Abstract
In line with the trend of community policing at the global level, the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) is expected to be able to enforce the law fairly and humanely, but in ways that protect people. This present study is aimed at finding a theoretical model of the performance of POLRI members. This model involves under-represented variables in the literature on police performance, namely servant leadership (SL), group cohesiveness (GC), silence behavior (SB), and communication apprehension (CA). To confirm the model, which hypothesizes that CA is the mediator of the relationships between SL, GC and SB and police performance, this study uses a quantitative, correlational predictive design with structural equation modeling (SEM) data analysis techniques. Research on 551 police officers in Greater Jakarta (Jakarta, Tangerang, Bekasi), Indonesia, found that the theoretical model partially fits the empirical data. Nevertheless, there are unique and counter-intuitive findings: the higher the servant leadership, the higher the communication apprehension; the higher the servant leadership, the lower the performance of POLRI members; group cohesiveness cannot predict communication apprehension; and the higher the group cohesiveness, the lower the performance of POLRI members. These findings are meaningful for drawing up human resource policies within POLRI, including job analysis, recruitment, selection, work culture, performance appraisal, training, and development. This finding is unique because silence behavior has never been investigated within POLRI. This study also proposes a modified practice of servant leadership within the police institution.
Keywords: Indonesian police, Performance, Servant leadership, Silence behavior, Communication apprehension, Group cohesiveness.
Received: 5 August 2021 / Revised: 27 August 2021 / Accepted:23 September 2021/ Published: 18 October 2021
Contribution/ Originality
This research is one of the few that has investigated performance models of the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) involving socio-psychological variables. The results will inspire POLRI to formulate an adaptable model of servant leadership and ensure awareness of silence behavior and group cohesiveness within the institution.
1. INTRODUCTION
A study by the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation found 202 cases of alleged human rights violations committed by Indonesian police personnel in the three years (51 cases in 2019, 105 cases in 2020, and 46 cases in the first six months of 2021) (Nia, 2021). The former head of the Indonesian National Police stated that POLRI’s prioritized programs include addressing the hedonistic, corruptive, collusive, and nepotistic lifestyles of POLRI members; the lack of transparency in recruitment; the existence of sectoral ego between functions; radicalism and intolerance; law enforcement that is yet professional and just; unsatisfactory public service; the role of public security and safety that is yet optimum; civilians that have yet to become strategic partners in overseeing democratization; and addressing substandard welfare among lower-ranking members (Karnavian, 2016).
The above issues show that POLRI still has problems in its performance even though POLRI is three-quarters of a century old. Regarding POLRI’s prioritized programs, personnel performance is deemed a critical issue, considering how the achievement of organizational goals is obtained via the contribution of its personnel as a resource, or via human capital that is required to cooperate.
Similar to other organizations, POLRI also aspires to achieve high-ranking personnel performance. Generally, performance is an interaction between abilities, motivation and opportunities, whereas, according to Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske (2012), performance is the result of work in relation to organizational goals, efficiency, and other performance effectiveness. Performance can also be viewed as a function of capacities, opportunities, and expectations to perform (Gomes, 2009). Gomes further asserted that measuring performance is a way to determine an individual’s level of contribution toward an organization. Performance is generally set as a dependent variable (endogenous) in empirical studies because it is considered to be an effect or impact of organizational behavior or human resource (HR) management practices, rather than as a cause or determinant.
In this present study, performance is measured based on specific behavioral criteria because a measure such as this receives greater attention in organizational and HR empirical research. Relational factors that affect performance may revolve around employee silence, whereas the support that employees receive might be an additional factor in the form of group cohesiveness. Motivational factors can emerge as superiors’ leadership methods or styles in motivating members, and in this context, servant leadership is examined. Hence, leadership and group cohesiveness might influence individual factors and impact performance.
A theoretical model (Ispurwanto, 2021) was formulated for this study based on the predictions of servant leadership, group cohesiveness and silence behavior toward Indonesian police performance, with communication apprehension as a mediator. This study hypothesized that this theoretical model fits the empirical data among POLRI members within the City of Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police.
1.1. Mediating Variable of Performance: Communication Apprehension
One individual factor that affects, or has a role in, performance is communication apprehension. Organizational communication has four main functions: control, motivation, emotional expression, and information (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Communication within a group is the fundamental mechanism by which employees demonstrate satisfaction or frustration. Communication also facilitates decision-making and information provision by disseminating necessary data to identify and evaluate a decision’s alternative options.
The problem is that communication is not always effective. One obstacle in communication is when communication apprehension occurs, that is, tension and anxiety that should not occur in verbal or written communication (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Communication apprehension is an employees’ fear that they have to communicate while taking potential responses into consideration (Pinder & Harlos, 2001). Communication apprehension may also be the sense of fear that can impede or obstruct interindividual communication and affect a person’s ability to obtain, succeed, and be satisfied with their jobs (McCroskey, Richmond, & Davis, 1986; McCroskey, 2015).
The causes of communication apprehension are contextual (DeFleur, Kearney, Plax, & DeFleur, 2014). At times there are good reasons for an individual to become concerned. The contexts or situations themselves may cause an individual to feel tense and nervous. Individuals who have low communication apprehension are promoted more frequently than those who persistently experience fear and anxiety when communicating. Individuals who communicate comfortably are evidently capable of informing their superiors of their achievements and asserting their needs. Individuals who are reluctant to communicate their doubts and inform others about their successes tend to await promotion rather than proactively strive to attain them. Overall, individuals who have permanent communication apprehension seem to be less successful in academic activities, social relationships, and career opportunities. In contrast, less apprehensive individuals appear to achieve more, as these individuals are deemed competent, sociable, popular, hardworking, appealing, responsible, and more qualified for leadership roles (DeFleur et al., 2014).
In this present study, the authors utilize aspects of communication apprehension based on a study by McCroskey (2015), comprising apprehension within groups, interindividual interactions, meetings, and communication in public.
1.2. Predicting Variable 1: Servant Leadership
Leadership is the ability to motivate and organize employees to ensure their effectiveness, select effective communication channels, and resolve conflict (Robbins, Judge, & Breward, 2019). An effective leader has the ability to interpret events and is able to explain complex issues that seem vague and ambiguous (Luthans, 2005).
One concept in modern leadership research is the concept or theory of servant leadership. Servant leadership focuses on enhancing service to other individuals than to oneself. The term ‘the servant as leader’ was first coined by Greenleaf (1970).
Leaders who serve will take action that surpasses their personal interests and focuses on opportunities to help their followers grow and thrive. Such leaders do not utilize power to achieve goals, but rather to emphasize persuasion (Robbins & Judge, 2013). It can be understood that a servant-style leader holds a holistic world view; they focus on their subordinates to help them stay on a goal-achieving track, and aside from this, such leaders inspire their subordinates to contribute to their own development. Servant leadership is an expansion or variation of leadership oriented toward humanity, as leadership is defined as a service to followers by helping followers fulfill their needs and achieve personal growth. Page & Wong (2000) defined servant leadership as a form of service to other individuals by focusing on their development and welfare to attain common welfare goals.
Some of the characteristics of servant leadership include active listening, empathy, persuasion, stewardship, and actively developing subordinates’ or followers’ potential. Because servant leadership focuses on meeting the needs of other individuals, the followers’ welfare is impacted. Furthermore, based on the results of a study on more than a hundred supervisors as subjects, Robbins & Judge (2013) asserted that a significant relationship exists between service-based leadership and organizational belongingness.
Servant leadership is assumed to be more effective in certain cultures, such as in East Asia. Several studies, e.g., Mayer, Bardes, & Piccolo (2008), demonstrate a significant relationship between servant leadership and employee performance as well as the organization’s overall performance. Some companies that are led by servant-style leaders tend to dominate the high-ranks in surveys of the Best Companies to Work For (Fortune, 2001), such as Southwest Airlines, Synovus Financial, and TDIndustries. Despite this, there is little empirical evidence showing the effect of servant leadership on performance. Only in the past few years have studies discovered correlations of a moderate degree between leadership and performance (Ivancevich, Konopaske, & Matteson, 2013). A study that consisted of 167 companies across 13 industries for 20 years, as cited in Ivancevich et al. (2013), showed how administrative factors (a combination of leadership and managerial factors) only had a limited effect on sales, profits, and profit margins. This makes it compelling to replicate in a research context, considering that previous findings demonstrate inconsistencies.
In this present study, servant leadership will be measured from the perceptions of police members toward their superiors’ leadership patterns. The servant leadership aspects to be used are concepts put forward by Barbuto & Wheeler (2006), who asserted that servant leadership comprises of five aspects: altruistic calling, emotional healing, wisdom, persuasive mapping, and organizational stewardship.
The concept of servant leadership should be appropriately applied in institutions, such as the Indonesian National Police (POLRI). POLRI itself developed community-based policing (referring to the Japanese police force) and upholds the “To Protect and Serve” slogan, similar to that of the United States police.
1.3. Predicting Variable 2: Group Cohesiveness
Group cohesiveness refers to the degree or level to which group members are drawn to each other and are motivated to persevere in a group (Robbins et al., 2019). Group cohesiveness or team cohesiveness will bolster performance, as a mutual feeling of togetherness and solidarity is reinforced due to all group members having similar perceptions on achieving the predetermined goals.
In one prior study, Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron (2009) stated that cohesiveness has two dimensions—group integration in duties and group integration in social relations. Their concept proposes that cohesion must be examined regarding duties and social care with a group’s orientation, and those thoughts on group cohesion are related to the group as a whole, and how groups meet their personal needs or the group’s objectives. Weinberg & Gould (2015) asserted that cohesiveness in duties reflects the extent to which group members work together to achieve common goals, whereas social cohesiveness reflects the extent to which group members appreciate and enjoy each other’s company. When conflict emerges, high group cohesion tends to resolve differences quickly and effectively (McShane & Von Glinow, 2021).
There are two types of group cohesiveness identified by sociologists: socio-emotional cohesiveness and instrumental cohesiveness (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). Socio-emotional cohesiveness is the sense of solidarity developed when individuals receive emotional satisfaction from group members. Group members with high cohesiveness spend more time together, share information more often, and are satisfied with one another. Most common discussions on group cohesiveness are limited to this type of cohesiveness. However, from the standpoint of settling matters in a group, consisting of duties and teams, individuals tend to ignore instrumental cohesiveness. Instrumental cohesiveness is the sense of solidarity developed when individuals rely on each other, as these individuals believe that they will be unable to attain the group’s goals by acting alone. Cohesive groups get more work done, as members take initiative and assist one another. Group members distribute the workload between members and voluntarily help one another. The members are also attentive to problems and spend time and energy on the group. The mutual drive or eagerness for solidarity is instrumental in achieving an organization’s goals. A supportive team generally views both types of cohesiveness as important for productivity (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013).
Harun & Mahmood (2012) demonstrated a very significant correlation between group cohesiveness and performance. In one large-scale study in China, it was demonstrated that when group cohesion is high during complex tasks, costly investment in terms of promoting, rewarding, training, etc., will yield more advantageous group creativity. On the other hand, groups with low cohesion during simple tasks will not respond to incentives by demonstrating greater creativity (Robbins et al., 2019). Nonetheless, McShane & Von Glinow (2021) stated that cohesive groups are not always more productive. Cohesion develops even when groups have low productivity norms. High cohesion is less relevant in less interdependent groups. The effect of cohesiveness on performance depends on whether group norms are compatible with, or contradict, an organization’s objectives. Groups with high interdependence perform better when their values align with the organization’s goals, whereas high cohesion potentially lowers group performance when values are counterproductive.
This present study refers to a theory by Robbins et al. (2019), who stated that group cohesiveness is predictor of team performance, so that when group cohesiveness is disbanded, performance will also rapidly drop.
1.4. Predicting Variable 3: Silence Behavior
In modern organizations, employees are seen as the main driving source for change, creativity, learning, and innovations, which are critical factors in an organization’s success (Nikmaram, Yamchi, Shojaii, Zahrani, & Alvani, 2012). This demands organization members to not only complete main tasks, but also to instigate change, contribute through the expression of ideas, and deliver opinions and concerns regarding issues that emerge in their organization. Thus, organization members who express ideas and share knowledge may trigger high performance within the organization (Elçi, Karabay, Alpkan, & Sener, 2014). Some studies have conceptualized the occurrence of performance when organization members respond to various problems relating to fairness, ethical issues and ideas for organizational improvement, among others (Brinsfield, 2013). Deniz, Noyan, & Ertosun (2013) and Elçi et al. (2014) asserted that organizations that express ideas and share knowledge will prompt higher organizational performance.
In reality, not all organization members can deliver their ideas or concerns on ongoing issues within an organization. Some studies show that organization members often feel insecure and are therefore unwilling or unable express their opinions and ideas, as they believe that comments or recommendations for change may disrupt the balance in an organization (Deniz et al., 2013).
Silence behavior is a collective phenomenon that occurs when employees withhold their opinions and ideas that may affect a company’s advancement (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). It is a behavior of uncommunicativeness or reticence that organization members display by withholding ideas, notions, and opinions that are aimed at organizational improvement (Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003). It can also be described as an action done by organization members to reserve opinions and information on critical situations, issues, and events related to work or the organization (Brinsfield, 2013).
Mass silence behavior appears in various organizations and institutions. Silence behavior is also a common experience in situations whereby organization members feel incapable of raising important issues or concerns with their superiors. Organization members choose to be silent, particularly on issues concerning the performance of colleagues and superiors, salaries, disagreement with company policies and decisions, personal complaints, ethical issues, fairness, discrimination, and harassment, to name a few (Milliken, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003).
The existence of silence behavior is frequently viewed as normal in organizations, causing individuals or organizations to ignore the negative consequences that are often hidden within long periods. On one hand, silence behavior is advantageous, for example, when it helps management to lower the intensity of excessive information, reduce personal conflict, and enhance the information privacy of colleagues (Dyne et al., 2003). However, silence behavior that occurs in all organizations is a process that utilizes an organization’s expenses and efforts.
Silence behavior takes on various forms, such as silence during meetings, low levels of participation in giving advice and lack of voting (Shojaie, Matin, & Barani, 2011). This issue triggers greater losses for both the company and individuals. The negative impact of organization members’ silent behavior may also appear in the form of corporate financial loss (Beheshtifar, Borhani, & Moghadam, 2012). With time, silence behavior in an organization can cause members to become increasingly indifferent or ignorant toward the companies they work for, leading to members becoming inattentive to their job, the company, and the quality of their work.
There are three aspects of silence behavior according to Dyne et al., (2003): (a) acquiescent silence, whereby individuals choose to withdraw themselves due to incapability of instigating organizational change, and concerns over rejection; (b) defensive silence, whereby individuals fear that harm will befall them if they express opinions over ongoing issues within an organization, hence these individuals choose silence as a defensive mode; (c) prosocial silence, whereby individuals choose to refrain from expressing apparent or ongoing issues in the organization based on attachment and cooperation matters regarding their colleagues. As such, individuals choose to be silent to maintain harmony among colleagues.
Silence behavior refers to employees choosing to withhold opinions and information on important situations, issues, and events related to work or the organization. The present study focused on two aspects of silence behavior: (a) silence due to cooperation/altruism is an act of withholding ideas/notions, information, and relevant opinions for the sake of protecting other individuals in the organization, based on altruistic or cooperative motives (Brinsfield, 2013). Reasons for silence are based on the consideration of existing alternatives and are consciously made decisions; and (b), silence to support colleagues is a form of silence behavior that employees display aimed at supporting colleagues when mistakes are made that may harm other colleagues or endanger the organization. Issues related to silence to show that team support may induce employee stress, lower their productivity, and damage the organization.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Participants
This study’s population comprised POLRI members who are assigned at the City of Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police (further termed Metro Jaya Police Department) from various directorates located in the Jakarta, Tangerang and Bekasi regions, totaling 8,000 people. The study’s subject criteria are as follows: (a) Tamtama level (enlisted); (b) Perwira level (commissioned officer); and (c) have a minimum education level of senior high school. For a population of 8,000 POLRI members, based on Krejcie & Morgan’s (1970) table, a minimum sample of 412 participants was required, with a 5% significance level. Sample retrieval was carried out through the convenience sampling method.
The authors met with Metro Jaya Police Department’s Bureau of Human Resources to discuss and deliver the research proposal, to obtain a letter confirming that they have permission to use the Metro Jaya Police Department environment as the research location. The authors also surveyed the study location and spoke with several Metro Jaya police members to prepare the instrumentation. A rating scale was provided to active police members with relatively diverse characteristics as part of the field data collection process. The study population did not include civil servant staff.
The authors distributed the measurement scales between August 2019 and November 2020. Questionnaires were distributed by the Human Resources departments in police stations under the Metro Jaya Police Department. Metro Jaya Police Department comprises of geographical units, including: Central Jakarta Unit, West Jakarta Unit, East Jakarta Unit, North Jakarta Unit, South Jakarta Unit, Tanjung Priok Harbor, Soekarno-Hatta Airport Unit, Tangerang City Unit, Tangerang Selatan Unit, Bekasi City Unit, Bekasi Regency Unit, Depok Unit, and the Thousand Islands Unit. Data was not obtained from the South Jakarta Unit, Depok Unit, and the Thousand Islands Unit due to field limitations.
Data collection was not conducted directly by the authors because of sociopolitical issues that were at their peak at the time, and POLRI members were highly mobile and on constant standby, which did not allow the authors to have face-to-face sessions with the participants. Therefore, distribution of the questionnaires was delegated to each unit’s HR department. This study protocol was examined by the review board of the University of Persada Indonesia Y.A.I. (Yayasan Administrasi Indonesia) and acknowledged with letter no. 1022/SR/D/SSC-UPI Y.A.I./VIII/2019. In addition, the execution of this study was acknowledged by the Indonesian National Police with a letter of research completion by the Metro Jaya Police Department no.: B/18568/XI/HUM.5.4.1./2020/Ro SDM.
A total of 551 POLRI members participated in this study. Participants consisted of 28 females (5.08%), 247 males (44.83%), and 276 people of non-disclosed gender (50.09%). The age distribution of the participants is as follows: 19–30 years old = 129 (23.41%), 31–40 years old = 145 (26.32%), 41–50 years old = 82 (14.88%), 51–60 years old = 36 (6.53%), and unspecified = 159 (28.86%). Regarding officers’ ranks, 108 (19.60%) were non-commissioned officers, 255 (46.28%) were commissioned officers, and 188 (34.12%) did not specify their rank.
2.2. Design and Instruments
This study used a quantitative, correlational predictive design, with data structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis techniques using LISREL 8.80 software for Windows. The variables involved are: police performance (PR) as an endogenous criterion/dependent variable; communication apprehension (CA) as a mediating variable; and servant leadership (SL), group cohesiveness (GC), and silence behavior (SB) as exogenous predictors/independent variables.
The hypothetical model of this study is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. A performance model of POLRI members.
The police performance (PR) scale was constructed by the authors based on Ivancevich et al. (2013). The dimensions of PR are work quality (PR1), work quantity (PR2), knowledge depth (PR3), personal qualities (PR4), willingness to cooperate (PR5), awareness and trustworthiness (PR6), and initiative (PR7). Results of the second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct reliability was 0.97, and the AVE/variance extracted was 0.46, indicating scale reliability; chi-square = 7612.97, df = 691, RMSEA = 0.135, NFI = 0.92, NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, GFI 0.58, and AGFI = 0.53. After reliability and validity tests, the scale consisted of 39 valid items. Examples of some of these items are: (1) The level of achievement of the quality of work that I produce meets the expectations of the unit, (2) I achieve the task target with a meager quantity of work (unfavorable item), (3) I am unfamiliar with how the equipment works (unfavorable item), (4) My behavior or actions do not have to be in line with my words (unfavorable item), (5) I rarely cooperate with work partners outside the unit, even though it is related to my duties and responsibilities (unfavorable item), (6) My co-workers and superiors know that I do not adhere to the rules and regulations when carrying out tasks (unfavorable item), and (7) I generate many new methods of carrying out tasks that have never been tried before.
The communication apprehension (CA) scale was adapted from the Personal Report on Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) (McCroskey, Beatty, Kearney, & Plax, 1985; McCroskey, 2015). The dimensions of CA were based on: settings within a group (CA1), meetings (CA2), interindividual interactions (CA3), and communicating with the public (CA4). The results of the second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct reliability was 0.89, and the AVE/variance extracted was 0.58, indicating scale reliability; chi-square = 104.58, df = 28, RMSEA = 0.071, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.96, and AGFI = 0.93. After reliability and validity tests, the scale consisted of ten valid items, which included: (1) I am tense and nervous while participating in group discussions; (2) I am very calm and relaxed when I am called upon to express an opinion during a meeting (unfavorable item); (3) While participating in a conversation with a new acquaintance, I feel very nervous; and (4) My thoughts become confused and jumbled when I am giving a speech.
The servant leadership (SL) scale was constructed by the authors based on Barbuto & Wheeler (2006). The dimensions of SL are: altruistic calling (SL1), emotional healing (SL2), wisdom (SL3), persuasive mapping (SL4), and organizational stewardship (SL5). The results of the second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct reliability was 0.96, and the AVE/variance extracted was 0.73, indicating scale reliability; chi-square = 60.94, df = 17, RMSEA = 0.069, NFI = 0.98, NNFI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.97, and AGFI = 0.94. After reliability and validity tests, the scale consisted of 20 valid items, which included: (1) The leader goes beyond the call of duty to meet the needs of subordinates, (2) The leader is the person to turn to if a subordinate experiences personal trauma, (3) The leader believes that the organization needs to play a moral role in society, (4) The leader does not encourage subordinates to have a "community" spirit or develop community at work (unfavorable item), and (5) The leader does not encourage the organization/unit to make positive changes for the future (unfavorable item).
The group cohesiveness (GC) scale was adapted from the Group Environmental Questionnaire used in Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer (2002). The dimensions of GC were individual attractions to the group socially (GC1), individual attractions to group tasks (GC2), the group’s social integration (GC3), and group integration during tasks (GC4). The results of the second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct reliability was 0.94, and the AVE/variance extracted was 0.53 (approximated to 0.5), indicating scale reliability; chi-square = 33.70, df = 14, RMSEA = 0.051, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, GFI = 0.98, and AGFI = 0.96. After reliability and validity tests, the scale consisted of seven valid items, which included: (1) Some of my best friends are in this group; (2) This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance (unfavorable item); (3) Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team (unfavorable item); and (4) We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team.
The silence behavior (SB) scale was adapted from Brinsfield (2013). The dimensions of SB are: silence due to cooperation (SB1), and silence to support colleagues (SB2). The results of the second order confirmatory factor analysis showed that the construct reliability was 0.88, and the AVE/variance extracted 0.58/approximate to 0.5, indicating scale reliability; chi-square = 0.05, df = 1, RMSEA = 0.00, NFI = 1.00, NNFI = 1.01, CFI = 1.00, GFI = 1.01, and AGFI = 1.00. After reliability and validity tests, the scale consisted of two valid items, which are: (1) I choose not to comment or ask questions when I have concerns about the safety of my partners on the team; (2) I prefer to be silent to protect my organization or unit from harm.
The answers provided (all in the Indonesian language) are rated on a five-point scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Quite Agree (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5).
3. RESULTS
The structural equation modelling (SEM) results are as follows: chi-square = 839.98, df = 198, RMSEA = 0.077, NFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.88, and AGFI = 0.84. The overall model demonstrated the goodness of fit (see Figure 2, standardized values; Figure 3, t-values; Table 1, predictive strength. Also note that t-values between -1.96 and +1.96 indicate no predictive effect).
Figure 2. SEM results (regression coefficients) predicting Indonesian police performance (N = 551).
Figure 3. SEM results (t-values) predicting Indonesian police performance (N = 551).
Hypothesis testing for the structural relations between variables was done by testing the structural correlations, which gave the following results:
(Note: PR = Police Performance; CA = Communication Apprehension; GC = Group Cohesiveness; SL = Servant Leadership; SB = Silent Behavior, R2 = Effect size; SE = Standard Error).
PR = - 0.64*CA - 0.13*GC - 0.057*SL - 0.10*SB, Errorvar = 0.53, R² = 47% (Equation 1)
SE (0.032) (0.032) (0.014) (0.031) (0.032)
t -20.32 -4.00 -4.08 -3.30 16.61
Communication apprehension, group cohesiveness, servant leadership, and silence behavior significantly influences police performance, as shown by t < -1.96 or t > +1.96 for all variables, as seen in Equation 1. However, group cohesiveness does not significantly affect communication apprehension, as indicated by -1.96 < t < +1.96, as seen in Equation 2. Servant leadership and silence behavior affect communication apprehension, as indicated by t > +1.96, for both variables, as also seen in Equation 2.
CA = - 0.0018*GC + 0.15*SL + 0.10*SB, Errorvar.= 0.97, R² = 3.4% (Equation 2)
SE (0.042) (0.021) (0.040) (0.057)
t -0.044 7.13 2.57 16.85
It can be concluded that this model partially fits the empirical data. This is due to the lack of predictive power of group cohesiveness (GC) on communication apprehension (CA).
Table 1. Predictive strength between variables of Indonesian police performance (N = 551).
| Predictive relationship | Path coefficient |
t-value |
| Communication apprehension (CA) toward police performance (PR) | -0.64 |
-20.32** |
| Servant leadership (SL) toward communication apprehension (CA) | 0.15 |
7.12** |
| Group cohesiveness (GC) toward communication apprehension (CA) | -0.00 |
-0.04 |
| Silence behavior (SB) toward communication apprehension (CA) | 0.10 |
2.57* |
| Servant leadership (SL) toward police performance (PR) | -0.06 |
-4.08** |
| Group cohesiveness (GC) toward police performance (PR) | -0.13 |
-4.00** |
| Silence behavior (SB) toward police performance (PR) | -0.10 |
-3.30** |
Note:
* Statistically significant (t < -1.96 or t > +1.96, or p < 0.05).
** Statistically very significant (t < -2.58 or t > +2.58, or p < 0.01).
4. DISCUSSION
This study found that servant leadership (SL) predicts communication apprehension (CA) in a positive direction (see Figure 2, Figure 3 and Table 1), which contradicts the initial assumption that there would be a negative prediction.
From the literature explained in the Introduction, servant leadership should lower communication apprehension. However, this study showed contradicting findings from the sampled participants. It was found that servant leadership enhances communication apprehension. Rabbolini (2020) discovered a similar phenomenon in a non-police context though anecdotal information, as described below:
“Tamara thought she was doing a good job as a servant leader. Her team generally liked her, and her performance was pretty good across the board. There was only one problem: Joe. Don’t get me wrong, they got on well, or at least so it seemed. It’s just that he couldn’t deliver good quality work, and she couldn’t understand why. He probably likes the working environment and Tamara’s leadership style, but he’s unhappy about his own tasks. However, he chooses to avoid direct confrontation on the topic for fear of appearing ‘negative’, or selfish, and bring down the team.” (par. 1, 2, 6).
In his review, Rabbolini (2020) stated that the issue in servant leadership is that superiors often forget that they should be able to read their team member’s cues and master nonverbal language skills when communicating with the team. The problem, as Sevilla & Laura (2017) found, is that nonverbal communication in the POLRI culture leans toward a hierarchy of respect and chivalry, primarily through symbolic interaction, such as uniforms and emblems that are suited to ranks and service. In other words, communication has not yet reached personalities, but rather formalities based on the extent of power and etiquette. This explanation shows that servant leadership in the police force requires contextual modification to enable communication that fulfills team members’ personal needs, which will enhance the police force’s performance.
This is a challenge in the police force’s occupational culture, as stated by some prior researchers (Lemoine & Blum, 2019; Northouse, 2013; Reynolds, 2011), that the majority of servant leadership’s traits are feminine in nature (such as community-building, empathy, listening, commitment to the growth of people, persuasion, and healing), whereas the Indonesian police force environment has a predominantly masculine atmosphere (Sevilla & Laura, 2017). The incompatibility of servant leadership in the police occupational culture may therefore enhance communication apprehension, as demonstrated by this study.
This study also found that servant leadership was able to directly and negatively predict police performance (see Figure 2 and Figure 3), which contradicts the initial assumption that there would be a positive prediction. However, there is also an indirect predictive power, with communication apprehension as a mediator for POLRI members in Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police Force.
Quain (2018) provided several speculations on this kind of negative correlation, one being that servant leadership causes subordinates to be less motivated as superiors who apply this leadership style tend to frequently “salvage” situations when their subordinates are having troubles. Second, a genuine servant leadership system requires time to establish. Jobs that have changing rhythms (such as the police force) may not gain benefits from servant leadership. A superior with servant leadership views will be attentive to the feelings of their subordinates (in fear of offending them), rather than attending to their actual needs. This hinders superiors from providing honest criticism of their subordinates’ performance. This does not align with the police force’s occupational culture and public service, which require high assertiveness and suspicion (Paoline & Gau, 2017) in the context of law enforcement, even in Indonesia’s context, which is inclined to involve paternalism and militarism (Amnesty International, 2009). A deep reform is needed in the police force to optimally apply servant leadership.
As suggested by Sylven & Crippen (2018), based on a systematic review of the application of servant leadership in the context of police enforcement, the “spiritual and philosophical” dimensions of servant leadership need to be translated to realistic police work situations, particularly where conflict and tension commonly occur. In this regard, Ledbetter (2003) also asked a relevant question regarding the prospect of future studies, that is, “What leadership training needs to be taught to help law enforcement leaders to continue on the path toward servant leadership?" (p. 93). This interpretation can only be done through empirical research, as this study has attempted to do.
Genuine leadership is an interaction of three elements: the leader, the subordinate, and the situation (Hughes, Ginnett, & Curphy, 2019). In this context, for leadership to be effective, leaders are required to have the skills to interpret situations and to change or adjust their leadership style in accordance with each situation that arises. Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police appear to require a leadership style that is situational and adjusted to the organization’s context. Leadership that emphasizes development and growth will suit a servant leadership style.
However, when an organization’s culture encompasses a nature of work that constantly changes in a fast-paced environment, such as the Metropolitan Area Police, a different leadership style may be more suitable, such as one that is more directive or guiding. In other words, servant leadership is best applied in organizations that prioritize and value long-term growth for their employees, and has an organizational culture and leadership approach that emphasizes the development and growth of staff’s competence (Tee, 2018). As put forward by Spears (2010), organizations that aim to bring about meaningful changes in management must begin by applying servant leadership as a base, but then continue to build on it by using multiple approaches to yield the desired performance.
Group cohesiveness was shown to directly and negatively influence police performance, but communication apprehension had no mediating role between the two variables among the Metropolitan Area Police in Jakarta’s Greater Region.
The concept of cohesiveness is an important element in understanding group dynamics in an organizational context. Cohesiveness is generally considered a strength, yet in reality, this is not always the case. As suggested by Ivancevich et al. (2013), this logic is not in line with the evidence found in this study. Cohesive groups are formed when group members enjoy strong social relations and share a “sense of identity”. Group members take pride in identifying themselves as group members and view membership as important.
However, when groups are highly cohesive, or when group cohesiveness is too strong, there is a tendency for decision-making to be based on groupthink. Groupthink occurs when group members are reluctant to express differences of opinion to avoid conflict in a cohesive group. Ivancevich et al. (2013) also stated that groupthink is a setback in mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment of each member as they strive to maintain group solidarity. Therefore, opinions are “dominated/monopolized” by the majority of members who hold key positions, thus considering group members to have a unanimous vote and reject alternative views. In addition, Ivancevich et al. (2013) elaborated on how cohesive groups are easily suspicious of contradictory opinions expressed by external parties. Information from external parties that conflict with group members’ opinions may be known but remain undisclosed by a group member. Groupthink may cause irrational decision-making and may negatively impact performance.
This phenomenon may cause group cohesiveness to be disadvantageous and have negative impacts in certain situations. Highly cohesive group members rely on each other and receive input or ideas from external parties. This may push groups to isolate or feel superior over other groups. As a result, it would become difficult for cohesive groups to change their values, actions, and behavior, particularly when external parties encourage change. Even when a group member personally feels that changes should be made, the group will face obstacles in applying such changes due to the group’s power dynamics. Another possible factor is the emergence of social loafing, or an individual’s tendency to exert less effort when working collectively. There may be a belief that other group members are not doing their fair share of duties. If one individual observes another individual “loafing”, this individual may reestablish equality by lowering their efforts to perform well (Robbins et al., 2019).
Silence behavior (SB) was shown to negatively predict police performance (particularly proactive silence), whether directly or indirectly, with communication apprehension (CA) as a mediator among Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police.
There are several types of silence behavior: silence due to passivity or helplessness; silence due to defensiveness; silence due to cooperation, altruism or prosociality; silence to support colleagues; and silence due to lack of confidence (Brinsfield, 2013). Silence behavior negatively impacts the performance of an organization’s members; however, this excludes proactive silence. As suggested by Smith et al., as cited in Kirrane, O'Shea, Buckley, Grazi, & Prout (2017), organization members can be evaluated through several means, such as concealing classified information, teamwork, protecting proprietary information to benefit the organization, or withstanding pressures from other individuals to retain information, feelings, or thoughts related to the job to maintain the interests of organization’s members or the organization as a whole (Pinder & Harlos, 2001).
Deniz et al. (2013) described prosocial silence behavior as a rejection of the expression of information, ideas or opinions so that other individuals in an organization may benefit from them. This type of silence behavior is motivated by the need to help other individuals and share tasks, so the attention and focus rest on others. Considering that prosocial silence behavior is based on individual perceptions and is subjective in nature, then prosocial behavior can be displayed as incompatible (or not entirely compatible) with the expectations of other individuals or the organization. Studies on the effect of prosociality tend to highlight the positive implications on individuals or organizations; however, there is also the potential for loss. For the beneficiaries, there may be competing rather than mutual interests. In cases where a beneficiary and a “victim” both exist, organization members may be motivated by their prosociality without realizing the harm it may cause to others, and the harm incurred by several parties may be greater than any benefits gained (Bolino & Grant, 2016; Grant, 2013).
This study’s findings showed that communication apprehension significantly and negatively predicted the performance of POLRI members in Jakarta’s Metropolitan Area Police. Butler, as cited in Adeyemo, Ganiyu, & Muhammad (2017), stated that communication apprehension is a type of disturbance/disorder that affects a majority of individuals. This may stem from fear of communication with others, generally known as verbal communication apprehension, which is a factor that impedes an individual’s willingness to communicate in one or multiple situations, e.g., one-on-one conversations, communicating within a group or in meetings, and presenting in public, and this may hamper the development of effective communication skills (Shanahan, 2013). In terms of work satisfaction, individuals with low communication apprehension report significantly higher satisfaction compared to those with high communication apprehension despite having pleasant jobs. Furthermore, individuals with low communication apprehension enable companies to pay higher salaries, offer wider job variations and allow greater flexibility (DeFleur et al., 2014).
5. CONCLUSIONS
This study concludes that the performance of the police as an organization cannot be separated from the performance of its members and the dynamic factors that predict performance, such as servant leadership, group cohesiveness, silence behavior, and communication apprehension (mediating variable).
Appropriate understanding will enable the organization’s leaders to treat its members in the right way. A better understanding of the performance of the members will enable the Indonesian National Police (POLRI) to play a role and contribute optimally as protectors and servants of society, according to the expectations of the communities they serve.
Communication apprehension that negatively affects personnel performance can be used as a reference for determining appropriate interventions to develop training programs related to police communication. The coaching and training on humane communication among POLRI members could be oriented to develop and serve the community, coordinate effectively, reduce and resolve conflicts, increase the involvement of other organization members, and support more productive performance.
Findings of negative predictions of servant leadership on personnel performance could be used as a reference for developing leadership styles or patterns within POLRI. Servant leadership is expected not only as a philosophy; it needs to be reviewed while considering POLRI’s various assignments and different types of work and what kind of servant leadership needs to be developed.
Group cohesiveness is not always beneficial and does not always have a positive effect on police performance. It is necessary to develop group cohesiveness related to task aspects, not only cohesiveness related to social/relational dimensions. Relational cohesiveness needs to be formed “proportionally” considering the possible negative impacts that can arise when a group’s cohesiveness is too strong.
Silence behavior negatively affects performance. Therefore, POLRI needs to make a breakthrough to overcome this phenomenon, for example, by assuring all its members that the organization is fair, open, and has a strong commitment to their best interests without discrimination.
Several variables, such as silence behavior and servant leadership, still need to be further investigated considering that they have not been widely studied in Indonesia. Those variables, which have been widely considered to have a consistent positive impact on performance, are able to provide unique perspectives.
Funding: This study was supported for publication by the Research and Technology Transfer Office, Bina Nusantara University, as part of Bina Nusantara University’s International Research Grant (PIB; Contract No. 026/VR.RTT/IV/2020 of 6 April 2020). |
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
REFERENCES
Adeyemo, S. O. A., Ganiyu, M. A., & Muhammad, R. (2017). Assessing communication apprehension and implication for employability among mass communication students. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(03), 78-84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.9790/0837-2203017884.
Amnesty International. (2009). Urusan yang belum selesai: Akuntabilitas polisi di Indonesia [Unfinished business: Police accountability in Indonesia]. Retrieved from: https://docplayer.info/310585-Urusan-yang-belum-selesai-akuntabilitas-polisi-di-indonesia.html.
Barbuto, J. E., & Wheeler, D. W. (2006). Scale development and construct clarification of servant leadership. Group & Organization Management, 31(3), 300–326. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106287091.
Beheshtifar, M., Borhani, H., & Moghadam, M. N. (2012). Destructive role of employee silence in organizational success. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(11), 275-282.
Bolino, M. C., & Grant, A. M. (2016). The bright side of being prosocial at work, and the dark side, too: A review and agenda for research on other-oriented motives, behavior, and impact in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 599-670. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1153260.
Brinsfield, C. T. (2013). Employee silence motives: Investigation of dimensionality and development of measure. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(5), 671-697. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1829.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(3), 244-266. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.3.244.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (2002). The group environment questionnaire: Test manual. Morgantown, W.V: Fitness Information Technology.
DeFleur, M., Kearney, P., Plax, T., & DeFleur, M. (2014). Fundamentals of human communication: Social science in everday life (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Deniz, N., Noyan, A., & Ertosun, Ö. G. (2013). The relationship between employee silence and organizational commitment in a private healthcare company. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 691-700. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.540.
Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359-1392. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384.
Elçi, M., Karabay, M. E., Alpkan, L., & Sener, I. (2014). The mediating role of mobbing on the relationship between organizational silence and turnover intention. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150, 1298–1309. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.110.
Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The youth sport environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390-408. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.31.3.390.
Fortune. (2001). Fortune 500 2001. New York, US: Fortune Media IP Limited.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2012). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gomes, F. C. (2009). Manajemen sumber daya manusia (2nd ed.). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: ANDI.
Grant, A. M. (2013). Rocking the boat but keeping it steady: The role of emotion regulation in employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1703-1723. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0035.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1970). The servant as leader. South Orange, N.J: Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant-Leadership.
Harun, M. Z. M. B., & Mahmood, R. B. (2012). The relationship between group cohesiveness and performance: An empirical study of cooperatives movement in Malaysia. International Journal of Cooperative Studies, 1(1), 15-20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11634/216826311706110.
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2019). Leadership: Enhancing the lessons of experience (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Ispurwanto, W. (2021). Faktor-faktor yang berpengaruh terhadap kinerja dengan hambatan komunikasi sebagai mediator [Factors that affect performance with communication apprehension as the mediator]. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Doctoral Program of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Persada Indonesia Y.A.I., Jakarta, Indonesia.
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2013). Organizational behavior and management (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Karnavian, M. T. (2016). Optimizing action, towards a more professional, modern and reliable Police in order to support the creation of a sovereign, independent and noble character Indonesian based on mutual cooperation. Mabes POLRI, Jakarta, Indonesia. Police Science College (STIK) Library, 363.2.
Kirrane, M., O'Shea, D., Buckley, F., Grazi, A., & Prout, J. (2017). Investigating the role of discrete emotions in silence versus speaking up. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(3), 354-378. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12175.
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2013). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Ledbetter, D. S. (2003). Law enforcement leaders and servant leadership: A reliability study of the organizational leadership assessment. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. School of Leadership Studies, Regent University.
Lemoine, G. J., & Blum, T. C. (2019). Servant leadership, leader gender, and team gender role: Testing a female advantage in a cascading model of performance. Personnel Psychology, 74, 3-28. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12379.
Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior (10th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Irwin.
Mayer, D. M., Bardes, M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2008). Do servant-leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(2), 180-197. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701743558.
McCroskey, J. C., Beatty, M. J., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1985). The content validity of the PRCA-24 as a measure of communication apprehension across communication contexts. Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 165-173. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369595.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Davis, L. M. (1986). Apprehension about communicating with supervisors: A test of a theoretical relationship between types of communication apprehension. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 50(2), 171-182. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570318609374223.
McCroskey, J. C. (2015). An introduction to rhetorical communication (9th ed.). New York: Routledge.
McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2021). Organizational behavior: Emerging knowledge, global reality (9th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387.
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706-725. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/259200.
Nia. (2021). Dugaan pelanggaran oleh kepolisian mencolok [The allegations of misconduct by the Indonesian police are glaring], Kompas Daily Newspaper, 31 July 2021, pp. 3. Kompas Media Nusantara, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Nikmaram, S., Yamchi, H. G., Shojaii, S., Zahrani, M. A., & Alvani, S. M. (2012). Study on relationship between organizational silence and commitment in Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10), 1271-1277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701743558.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Page, D., & Wong, P. T. P. (2000). A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership. In S. Adjibolosoo (Ed.), The human factor in shaping the course of history and development (pp. 68-110). Lanham, M.D: University Press of America.
Paoline, E. A., & Gau, J. M. (2017). Police occupational culture: Testing the monolithic model. Justice Quarterly, 35(4), 670–698. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1335764.
Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20, 331–369. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-7301(01)20007-3.
Quain, S. (2018). Problems with the servant leadership model, 22 October 2018. Chron. Hearst Newspapers, New York, US. Retrieved from: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/problems-servant-leadership-model-50586.html.
Rabbolini, O. (2020). The communication secret of the successful servant leader, 18 February 2020. Medium. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/swlh/the-communication-secret-of-the-successful-servant-leader-1bb60916cfb8.
Reynolds, K. (2011). Servant-leadership as gender-integrative leadership: Paving a path for more gender-integrative organizations through leadership education. Journal of Leadership Education, 10(2), 155-171. Available at: https://doi.org/10.12806/V10/I2/RF8.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2013). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Breward, K. (2019). Essentials of organizational behaviour (2nd ed.). Toronto, CA: Pearson.
Sevilla, V., & Laura, R. M. B. P. (2017). Komunikasi nonverbal dalam budaya kepolisian [Nonverbal communication in police culture]. Jurnal Ilmu Kepolisian, 11(3), 30-38.
Shanahan, D. (2013). High oral communication apprehensives: How can students be helped to reduce their fear of public speaking? Irish Journal of Academic Practice, 2(1), 1-27. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21427/D72F09.
Shojaie, S., Matin, H. Z., & Barani, G. (2011). Analyzing the infrastructures of organizational silence and ways to get rid of it. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1731-1735. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.334.
Spears, L. C. (2010). Character and servant leadership: Ten characteristics of effective, caring leaders. The Journal of Virtues & Leadership, 1(1), 25-30.
Sylven, L., & Crippen, C. (2018). First to serve and protect, then to lead: Exploring servant leadership as a foundation for Canadian policing. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being, 3(2), 22-26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.77.
Tee, E. Y. J. (2018). The pitfalls of servant leadership. Leaderonomics. Retrieved from: https://www.leaderonomics.com/articles/leadership/the-pitfalls-of-servant-leadership .
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2015). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (6th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Humanities and Social Sciences Letters shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |