Organisasi dan Ketidakpastian

Terakreditasi: 23a/DIKTIIKep/2004

JURNAL PEMIKIRAN DAN PENELITIAN PSIKOLOGI

Organisasi dan Ketidakpastian AL/MATUS SAHRAH Pengaruh Atribusi Kesuksesan Terhadap Ketakutan Untuk 'Sukses Pada Wanita Karir

EMI ZULAIFAH Enterprising Personality and Uncertainty Tolerance

SUMARYONO & DJAMALUD/NANCOK Orientasi Komitmen Ditinjau Dari Kepemimplnan Transformasional dan Kepercayaan Terhadap Manajemen

PSIKOLOGIKA Jurnal Pemikiran dan Penelitian Psikologi

Penerbit: Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Islam Indonesia. Pemimpin Umum: Sukarti. Wakil Pemimpin Umum: Muh. Bachtiar.Pemimpin Redaksi: Emi Zulaifah. Redaktur Pelaksana: Qurotul Uyun.Dewan Redaksi: H. Fuad Nashori, Retno Kumolohadi,Sukarti, Irwan Nuryana. Mitra Bestari: Kusdwiratri Setiono, Koentjoro, Fathul Himam, Asmadi Alsa, Haryanto FR. Sekretariat: Ririn Radiawati.Lay outIProduksi: Alenia Press.Pemimpin Usaha:ThobagusM. N. Distribusi: Arif Suhardi. Alamat Redaksi: Kampus Terpadu UII, Fakultas Psikoloqi, Jalan Kaliurang Km. 14,4, Besi Sleman Yogyakarta55584. Telp. (0274) 896146, 896448. Pesawat 1113, 1114, 1109. Fax. (0274) 896146 (Ext.1116),(0274) 7483052. ISSN : 1410-1289

Redaksi

2

SEKAPURSIRIH

"

EDITORIAL Radikalisme Bisnis, Perubahan dan Etika Orgainaas,

TOPIK Emi Zulaifah Alimatus Sahrah

7 16

Sumaryono & OjamaludinAncok

25

Siti Nuzulia

32

Rina Amelia & Zulkarnain

41

Enterprising Personality and Uncertainty Tolerance Pengaruh Atribusi Kesuksesan Terhadap Ketakutan Untuk Sukses Pada Wanita Karir Orientasi Komitmen Oitinjau Oari Kepemimpinan Transformasional& KepercayaanTerhadapManajemen Peran Self-eficacy dan Strategi Coping Terhadap Hubungan Antara Stressor Kerja dan Stres Kerja Konsep Oiri Dan Tingkat Burnout Pada Karyawan Yang Bekerja Di Instansi Pelayanan Masyarakat

RISET Rostiana D. Nurjayadi

50

EmaYudiani

58

Fauzia Hanum dan MUh.Bachtiar

73

Kepuasan Kerja Pada Karyawan Ditinjau Berdasarkan Faktor Oemografik dan Motif Berprestasi Hubungan Antara Kecerdasan Emosi dan Masa Kerja dengan Penjualan Adaptif Kewirausahaandl Kalangan Mahasiswa Oitinjau Oari Motif Berprestasi

Jurnal PSIKOLOGIKA diterbitkan sebagai media komunikasi dan pengembangan ilmu Psikologi. PSIKOLOGIKA bermaksud menempatkan diri sebagai jurnal yang menampung dan mendorong pemikiran dan penerbitan Psikologi yang bernuansa Indonesia dan Islam. Redaksi menerima tulisan yang sesuai dengan misi jurnal. Naskah hendaknya dikirim dalam bentuk print out beserta disketnya dengan panjang 15-25 halaman, berukuran dua spasi disertai biodata. Redaksi berhak mengubah naskah sepanjang tidak mengubah substansi isinya.

PSIKOLOGIKA Nomor 19 tahun X Januari 2005

1

Enterprising Personality and Uncertainty Tolerance Emi Zulaifah Universitas Islam Indonesia

As todayis organizations face more challenges, it is necessary for studies about organizations to put emphasis more on the individual qualities that will help them perform effectively while dealing with uncertainties. The current study examines the relationship between enterprising personality, as measured with Hollandis (1997) SOS enterprisinq (E) scale, and uncertainty tolerance, as measured with Clampitt and Williamsi (2001) personal uncertainty tolerance scale. Enterprising personality represents leadership disposition/ interest, whereas U -1certainty tolerance is an important factor in the success of dealing with change and uncertau 1ties. Based on data from 114 participants of college students in the western United States. This study shows that enterpriSing personality is significantly related to uncertainty tolerance. The practical and future research implications are discussed.

Introduction Organizational Change, Uncertainty and UncertaintyTolerance Organizations, profit or non-profit, now face many more challenges from their environment than they did some decades ago. In the face of change, organizations need to be able to adapt quickly to their environment (Kanter, 1997). Organizations that are fully functioning and profitable at one time may collapse as a result of the failure to adapt to the challenges. Inherent to the challenges are the inevitable uncertainties that lay ahead of the organizations. Clampitt, Williams and De Koch (2002) stated that nowadays organizations function in an increasingly chaotic and uncertain environment. Their belief goes as far as proposing that in this kind of environment, uncertainties must be embraced and that organizations must take advantage of the uncertainties by managing them in all levels: individual, group and organizational.


When the environment is in flux, uncertainty tolerance as an individual behavioral chara'iteristic shows its significance, especially in regard to undergoing change and difficulties more effectively. The term uncertainty tolerance is often used interchangeably with ambiguity tolerance. Budner (1962) defined ambiguity as situations where cues are insufficient, too numerous or in contradiction. Ambiguous situations are divided into three types: new situations, complex situations and contradictory situations. He further defined ambiguity tolerance as the tendency of a person to perceive ambiguous situation as acceptable. Thus a person who is intolerant of ambiguity would dislike and feel threatened by uncertainties. Clampitt and Williams (2002), however, differentiate between ambiguity and uncertainty, Ambiguity refers more to a stimulus that is not clear, yet answers are already available. Un-

7

Emi Zulaifah

certainty refers more to an unclear stimulus or situation where answers may be non-existent. According to Clampitt and De Koch (2001) certainty is characterized as: known, law like, sure, clear, predictable, absolute, simple and stable. Uncertainty is detailed as unknown, chaotic, unsure, vague, random, provisional, complex, and turbulent. They also believe that uncertainty is a more encompassing idea than ambiguity. Yet, examining the two definitions, uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance are based on the same concept. Both refer to a person is level of comfort in unclear situations, or situations that do not yet have clear direction. In the current study, the term uncertainty tolerance will be used. Empirical studies on ambiguity tolerance are numerous. Early studies were often conducted as part of testing and refining the validity and reliability of available ambiguity tolerance measures (Mac Donald, 1970; Norton, 1975). Mac Donald is study found that ambiguity intolerance was related to church attendance and dogmatism as well as to performance on complex task. People who are less tolerant of ambiguity will perform less well in a complex task. Nortonis study showed that tolerance of ambiguity is related to dogmatism and rigidity. More recent studies, however, showed more connection of this personal aspect to work place practices. One such study was conducted by Chen and Hooijberg (2000). This study revealed that tolerance towards ambiguity predicted the acceptance of diversity intervention programs. Another study (Wittenberg & Norcross, 2001) showed that ambiguity tolerance was related to professional perfectionism among practicing psychologists. Also, Adkins et aI., (2001), found that ambiguity intolerance predicted job insecurity, which in turn influenced job satisfaction, organizational commitment and withdrawal behavior, during a financial crisis. Many of these studies show that in fact uncertainty tolerance become more important in various work situations. It shows itself as a crucial factor in determining whether or not members in more complex and diverse organizations can sue-

8

cessfully overcome the challenge of organizational change.

Uncertainty Tolerance and Leadership At times of change and uncertainties, the issue of leadership becomes more relevant. Over a decade ago, Schein (1992) had proposed that in creating change, including organization cultural change, leaders inevitably played a key role in effectively managing the process. Leaders in organizations need to be able-to absorb and contain the anxieties of their members. Although leaders may not be able to provide clarity at times of changes, the ability to tolerate uncertainties will allow them to provide needed emotional stability and emotional reassurance amongst their members, while changes are being managed. A similar idea was also proposed by George, Sleeth and Siders (1999), which emphasized the role of leader behavior and its effect of shaping and changing the culture. The leader role is especially important in relation to communicating vision, creating member identification, and establishing major and minor reinforcement. In line with these ideas, a study found that negative attitude towards change among employees occurred as a result of perceived ineffective leadership practices (Wanous, Reichers, & Austin, 2000). Thus, these theories and findings give support to the need for leaders to deal well with uncertainties. Although its known that uncertainty tolerance is a critical personal factor for leaders in undergoing change, most analysis given to organizational change, ironically, often puts heavy emphasis on the macro components, such as structure and system, rather than the micro component at the individual level (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999). The lack of analysis on individual level is astonishing because it is the people, the individuals in the organization who will be asked to institute new policies and practices and in turn will be impacted by the change. !n this light, then, it is important to redirect the focus of managing change to the micro level of the organization. In this regard, Judge et aI., (1999) emphasized


ENTERPRISING

that attention should be given more to the dispositional characteristics of individuals, including leaders. In the micro level analysis, the discussion on organizational change includes riamong others- one important question: what kind of leader qualities and characteristics will enable the organization to manage or deal with change and uncertainties successfully (Clampitt, et' aI., 2002; Judge, et aI., 1999; Kanter, 1988; and Stolz 1999)? This question has brought forward the discussion on uncertainty tolerance as an important leader characteristic. In a turbulent environment, it becomes more important that leaders in organizations possess a sufficient level of tolerance towards uncertainty (Clampitt, et aI., 2002; Judge, et aI., 1999; Kanter, 1988; Schein, 1992; Stolz 1999).The significance of uncertainty tolerance for leadership has received attention for over three decades. Stogdill, Goede and Day (1963) found that, among others, uncertainty tolerance was one of the factors that make up leadership behavior. More recently, a study using Stogdillis construct of leadership behavior was conducted among branch managers of a bank in Singapore (Putti, 1992). It was found that managersi tolerance of uncertainty was among the most important determinants of the subordinates job satisfaction. Later, in their empirical study, Judge, et aI., (1999), examined the dispositional factors that determine individuals success in dealing with change and uncertainty. This study revealed that ambiguity tolerance played an important role in terms of effectiveness in .coping with change among managers. In this study, a risk tolerance construct, which consists of ambiguity tolerance and risk aversion, was used. It was found that managers with higher risk tolerance were better able to cope with changes. Also, it was found that ambiguity tolerance contributes the largest variance in the risk tolerance construct as compared to openness to experience and risk aversion. A review of six research studies (VandenBos & Bulatao, 2000) revealed that psychologists who are engaged in professional


PERSONALITY

AND UNCERTAINTY

TOLERANCE

services exhibited some common attributes of entrepreneurs in their field, including ambiguity tolerance. Also, another study on organizational development practitioners revealed that besides being transformational and knowledgeable, practionersi ambiguity tolerance was an important quality in helping their clients! organizations change and develop (Church, Waclawski & Warner, 1996). Thus, research using disparate samples, even across different cultures, showed that uncertainty tolerance was a relevant and important variable related to leading and to being an entrepreneurs. Although there may be a debate as to whether or not leaders are the same as entrepreneurs, both share some common characteristics including tolerance for uncertainties. it can he concluded that in terms of selecting, assigning and developing leaders in organization, the strong potential to tolerate uncertainties needs to be seriously considered. Equally important is to assure that they are willing to face difficulties and uncertainties, anytime they occur in the organization. In line with this need, it becomes essential to test whether or not the available construct of leadership interest! personality, often employed in the HR assessment, will in fact explain uncertainty tolerance. In practical terms, whether or not the measure of ieadership interest! personality will relate to tl.e measure of uncertainty tolerance needs to be examined.

Enterprising Personality and Uncertainty Tolerance In the area of career development, coaching and counseling, the construct of enterpriSing personality has been widely recognized. This construct is taken from Hollandis theory of vocational personality widely known as the RIASEC that stands for Realistic, Investigative, Social, Artistic Enterprising and Conventional. Each letter represents a different personality type (Holland, 1997). An enterprising person, which is the focus of this study, prefers to lead others to attain organizational goals or economic gain. They tend to dislike observational, symbolic and systematic activities.

9

Emi Zulaifah

They also hold on to values such as economic and political achievement, and ambition. They enjoy exerting control over others yet being free of control and will seek to become leaders in business or public domains (Holland, 1997). An enterprising person tends to be adventurous, ambitious, excitement seeking, extroverted, optimistic, resourceful and self-confident. Based on the description of the enterprising person in this theory, it can be argued that an enterprising type person will be interested in work or activities that represent group leadership. In the beginning, Hollandis personality typology was developed as an interest theory. Yet, later on, Holland claimed that this model also represents personality traits (Holland, 1997). The basic assumption of the theory says that persons develop their interest throughout their life with the influence of their biological make up, and social and cultural environment. These common behavioral determinants will continuously shape peopleis preference about activities, hobbies/ leisure, as well as their values and aspirations. Thus, peoplefs preference in terms of work! career, lifestyle, work environment and hobbies will very much reflect their personalities (Holland, 1997; Hogan & Blake, 1999). Hollandis claim that the interest inventory represents a personality assessment has gained some empirical support. Gottfredson, Jones and Holland (1993) found that the social and enterprising preferences were positively correlated with Extraversion in the NEO Personality Inventory/ NEO-PI (Costa & Mc.Crae, 1984), which consist of neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Extraversion is a characteristic found to be vital for leadership (Judge, Illes, Bono & Gerhardt, 2002). A study in Korea (Park, Kim & Hur, 1999) revealed that the constructs of interest and personality still have their own unique variances, which are not explained by each other. Nevertheless, it was found that in general interest and personality measures were interrelated to some extent. Similar results were also obtained from a study by Schinka, Dye and Curtis (1997). In their

10

study, linkages between extraversion, openness and agreeableness with enterprising, artistic and social scales were found. A metaanalysis study on ability, personality and interest was done by Ackerman and Heggestad (1997). It gave evidence that conscientiousness, control and traditionalism show moderate correlations with conventional interests, while extroversion, well being and social potency show moderate to substantial correlations with both enterprising and social interest domains. The strongest relationships were found between enterprising and artistic types with extraversion and openness to experience. It appears that these studies provide empirical support that Hollandfs theory and measures on interest share some commonalities with other personality measures, particularly the five factor model. Beside the strong empirical support of similarities between interest and personality, as it applied to Hollandis typology, an attempt to finely differentiate between the two constructs was made by Hogan and Blake (1999). Although still taking into account the similarities and the empirical support, they emphasized that there is a difference between the interest and personality constructs. They consider personality construct to be based on the argument that personality can be seen from either the actoris or the observers point of view. From the actoris point of view, it is more difficult to assess as it involves a more complex psychological dynamic, such as hopes, worries, ideals etc. The observerfs point of view concerns how an individual wants to be seen by others. Personalities as seen by the observer are commonly found iQpersonality assessment that tells us about a personfs typical behavior. In describing others we describe them in terms of their unique traits. In describing ourselves we speak in terms of our goals, ideals, plans, etc, thus we tell about our identity. As Hogan and Blake (1999) put it:

We believe that this difference between the observer's and the actor's view of the person is reflected in the difference be-


ENTERPRISING

tween personality and interest measures. In our view, personality inventories are direct reflection of reputation but not identity, whereas interest inventories are direct measures of identity, and indirect measures of reputation. (p.53) They stressed that with his RIASEC theory, Holland has given categorization to choices of identity. Thus the inventory tests the personality from the actoris point of view. On the other hand, personality constructs such as FFM contains an organization of traits from the observer is point of view. Beyond the compare and contrast discussion, the current study incorporates the notion of a commonality between personality and interest and thus refer to Hollandis typology as vocational personality. While many studies were aimed at empirically testing the construct validity of Hollandis typology and its measures, only a few studies appeared to examine how it relates to other behavioral characteristics. HoIland (1997) said that it is necessary to study whether or not the typology relates to the behavioral characteristics that it attempts to represent. Although fewer in numbers, studies of this kind do exist. One such study was done by De Fruyt (2002). This study attempted to test the congruence of an individualis personality to his or her job environment and how this congruence predicts intrinsic career outcomes. This study results showed that congruence across the types significantly predicted job satisfaction and skill development. Another study in Singapore and the US by Chan, Rounds and Orasgow (2000) found that motivation to lead was related to the social and enterprising domain. In line with these studiesi findings, it is justifiable to question whether or not enterprising personality, as measured in the enterprising type of Hollandis SOS, relates to uncertainty tolerance, an important characteristic for leaders in dealing with a changing environment. Bringing these studiesi ideas together into the context of uncertain environment, it can be said that in the current business reality, lead-


PERSONAUTYAND

UNCERTAINTYTOUERANCE

ers will have to be able to embrace uncertainty, in order for the organization to succeed at times of adversity. It is for the purpose of testing the relationship between the (E) enterprising personality, and tolerance of uncertainty that this study is conducted. Hypothesis: There is a positive relationship between enterprising personality and uncertainty tolerance. Method Participants The sample of this study is comprised of undergraduate students at a large urban university in western United States who are enrolled in Psychology courses. Particinants were also recruited from student organizations in the same university. Some participants received extra credit points for th€!irparticipation. Procedures This study used a survey method. The survey consists of three questionnaires that ask for three different areas of information: demographics (for age and gender information), enterprising personality, and personal uncertainty tolerance. Prior to the survey, an explanation about the study was given to the students. They were also invited to ask questions regarding the study and their participation. An informed consent was attached to the survey, for the students to sign. Instruments The first part of the survey was the demographic data questionnaire. Subjects were asked to indicate their birth date and their gender. The second part of the survey consisted of questionnaires used as measures for the two variables in the study, i.e., the enterprising scale taken from Hollandis SOS inventory (1997), and the personal uncertainty tolerance scale that was developed by Clampitt and Williams (2002). The enterprising scale consists of 33 items of enterprising vocational personality. Reliability study on this scale shows an inter-

11

Emi Zulaifah

nal consistency coefficient of 0.91 (Holland, Fritzsche & Powell, 1997). The second questionnaires consist of 12 items that assess the subjectfs personal uncertainty tolerance (see Appendix 1). The personal uncertainty tolerance scale showed a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.70 (Clampitt and Williams, 2002, Clampitt and Williams 2003). This measure, unlike other measures of tolerance towards ambiguity, is more related to the work situation (Clampitt & Williams, 2002). In responding to the personal uncertainty tolerance scale subjects were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with each item, with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the data entry process, scores for items that represent low tolerance of uncertainty are reversed. The items that show intolerance of uncertainty are item # 3, When I start a project, I need to know exactly where Iill end up; # 6, I need to know the specific outcome before starting a task; and # 11, I need a definite sense of direction for a project. The current study shows that both measures have sufficient moderate reliability, with internal consistency alpha = .83 for the enterprising scale. The uncertainty tolerance scale shows an intemal consistency coefficient of .70. Data analysis method To test the relationship between enterprising personality and uncertainty tolerance, a zero order product moment correlation was conducted using SPSS. Data were first tested for the normality and linearity assumption. Results From a total of 150 surveys that were distributed, 130 of them were returned. The 114 of the retumed surveyswere completed and were included in the analysis. 16 surveys were eliminated as a result of response incompleteness. In terms of demographic variables, results show that 36 participants were male and 78 were female. Participants! mean age is 26.02 years, with 56 as the oldest and 20 as the youngest.

12

Tabel1. zero Order Correlation Between Variables Variables

n

UrcertaintyTolerarce Enterprising Age

114 114 114

uTcrcleertainty Enterprising o rarce .351'""

Age -.116 NS -.231-

NOTE: ** P