti Islam Kalimantan Banjarmasin.
Dessler, G. (1988). Personnel management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.
Feinberg, M.R. 1992. Effective psychology for managers. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Didin Hafidhuddin dan Hendri Tanjung, 2003. Manajemen Syari’ah Dalam Praktek. Jakarta: Gema Insani Press.
Djoko Purwanto, 2006. Komunikasi Bisnis, Edisi Ketiga, Jakarta: Erlangga.
Edward E Lawler III. 1986. High Involvement Management. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Fred C. Lunenburg dan Allen C. Ornstein. 2000. Educational Administration: Concepts and Practices 3rd Edition. USA, Wadsworth.
Fred D. Carver dan Thomas J. Sergiovanni. 1969. Organizations and Human Behavior. USA: McGraw Hill.Inc.
Fred M. Kerlinger. 1998. Asas Penelitian Behavior. Yogyakarta, Gajah Mada University Press. Edisi 3.
Gene E.Hall dan Hord, S.M.2001. Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles, and Potholes.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibson, J.L., Ivancevich, J.M., Donnely, J.M. 1985. Organizations behavior, structure, processes. Plano : Business Publication.
Grivin, R.W. & Ebert, R.J. 1996. Business. Englewood Cliff, New Jersey : Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hadari Nawawi. 1991. Metode Penelitian Bidang Sosial. Yogyakarta, Gajah Mada University Press.
Hasanuddin Rahman Daeng Naja, 2004. Manajemen Fit dan Proper Test, Yogyakarta, Pustaka Widyatama.
Hasibuan, M.S.P. 1990. Manajemen sumber daya manusia: dasar kunci keberhasilan. Jakarta: CV Haji Mas Agung.
Hasibuan, Malayu, S.P. 2002. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Cetakan Kelima Edisi Revisi. Jakarta, Penerbit Bumi Aksara.
Herman Chaeruman, 2009 http://www.antara.co.id/berita/1252251188/pakar-belum-ada-keseimbangan-penataan-pendidikan-nasional
Hersey, F. & Blancard, K.H.1974. Management of Organization Behaviour ed.ke-2. New York, Prentice Hall of India.
Hessel Nogi S.Tangkilisan, 2007. Manajemen Publik, Jakarta: Grasindo.
Hoy, K.W.dan Miskel G.C. 1991. Educational Administration: Theory, Research & Practice. (ed.4). New York, McGraw Hill Inc.
http://krishna-mumblog-krishna.blogspot.com/2008/09/kepemimpinan-partisipatif.html.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/workforcematters/pay_and_rewards/total_rewards/framework/quality_of_work.aspx.
Iskandar. 2008. Metodologi Penelitian Pendidikan dan Sosial. Jakarta, GP Press.
J.Salusu, 1996. Pengambilan Keputusan Stratejik: Untuk Organisasi Publik dan Non Profit, Jakarta:Grasindo.
Jainabee BT. L.S.MD Kassim.2005.Budaya Organisasi dan Kepuasan Kerja di Maktab Perguruan Malaysia. Malaysia, Thesis Ph.D Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.
James F. Budde. 1979. Measuring Performance in Human Service Systems. New York, Amacom.
James M. Lipham. 1974. The Principalship: Fundations and Functions. London, Harper and Row.
James O’Toole, Alih bahasa Neneng Natalina (2003). Leadership A to Z: A Guide for The Appropriately Ambitious, Jakarta:
Jane Purvey. 2008. Department of Human Sciences Loughborough University (http://info.lut.ac.uk/departments/hu/international/malaysian.html).
Jeff Madura, 2007. Pengantar Bisnis Edisi 4, Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Jewell & Siegall, M.1990. Psikologi industri/organisasi modern. Jakarta: Penerbit Arcan.
Jhon Parks Le Tellier.2007. Quantum Learning and Instructional Leadership in Practice, Corwin Press.
Jill. L.Robinson and Jean Lipman-Blumen. 2003. Leadership Behavior of Male and Female Managers, 1984-2002, California: J Educ Bus 79 no1 S/O 2003.
Jim Knight. 1995. Delegation Skills for Teachers. London, Kogan Page.
John W.Creswell. 2005. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition. New Jersey, Pearson Prentice Hall.
John West-Burnham, 2004. Mengurus Kualiti Sekolah, Tengku Abd. Aziz Zainal (Penterjemah), Malaysia: Institut Terjemahan Negara Malaysia Berhad (ITNMB).
Katszenbach, j. dan Smith, D. 1993. The Wisdom of Teams, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kenneth D. Bailey. 1982. Methods of Social Research Second Edition. New York, The Free Press.
Leithwood, Kenneth A., dan Carolyn Riehl.2003. What We Know About Successful School Leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success: Temple University.
Linda lambert, et.al. 2002. The Constructivist Leader. Second Edition. Columbia University: Teachers College Press.
Lunnenburg dan Ornstein, 2000. Educational Administration.
Lynn Marotz dan Amy Lawson.2007. Motivational Leadership in Early Childhood Education. USA, Thomson.
M.K. Singh & A. Bhattacharya. 1995. Participative Management and Corporate Growth. Singapore, SSMB.
Madeleine F.Green (Ed). 1988. Leaders for a New Era: Strategies for Higher Educaton. Canada, McMillan Publishing Company.
Maimunah Binti Muda. 2005. Kepemimpinan Situasi di Kalangan Pengetua Sekolah di Malaysia, p.10.
Marselius Sampe Tondok dan Rita Andarika. 2004. Hubungan antara Persepsi Gaya Kepemimpinan Transformasional dan Transaksional dengan Kepuasan Kerja Karyawan, Palembang.
Martoyo, Susilo. 2000. Manajemen SumberDaya Manusia, edisi keempat.Yogyakarta, BPFE.
Max Weber. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Michael Williams. 2005. Leadership for Leaders. UK, Printed in India by Replika Press.
Michael Williams. 2005. Leadership for Leaders. USA, Thorogood Publishing Limited.
Miles, M.B.& Huberman, A.M.1991. Qualitative Data Analysis. London; Baverly Hill, Sage Publications.
Ming-Yi-Wu. 2006. Compare Participative Leadership Theories in Three Cultures. China Media Research, 2(3), Western Illinois University.
Mujamil Qomar. 2007. Manajemen Pendidikan Islam, Malang: Erlangga.
Mulyasa, E,2005. Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah,Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.
Muri Yusuf.A.2002. Kiat Sukses Dalam Karir, Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Nadi, Makalah Penelitian Pendidikan dalam ttp://feandoom.blogspot.com/2009/03/makalah-penelitian-pendidikan.html2009
Ngalim Purwanto, 2005. Administrasi dan Supervisi Pendidikan, Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ni Ketut Sariyathi. 2007. Prestasi Kerja Karyawan (Suatu Kajian Teori). Denpasar, Buletin Studi Ekonomi Volume 12 Nomor 1.
Nurkholis, 2002. Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah:Teori, Model dan Aplikasi, Jakarta:Grasindo.
Parag Diwan. 1999. Communication Management. Malaysia, Golden Books Centre.
Rahmat Ismail, 2006. 12 Rukun Kerja Berpasukan, Kuala Lumpur, Cheras: Utusan Publications & Distributors Sdn.Bhd.
Raja Bambang Sutikno, 2007. The Power of Empathy in Leadership, Jakarta: Gramedia.
Ricky W. Griffin. 1986. Organizational Behavior. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Robbins, S.P. 2003. Organizational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Werther, W.B. & Davis, K. 1993. Human resource and personnel management. New York: McGraw-Hill, Co.
Robiah Sidin. 2003. Teori Pentadbiran Pendidikan: Satu Pengenalan. UKM Malaysia, Percetakan Asni Sdn, Bhd.
Sambas Ali Muhiddin dan Maman Abdurahman. 2007. Analisis Korelasi, Regresi dan Jalur. Bandung: Pustaka Setia.
Sanafiah Faisal. 1990. Penelitian Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar dan Aplikasi. Malang, Yayasan Asah Asih Asuh.
Sanusi Uwes. 1999. Manajemen Pengembangan Mutu Dosen. Jakarta, Logos Wacana Ilmu.
Sapari Imam Asyari. 1983. Suatu Petunjuk Praktis Metodologi Penelitian Sosial. Surabaya, Usaha Nasional.
Schweniz, Dorothea de. 1949. Labour and Management in a Common Enterprise. Harvard University Press.
Senge, P.M., 1990. The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. 1984. Leadership and Excellence in Schooling, Educational Leadership, 41 (5):4-13.
Steven Altman. 1985. Organizational Behavior: Theory and Practice.Florida, Academic Press.
Stuart C.Smith dan Philip K.Piele. 2006. School Leadership: Handbook for Excellence in Student Learning Fouth Edition.California: Corwin Press.
Sugiyono, 2007. Metode Penelitian Administrasi. Bandung, Alfabeta.
Sugiyono. 2009. Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung, Alfabeta.
Suharsimi Arikunto. 1993. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta, Rineka Cipta.
Syafi’i Antonio. 2007. Muhammad SAW The Super Leader, Super Manager, Jakarta: Tazkia Multimedia dan ProLM Centre.
Syed Azauddin Syed Bahaldin. Tt. Alternative Quality Management Standards-Islamic Perspective. Kuala Lumpur, Utusan Publication and Distributors.
The Journal of School Health v66 p72-4 F '96, Delegation of School Health Services to Unlicensed Assistive Personnel: A Position Paper of the National Association of State School Nurse Consultants, dalam talian http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.www. ezplib.ukm.my).
Thomas Carlyle. On Heroes and Hero Worship and The Heroic in History. www.gutenberg.org/etext/1091
Thomas G. Cummings dan Suresh Srivastva. 1977. Management of Work: A Socio-Technical Systems Approach. California, University Associate.
Thomas J. Sergiovanni. 2000. The lifeworld of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thomas J.Barry. 1997. Total Quality Organization: Balance and Harmony for Excellence. Kuala Lumpur, Gains Prints Sdn. Bhd.
Thomas S. Bateman dan Scott A. Snell, 2008. Manajemen: Kepemimpinan dan Kolaborasi Dalam Dunia Kompetitif , Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Tichy, N.M.& Cohen,E.1998. The Teaching Organization: Training and Development.52 (7):27-33.
Tony Bush. 2003. Theories of Educational Leadership and Management. London, Sage Publication, 3rd edition.
Yukl, G,. 2002. Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.