Gaya Kepemimpinan Path Goal Theory dan Produktivitas Pamong Desa

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Jun 11, 2021
https://doi.org/10.37339/e-bis.v5i1.460
Download
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2021)

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Siti Nur Azizah
STIE Putra Bangsa

Abstract

Aim of this research toexaminethe effect of path goal leadershipstylesonvillage officials productivity. Quantitative descriptive research methods are used to explain phenomena and analyze the influence of leadership style and productivity. 100 samples from village staff in Kebumen Distric, Central Java Indonesia filled out randomly selected questionnaires and the data were processed using SPSS 25. Hypothesis and correlation tests were carried out and the results showed is that achievement-oriented leadership styles of path-goal theory has a significant effect that can be used to increase the productivity of the village officials. Meanwhile, the directive leadership style, supportive leadership style and participative leadership style did not affect the productivity of the village officials. The results of this study concluded that an achievement-oriented leadership style can be applied as a leadership model to increase the productivity of the village officials

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

LPPM Politeknik Piksi Ganesha Indonesia

How to Cite
Siti Nur Azizah. (2021). Gaya Kepemimpinan Path Goal Theory dan Produktivitas Pamong Desa. Jurnal E-Bis, 5(1), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.37339/e-bis.v5i1.460

References

Alves, J.C., Lovelace, K., Manz, C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F. &K. Ke. (2006). A cross- cultural perspective of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21, pp.338-59.
Asamani, James Avoka, Florence Naab, Addelaide M. A. Ofei, dan Addo, Rebecca. (2016). “Do Leadership Style Influence Productivity?” British Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 22, No. 2
Alves, J.C., Lovelace, K., Manz, C., Matsypura, D., Toyasaki, F. and Ke, K. (2006). A crosscultural perspective of self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology , 21, 338-59.
Dickson, M.W., Den Hartog, D.N. and Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: making progress, and raising new questions, Leadership Quarterly, 14, 729-68.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Intercultural Co-operation in Organization. Management Decision, 20 (5), 53-67
Dasgupta, P. R. (2013). Volatility of Workload on Employee Performance and Significance of Motivation: IT Sector. Science Journal of Business and Management, 1(1), 1–7
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
House, R.J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321-328.
House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a Reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.
Gill, R. (1998). Cross-cultural Comparison of the Leadership Styles and Behavior of Managers in the UK, USA and Southeast Asia. Asian Academy of Management, 3,. 21-34.
Jaroslav, Belas. (2013). The Leadership Style and the Productiveness of Employees in the Banking Sector in Slovakia. Journal of Competitiveness Vol. 5, Issue 1 pp. 39-52
Northouse, P.G. 2012. Leadership: Theory and practice. 6th edn. Sage, London
Seodarmayanti. 2009. Tata Cara Kerja dan Produktivitas Kerja. Mandar Maju. Jakarta