Life Style InventoryCASE STUDY

REVIEW ON MODIFICATION OF LAFFERTY’S 1973 “LIFE STYLE INVENTORY” THAT APPLY TO PUBLIC

SERVICES IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES, EAST JAVA PROVINCE 2014:

HUMAN RESOURCE ROLES IN TODAYS COMPANY

ASSURING BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY THROUGHAPPLICATION OF PSYCHOMETRIC MEASUREMENT FOR

SELECTION OF EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE HIGH PERFORMANCE AND SUPERIOR PROFILE

2

INTRODUCTIONMain Results and Outcomes

This study presents the results of a case study concerning implementation of

assessment/test (in the Leadership Training Program) which measure the capacity of

participants as high performance employees.” The study reveals important notes or evaluation on

psychometric measures of Lafferty’s Life Style Inventory as adopted in the instrument of

Assessment/Test which measures “Employee Profiles and Performance Predictors” (E3P).

14 March 2015

3

• This study is to examine the modifications on “psychometric measurement of Life Style Inventory (Lafferty, 1973)” that apply to specific context of employees in public services (top Government Officers). • It is also to evaluate the benefits of instrument modification based on Lafferty’s 1973 – Life Style Inventory.

The results of examination and evaluation are expected to be available and feasible for supporting any needs related to developing business sustainability through

best practices of people management.

14 March 2015

Purposes and Aim of The Study

414 March 2015

Do employees prefer to perform Constructive-Active Style rather

than Passive-Defensive and/or Agressive-Defensive?

FOCUS OF STUDYDeveloping business sustainability through

best practices of people management

5

• The report of this study also serves as a benchmark for sustainable-further Case Study in order to develop and create specific enrichment to the efforts of developing a model of career management system: contributor model.

• The study has assumed that “the most contributive profiles of human resources who satisfy contributor model will be employees who perform well in the achievement of superior performances profile.”

When the assumption apply to those kind of employees, then they should also be available for selection by succession management program with the use of test instrument based on Lafferty’s 1973

Life Style Inventory as modified into an instrument of self assessment/test that measures “Employee Profiles and

Performance Predictors” (E3P).

BENCHMARKINGFOR SUSTAINABLE-FURTHER CASE STUDY

14 March 2015

6

• A total of 40 top-persons/officers from government offices in East Java Province completely responded to 240-item inventory in sessions of test-assessment being integrated as part of leadership training program.

• Using the method of self-assessment and supported by internal validation process, the study has reported that the correlation between responses of participants and comprehensiveness of “Life Style Inventory Assessment/ Test” has been internally consistent.

• The pattern of correlations among the items of life styles has also indicated good construct validity.

How do the Examination and Evaluation work well?

14 March 2015

7

• Factor analysis of the twelve life styles has revealed that the instrument has been feasible and reliable for defining ways of selecting employees based on three cluster orientations or domains instead of four as hypothesized originally by Lafferty in the year of 1973.

• Three cluster orientations/domains include: Constructive-active Style, Passive-Defensive Style, and Aggressive-Defensive Style (In line with Human Synergistics International – HSI ).

• The factor analysis was undertaken within an integrated process which facilitated activities of mapping out the factors of twelve life styles, as analyzed by three important perspectives of management: a) Profile of key level management, b) Profile of managerial effectiveness, and c) Profile of problem solving

FACTOR ANALYSIS

14 March 2015

8

• The findings have indicated that the average of 40 participants has performed more on Passive–Defensive Style and Aggressive-Defensive Style.

• According to Lafferty (1973) this kind of performance has been less ideal than Constructive–Active Style. It is necessary for top executives (key level managers) to perform better on the cluster of Constructive–Active Style rather than the other two clusters.

• The higher percentage of acquisition level in capacity of Constructive-active Style would be better and suitable for best chosen employees. Otherwise, the higher percentage of acquisition level in capacity of Passive-defensive Style and/or Aggressive-Defensive Style would be the worst condition for management succession program.

General ProfilesAverage Achievement of 40 Participants

14 March 2015

9

• By design, this study undertook an evaluation on how the psychometric measurement of Life Style Inventory (Lafferty, 1973) applies to specific employees in public services context (Government Officers).

• Related to arlier study, there is an important question to examine:It was concluded in the earlier study that: “The aim of implementing a contributor model in career management was to answer the question of how the employees as professional workers at a specific company should contribute to organizational success today, and how are these same employees necessarily to develop superior profiles of professional works in order to ensure similar success for their tomorrow career?” (Soemarman, 2013)

• Current study continues to answer the second part of question in earlier study.

RESEARCH BACKGROUND

14 March 2015

10

Two Specific Inquiries:• How should professional workers as employees develop

their future career with certain assurances on their superior profiles as contributor models?

• What kind of career management “contributor model” by which specific company is capable to establish? How does the model work well and support the findings of employees’ superior models?

Those two inquiries above need more specific direction which seem to be similar with the findings of other study on contribution models of high performance employees.

(Gene Dalton, Drs and Paul Thompson, 1977)

Further Reflection/Evaluation

14 March 2015

11

• Other research revealed that high performing employees “(engineers in the research sample) continually widened the scope of their contributions by changing the Styles of behaviors they demonstrated in their jobs over time.”

• “These engineers realized that the Styles of contributions that made them successful early in their careers would not lead to success later in their careers. In order to remain relevant with their organizations’ changing expectations, change in behavior and how their work was accomplished was needed.”

Earlier Findings on High Performing Employees (Gene Dalton, Drs and Paul Thompson, 1977)

14 March 2015

12

Important agenda from earlier study: How to develop ways or provide instruments to measure superior

performances of employees?• The agenda give assurances: It is significant and

feasible to facilitate the identification and development of employees’ superior performances profile.

• Therefore, our case study provides an overview or evaluation by which an instrument that measures the style or patterns of thinking and behavior on behalf of employees future career is available and reasonable.

An Instrument to measure is Available and Reasonable

14 March 2015

13

In our case study, the assessment/test of E3P (Employees Profiles and Performance Predictors) proposes an assumption that “the capacity of Human Resources can be measured by superior-predictive performance and profiles in the 12 (twelve) Life Style Inventory (LSI) of Lafferty 1973.”• The modification of Lafferty’s LSI (1973) has been feasible since

the instrument can be used by different context of application (Nediger, W. G., & Chelladurai, P. 1989).

• Before applying the modification of Lafferty’s LSI into different context, it is important to consider how the feasibility for implementation must be consistent with reliability standard required by Lafferty’s LSI instrument (Johns, E. F. 1989).

LITERATURE REVIEW: Reliability Standard

14 March 2015

14

• In this study the instrument of LSI being modified has been scrutinized by comparing between LSI method and other approaches as elaborated in MBTI Test and managerial test application (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – MBTI 2014,  and Managerial Test Application, Cooke, R. A. 1989).

What to modify:• Originally, the LSI uses “a combination of psychological and managerial

theories to help individuals identify their beliefs, values, behaviors, and assumptions” (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).

• The instrument of LSI presents twenty statements for each of the twelve life styles (total 240 statements).

• According to Lafferty, these ‘240 statements believed to be influential upon the ways people think and behave.’ These 240 statements were constructed ‘in the LSI 1 instrument as a self-assessment whereas the LSI 2 uses similar format and life styles to assess an individual through input from five or more other people.’

RESEARCH METHOD AS REFLECTED IN MODIFICATION OF LSI

14 March 2015

15

• The LSI method of Lafferty ensures the validity of the instrument when used in combination of LSI 1 and LSI 2 to identify strengths and weaknesses of employees in developing a self-improvement plan, namely “consensual validity.” (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).

• According to HSI (2013): “The Life Styles Inventory, uses Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of human needs, which postulated physiological needs as the strongest human needs, followed by safety needs, belonging needs, self-esteem/self-importance needs, and finally fully developed personality needs (Kaplan, R. M.; Saccuzzo, D. P. 2009).

• HSI (2013) also explains: “Lafferty supplements his approach to leadership and management behavior with material from other need theorists, management theorists, and personality psychologists (Nediger, W. G., & Chelladurai, 1989) in order to develop a more well rounded instrument.”

Research Method in Modification continued1...

14 March 2015

16

• This study only use LSI 1 and replace the LSI 2 with other instrument called Test on Best Practices of Competencies (developed by this study).

• The purpose of replacing LSI 2 with ‘Test on Best Practices of Competencies’ is to assure the validity of administration on LSI 1 based on internal control of validity with more concrete samples from practical behaviors related to specific competencies or softskills (own by individual employee) in day to day basis.

• The replacement of LSI 2 was administered simultaneously within participants self-assessment and the evaluation from co-workers.

Research Method in Modification continued 2..

14 March 2015

17

• The procedure of test administration in modification described above is to satisfy the requirement concerning “Consensual validity” as the measure of agreement between self-assessment and assessment by others (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).

Research Method in Modification continued 3..

14 March 2015

• Test administration also supports participants to apply LSI 2 voluntary and give feedbacks to this study. The results of feedback indicated “consensual validity” based on assessment of affection scales (on level III of affection ‘organizing’).

• The use of LSI 2 plus-plus is to validate the findings of LSI and provide the profiles with contextual data that include: best practices of competencies (softskills) and level of affection scales as well.

18

Research Method in Modification continued 4..

14 March 2015

LIFE STYLE INVENTORYLSI I – Humanistic Helpful LSI II – Affiliative LSI III – Approval LSI IV – Conventional LSI V – Dependence LSI VI – AvoidanceLSI VII – Opposition LSI VIII – Power LSI IX – CompetitionLSI X – Perfectionistic LSI XI – Achievement LSI XII – Self-Actualization

1. Kesadaran Organisasi (Organizational awareness)

2. Percaya Diri (Self-confidence) 3. Mengembangkan Orang lain

(Developing others) 4. Kepemimpinan Tim (Team

leaderpship) 5. Mendengar, memahami, dan

menanggapi (Listening, understanding and responding)

6. Kesediaan berbagi pengetahuan/keahlian/kecakapan (Expertise, Sharing of)

7. Dampak dan pengaruh (Impact and influence )

8. Pengendalian diri (Self-control)

9. Motivasi Pribadi atau orientasi pencapaian (Personal motivation or achievement orientation)

10. Perencanaan dan inisiatif (Planning and initiative )

11. Kompetensi berpikir kritis (Critical thinking: analytical and conseptual thinking)

12. Pencarian informasi (Information seeking )

13. Kepedulian tatanan dan kualitas (Concern for order and quality)

14. Orientasi layanan klien (Client-service orientation)

15. Keluwesan penyesuaian (Flexibility)

16. Kerjasama Tim (Teamwork and co-operation)

17. Empati (Emphaty)

COMPETENCIES - SOFTSKILLS

1914 March 2015

Results based on Standard of Key Level ManagementProportional Scores, Average Achievement of 40 Participants

20

Quick-look on Results

14 March 2015

2114 March 2015

2214 March 2015

23

Three Clusters of Factor Analysis:Constructive-Active, Passive-Defensive, Agressive-Defensive

14 March 2015

24

Results of Factor Analysis

14 March 2015

Constructive-Active Profile 81.70%

Passive-Defensive Profile 145.15%

Agressive-Defensive Profile 128.35%

25

Results of Average 40 Participants

14 March 2015

XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.50

3.01

1.40

3.283.423.69

3.30

4.01

2.792.792.55

3.212.71

26

Results of Key Level ManagementInternational Standard

14 March 2015

XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

3.00

3.603.25

3.75

2.602.402.252.252.33

1.672.17

2.60

27

Comparison: Results of Average 40 Participants and Key Level Management - International Standard

14 March 2015

XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

3.00

3.603.25

3.75

2.602.40 2.25 2.25 2.33

1.67

2.172.60

XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

3.01

1.40

3.28 3.423.69

3.30

4.01

2.79 2.792.55

3.21

2.71

Figure 1: Achievement of Average 40 ParticipantsBased on the Standard of Key Level Management

Figure 2 : LSI - International Standard of Key Level Management

28

Results of Key Level Management Standard Proportional Scores, Average Achievement of 40 Participants

14 March 2015

29

Constructive-Active

59.80%

Agressive-Defensive

Passive-Defensiv

e

Results of Factor Analysis: Average 40 Participants

14 March 2015

167.23%

3014 March 2015Results in comparison of perspective: PBC Vs KLM

3114 March 2015

Constructive-Active59.80

%

Agressive-Defensive

Passive-Defensi

ve167.2

3%

In Key Level Management, participants have been preocupied by strong profiles of Passive-Defensive and Agressive-Defensive

Participants have performed medium scale of Constructive-Active Profile. Eventually, they have been

capable to exceed with strong problem solving capacity.

3214 March 2015

Thank You