The Roles of Authentic Leadership, Self-efficacy, and Employees’

Silence on Organizational Commitment in BINUS University

Yosef Dedi Pradipto

, Wahyu Jati Anggoro

Johannes A. A. Rumeser

, Ari Setyorini

, Irfan Rifai

Psychology Department, Faculty of Humanities, Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, 11480 Indonesia

Gajah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

The Ohio State University, USA

Keyword: Authentic Leadership, self efficacy, employee, silence, organizational commitment

Abstract: The purpose of this research is to evaluate the role of authentic leadership style, job satisfaction, and

employee silence toward organizational commitment to employees. Authentic leadership is a leadership

style that is built on ethical foundation and emphasizes on the process of building an honest relationship

with followers by appreciating their input. Self-efficacy is self-perception of how well a person can work in

a given situation. Employee silence is a deliberate silent behavior committed by employees to hold ideas,

ideas, and information about problems that occur within the organization that can adversely affect the

organization. Organizational commitment refers to the extent to which individual psychological attachment

to the organization, which is derived into three dimensions: affective commitment, normative commitment,

and ongoing commitment. Subjects to be involved in the research are full time employees at the University

of Bina Nusantara. This research uses quantitative approach through questionnaire, while model test will be

done by path analysis technique.

1 INTRODUCTION

The central issues in the field of Industrial

Psychology and Orgaization are employees'

productivity and work satisfaction. While work

productivity is the fuel for the moving locomotive

organization, employees’ satisfaction will support

the productivity. The productivity of an

organization's work will be disrupted in the event of

large-scale turnover of employees (Johnson, 1981).

The turn over of mployees is largely caused by

employees’ low commitment to organization.

Under regular circumstances, those who leave

the organization are mostly unsatisfied employees.

Their exitwould force the organization to conduct

recruitment and man-power planning for new

employees. The wheel of the organization is

potentially disrupted due to the reduced human

resources, and the organization must also calculate

the cost recovery generated from the entry and exit

of employees.

As we enter the second decade in the new

millennium, the competition in the business worldis

undeniably fierce. In addition to employees’

turnover, the competition also raises an interesting

phenomenon among professional workers, the

emergence of “grasshoppers” i.e., workers who love

to move around. The findings of Yuliawan and

Himam (2007) in the study of the grasshopper

phenomenon show that the objectives of the

grashoppers are to fulfill his or her life vision, both

pragmatic (financial) and idealistic (job challenge

and desire to learn).

Thus, the organization's commitment is seen as

one of the most important elements in the workforce

considering its link as one of the predictors of turn

over (Bentein, 2005). Organization commitment is

important because it could influence employees’

decision whether to leave or stay at the organization.

Organizational commitment is also an important

foundation for the development of the entire

organization, both in the public and private sectors.

There are various factors that affect commitment.

A study by Zabid, Murali and Juliana (2003) shows

that organizational commitment, especially affective

commitment, is strongly correlated with improved

work culture. It is believed that a good working

culture keep employees' commitment to stay in the

organization. Moreover, commitment and work

culture proved to affect work performance. This

Pradipto, Y., Anggoro, W., A. Rumeser, J., Setyorini, A. and Rifai, I.

The Roles of Authentic Leadership, Self-efﬁcacy, and Employees’ Silence on Organizational Commitment in BINUS University.

DOI: 10.5220/0009999500002917

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Sciences, Laws, Arts and Humanities (BINUS-JIC 2018), pages 29-35

ISBN: 978-989-758-515-9

commitment is influenced by personal and

organizational factors. Personal factors include age,

length of work, and achievement needs, while

organizational factors include job enrichment,

autonomy in work, opportunities to use skills,

positive attitudes toward work teams, and support

from organizations (Schultz and Schultz, 1986).

Leadership is also condisidered as a central

element affecting organizational commitment.

Organizations that have effective leaders will tend to

have committed subordinates (Jackson and Meyer,

2013). Therefore, some leadership theories

(charismatic, transformational) include “employee

commitment” as potential outcomes (Bass and

Riggio, 2006; Conger and Kanungo, 1998).

Correspondingly, the organizational commitment

theory also identifies leadership as an important

factor in enhancing the commitment (Meyer and

Allen, 1997).

Organizational commitment is influenced by

leadership roles (Catano, Pond and Kelloway, 1997).

Ideal and transformative leader figures will be able

to encourage their subordinates to commit more to

the organization. The central function of the leaders

is by influencing subordinates to keep working well

through affective approaches.

Authentic leadership is one of the most widely

studied leadership theories. Avolio, et al. (2004) call

authentic leadership as a leadership process resulting

from a combination of individual psychological

capacities with well-established organizational

context. This synergy of individual quality with the

organizational contexts result in high level of

alertness and self-control, while simultaneously

encouraging positive self-development.

One of the practical functions of leadership is as

a catalyst for organizational change. In the context

of individual change as members of the

organization, an ideal leader should be able to model

the members of the group he leads. Modeling is one

manifestation of aspects of vikarius experience that

is part of the self efficacy dimension (Bandura,

1997). A leader who is able to show a positive

attitude and commit to the organization, will

certainly be a model for his subordinates. This

positive attitude is also accompanied by efforts to

stimulate the idea or creativity of employees, so that

its existence is beneficial to the progress of the

organization.

An authentic leader will be able to encourage

employees to work more optimally because she / he

has ability to see what approach is suitable to

motivate subordinates. In addition, authentic leaders

can also build a transparent relationship with

subordinates based on trust. The trust becomes the

basis for the leader to internalize a particular moral

perspective on the subordinate, which is useful for

the progress of the organization. As the result, it is

expected that the organization and the employees

will achieve the targets set together.

The targets set by the organization require

employees to not only complete key tasks, but also

to make changes, to contribute by expressing ideas,

opinions and concerns about issues that arise within

the organization. Employees who communicate

ideas and share knowledge are understood to

improve organizational performance (Elçi, 2014). In

short, smooth communication among employees

becomes a catalyst for the achievement of

organizational goals.

Communication is one of the most important

processes in a learner's organization. The exchange

of information between divisions, units, working

groups, and individual employees is essential to

performing tasks within the organization.

Communication facilitates the release of emotional

expressions of feelings and the fulfillment of social

needs (Robbins and Judge, 2004). Therefore,

communication becomes one of the dynamics that is

higly popular in the field of organizational behavior.

However, in reality communication between

employees is often clogged. Not all employees can

convey their ideas or concerns related to the

problems that occur within the organization. In facts

some research shows that employees often feel

insecure to express opinions and ideas because of

the belief that comments and recommendations for

change can disrupt the balance of the organization

(Deniz and Akerson, 2013). As the results, most

employees choose to be silent. This silent employee

phenomenon is known as employee silence.

Milliken, Morrison and Hewlin (2003)stated that

the phenomenon of silence is a very common

experience, in the case that employees feel unable to

convey important issues or concerns to leaders.

Employees choose silence primarily on issues such

as concerns about the competence or performance of

co-workers, bosses, salary issues, disagreements

with company policies and decisions, personal

grievances, ethics, justice, discrimination,

harassment, and so on. Some researchers such as

Brinsfield (2009)have conceptualized that employee

silence occurs when employees experience various

issues related to justice, ethical issues, ideas for

improvement in the organization, and so forth.

Self-efficacy also relates to organizational

commitment. A Meta-analysis study by Meyer,

(2002) found that affective commitment was

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

positively associated with self efficacy. Bandura

(1997) defines self efficacy as self-perception of

how well a person can function in a given situation.

Self-efficacy relates to the belief that the individual

has the ability to perform the expected action.

Niu (2010) in foodservice companies concluded

that self efficacy is positively associated with

commitment. Employees who have efficacy in their

ability are assumed to be able to work with excellent

performance. Employees’ prime performance

increase work productivity that in effect will

encourage the management to retain the employees

as the assets of the organization. The alternative to

improving selfefficacy is to improve the employee's

welfare. The causal effect to this is: the higher the

self-efficacy of employees the higher the

commitment to career in the same place.

Organizational commitment becomes a central

issue in organizational research as well as in

companies or industry. As noted earlier,

organizational commitment itself is influenced by

various factors. It would be interesting to learn if an

empirical research on authentic leadership could link

with self efficacy, employee silence and

organizational commitment.

This study uses a quantitative approach involving

four variables, namely authentic leadership, self

efficacy, employee silence, and organizational

commitment. Research respondents are full time,

permanent employees at Bina Nusantara University

(N = 79), including educators (lecturers) and

education personnels (non-teaching staffs). The

employees have all worked for more than one year

in the organization.

The data collection instrument used during the

survey study is based on the Likert questionnaire or

summated ratings model. The four questionnaires

used in the study include the scale: authentic

leadership by Walumbwa et al (2008), self efficacy,

employee silence by Dyne, Ang and Botero (2003),

as well as organizational commitment by Allen and

Meyer (1990). Technique of data analysis research

using model test through path analysis (path

analysis).

Commitment according to KBBI is defined as

agreement or attachment to do something

(https://www.kbbi.web.id/komitmen).

Organizations derived from the word “organon”

(tool – in Greek) means a group of people who have

a common goal to achieve common goal. Meyer and

Allen (1991) classify the meaning of commitment

into two connotations, namely: (1) attempts to

explain variations in relationships between

individuals and certain objects; and (2) an attempt to

distinguish the object of individual commitment.

Organizational commitment is an attitude that

reflects employees' loyalty to the organization and

the ongoing process in which members of the

organization express their concern for the

organization and its continued success and progress

(Luthan, 2006). Organizational commitment can also

be interpreted as an emotional response to a positive

assessment of the work environment.

Leadership is the art of influencing others.

Essentially, it is a concept developed within the

context of psychology community to explain social

influences in groups. Furthermore, the leader is

considered to be the most powerful influence in

group dynamics. Bass (1990) explained that the

difference between the concept of leadership and the

study of the process of social influence is often

blurred. Many findings of leadership dimension that

have overlapping meanings make leadership studies

often chaotic. Bass (1990) concluded that the

ambiguity of the concept of leadership led to the

many variations of the leadership classification

scheme itself.

In its development there has been various

definitions of leadership. Nearly four ecades ago,

Stogdill (as cited in Yukl, 2010) has predicted that

the definition of leadership will be as many as the

ones who would try to define it. Until now,

reserachers have not fully shared agreement on the

definition of the word (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 2010).

Yukl (2010) concludes that there is no single

most appropriate definition of leadership that is

relevant to all situations; what more important is, we

argue, how useful a definition is for effectively

understanding leadership. In general, Yukl (2010)

describes leadership as a process of influencing

including the effort to facilitate the performance of

the collective work. Moreover, Bass (1990)defines

leadership as an interaction between two or more

group members involved in the structuring and

restructuring of the situation; and the perceptions

and expectations of the members. Robbins and

Judge (Robbins and Judge, 2004)briefly defines

leadership as the ability to influence groups toward

peak achievement.

One style of leadership integrated with the

concept of integrity and authenticity is authentic

leadership. This style of leadership has its link with

the four dimensions of behavior of transformational

leadership, that is, charismatic, inspirational,

intellectual stimulation and individualized

consideration (Avolio et al, 2004; Bass, 1990).

Avolio et al (2004) define authentic leaders as

leaders who are deeply aware of their thinking and

The Roles of Authentic Leadership, Self-efﬁcacy, and Employees’ Silence on Organizational Commitment in BINUS University

acting, perceived by others as people who are aware

of the moral values of themselves and others;

insightful and powerful; aware of the context in

which it is located; confident, hopeful, optimistic,

perseverent, and other high moral personality

traits.Authentic leaders feel confident, hopeful,

optimistic, tough, transparent, moral, future-

oriented, and give priority to developing followers

into leaders, at least for themselves. Avolio and

Luthans call authentic leadership as a leadership

process resulting from a combination of individual

psychological capacities with well-established

organizational context, so as to produce high levels

of alertness and self-control, while encouraging

positive self-development. Avolio et al (2004) study

shows that authentic leadership can enhance

subordinate engagement and satisfaction and

strengthen the identity of subordinates positively to

the organization

How a person behaves in a particular situation

depends on the reciprocity between the environment

and his/her cognitive conditions, especially the

cognitive factors associated with his belief that he is

capable or unable to perform satisfactory actions.

Bandura (1997) calls this self-efficacy, and its

outcome expectation is called the outcome

expectation.

a. self efficacy or self-efficacy expectation is self-

perception of how well a person can function in

a given situation. Self-efficacy relates to the

belief that the self has the ability to perform the

expected action.

b. the outcome expectation is the thinking or self

estimate that the behavior performed will

achieve a certain result.

Efficacy is self-assessment whether one can do

good or bad, right or wrong, can or can not

accomplish what is required. Expectation of results

can be realistic (what is expected in accordance with

the reality of the outcome), or otherwise the results

are not realistic (expect too high from the real results

that can be achieved).

Individuals with high expectations of efficacy

(believing that they can work according to

situational demands) and expectations of realistic

outcomes (estimating outcomes according to self-

efficacy), will work hard and endure tasks to

completion (Alwisol, 2005). Self efficacy tends to be

consistent over time, but not necessarily unchanged

(Baron and Byrne, 2003). Aspects that shape self

efficacy include: the difficulty level of the task

faced, the wide field of duty, which is related to the

size of the individual business.

There is anumber of“employee silence”

definitions in the context of communication within

an organization. Morrison and Milliken (2000)

mention that employee silence as a collective

phenomenon that occurs in employees by way of

melting opinions and ideas that can affect in the

progress of the company. Employee Silence is a

silent behavior perpetrated by employees by not

expressing ideas, ideas, and opinions aimed at

improving the organization (Dyne, Ang, and Botero,

2003).

Brinsfield (2009) defines employee silence as an

act by employees to withhold opinions, as well as

information about important situations, issues, and

events related to work or organization. Employee

silence is a deliberate action by employees in

retaining important information, opinions,

suggestions, or organizational issues. Employee

Silence can also be understood as a silent behavior

or withholding the ideas and ideas that are often

done by employees in various situations related to

phenomena that are sustainable with the progress

and development of the company.

Based on some aforementioned definitions, it can

be concluded that employee silence is a deliberate

intentional behavior performed by employees in an

effort to hold ideas, ideas, and information about

problems that occur within the organization that can

adversely affect the organization.

2 DATA ANALYSIS

Based on the results of descriptive statistical

analysis, the distribution of scores of each variable

obtained as follows:

Table 1: Descriptive data.

Variabel Minimum Scores Maximum Scores Average Standard Deviation

Authentic leadership 38 63 53.78 5.25

General self-efficac

20 32 26.82 3.32

ee silence 28 118 72.53 18.28

Affective commitment 21 52 39.05 7.21

Continuance commitment 8 36 26.63 4.47

Normative commitment 11 35 23.44 4.88

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

Verification of the normality assumption is done

to determine whether the variables studied have

scores distributed according to the norm curve rules.

Normality is identified by Kolmogorov-smirnov test,

the data is normally distributed if it has a

significance level of p > 0.05. Keep in mind that

normality is just an assumption, not a prerequisite of

correlation test.

The matrix intercorrelation is used to examine

the relationship between the variables studied

partially, especially the independent and dependent

variable relations. The correlation coefficient shown

is the Pearson product moment coefficient, whereas

the intercorrelation between the same variables is the

internal consistency coefficient of Alpha Cronbach.

Based on the results of Alpha Cronbach internal

consistency reliability test, it can be concluded that

all measuring instruments used in research have

good reliability and can be accepted

psychometrically. However, for authentic leadership

measuring tools and continuance commitment still

need to be reviewed considering the coefficient

value of reliability is lower than other measuring

instruments.

An interesting finding from the above matrix is

that authentic leadership is negatively correlated

with self-efficacy, has no correlation with other

variables. This means that in Binus University the

higher the superior authentic leadership, the lower

the self-efficacy of the employees. This is a unique

finding, given the many articles with similar

variables that say leadership contributes positively to

the self-efficacy of employees.

Organizational commitment in this research is

reflected by the three dimensionals theory of

organizational commitment, namely affective,

continuance, and normative; so the analysis was

done separately. Based on the intercorrelation matrix

it can be concluded that these three dimensions of

commitment are interconnected with one another,

indicated by significant intercorrelations. But only

the dimensions of affectif commitments that have a

relationship with the variables of self-efficacy and

employee silence.

Based on the test of the model above, it shows

that affective commitment is influenced by

employee silence and self-efficacy, but there is no

role of authentic leadership. Authentic leadership

and self-efficacy also do not play a significant role

in employee silence. Therefore, it can be concluded

that the research hypothesis is rejected.

Figure 1: Test of the affective commitment model.

Figure 2: Continuance commitment model test.

Based on the results of the model test above, it

shows that there is no role of authentic leadership,

self-efficacy and employee silence to continuance

commitment. Authentic leadership and self-efficacy

also do not play a significant role in employee

silence. Therefore, it can be concluded that the

research hypothesis is rejected.

The result of the model test above shows that

normative commitment is influenced by self-efficacy

and authentic leadership, but there is no role of

employee silence. In addition, authentic leadership

and self-efficacy also does not play a significant role

to employee silence. Therefore it can be concluded

that the research hypothesis is rejected.

3 CONCLUSION

There are several interesting findings in the study,

one of which is the finding of authentic leadership.

Bivariate, authentic leadership is negatively

correlated with self-efficacy (r = -0.26; p> 0.05), and

has no correlation with other variables. It means that

in Binus University the higher the superior authentic

leadership, the lower the self-efficacy of the

employees. This is a unique finding, given the many

articles with similar variables that say leadership

contributes positively to the self-efficacy of

The Roles of Authentic Leadership, Self-efﬁcacy, and Employees’ Silence on Organizational Commitment in BINUS University

employees. It is quite possible that the

organizational culture at Binus forms another type of

leadership that is unlike authentic leadership traits,

such as transformational leadership. But further

empirical research is needed to conclude that.

A number of studies has examined leadership

relationship with organizational commitment. For

example, Rowden (Rowden, 2000) study on

charismatic leadership shows the relationship

between charisma and organizational commitment.

Ross and Gray (2006) found that transformational

leadership positively associated with teacher

commitment to the organization. Research by

Arnold, Kevin, Kelloway and Barling (2001) stated

that transformational leadership is able to predict the

efficacy of self, trust, and organizational

commitment. The Whittington, Goodwin and

Murray (2004) studies also showed a positive

relationship between transformational leadership and

affective commitment. Transformational leadership

itself is one of the most popular leadership theories

used in the field.

Rahmani (2011) study on state-owned hotels in

Indonesia found that servant leadership was not a

predictor of organizational commitment.

Considering Indonesia’s collectivist culture, which

is paternalistic and assumed to have dependence on

great leaders, it has been considered that servant

leadership as the most relevant theory. According to

Rahmani, this result is due to some contradictory

aspects of servant leadership that are less solid and

overlap.

Figure 3: Normative commitment model test.

In relation to the authentic leadership constructs

used in the study, it needs to be further evaluated

through factor analysis. So that it can really map the

causes of authentic leadership not playing a role in

organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment in this research is

reflected by the three dimensionals theory of

organizational commitment, namely affective,

continuance, and normative; so the analysis was

done separately. Based on the intercorrelation matrix

it can be concluded that these three dimensions of

commitment are interconnected with one another,

indicated by significant intercorrelations. However,

only affective commitment dimensions have

relationship with employee silence variables (β = -

0.11, p<0.05) and self-efficacy (β = 0.76; p<0.05).

Self-efficacy alone does not play a significant

role in employee silence (r= 0.39, p> 0.05). So, in

the context of theoretical modeling it can be

concluded that employee silence is not an effective

mediator variable in mediating the relationship

between self-efficacy and affective commitment.

Affective commitment is positively related to

self efficacy, both simple correlation (r = 0.28,

p<0.05) and simultaneous path analysis model with

other variables (β = 0.35). The results of this

regression show that each self-efficacy increase of 1

standard deviation, hence affective commitment will

increase by 0.76 standard deviation. However,

studies that examine the link between general self-

efficacy and affective commitment are very few.

The above findings are in line with the results of

Meyer et al (2002) that affective commitment is

positively associated with self efficacy. Niu

(2010)on foodservice companies also concluded that

self efficacy is positively associated with

commitment. Employees who have efficacy in their

ability are assumed to be able to work with excellent

performance.

Excellent performance will increase work

productivity, so the organization will retain the

employee as one of the organization's best assets.

The alternative is to improve the employee's welfare.

The higher the self-efficacy of employees, the higher

the commitment of the employees to have career in

the same organization.

REFERENCES

Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) 'The measurement and

antecedents of affective, continuance and normative

commitment to the organization', Journal of

occupational psychology, 63(1), pp. 1-18.

Alwisol (2005) Psikologi kepribadian. UMM press.

Arnold, K.A., Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (2001)

'Transformational leadership or the iron cage: which

predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy?',

Leadership & Organization Development Journal,

22(7), pp. 315-320.

Avolio, B.J., et al. (2004) 'Unlocking the mask: A look at

the process by which authentic leaders impact follower

BINUS-JIC 2018 - BINUS Joint International Conference

attitudes and behaviors', The Leadership Quarterly,

15(6), pp. 801-823.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control.

New York: Freeman. 1997.

Baron, R.A. and Byrne, D.R. (2003) Social Psychology,

10th Edition. NY: The University at Albany.

Bass, B. (1990) Bass and & Stodgill’s Handbook of

Leadership: Theory, Research, and Applications, 3

Edition. The Free Press.

Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006) Transformational

Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Bentein, K., et al. (2005) 'The role of change in the

relationship between commitment and turnover: a

latent growth modeling approach', Journal of Applied

Psychology, 90(3), p. 468.

Brinsfield, C.T. (2009) 'Employee silence: Investigation of

dimensionality, development of measures, and

examination of related factors', The Ohio State

University.

Catano, V.M., Pond, M. and Kelloway, E.K. (2001)

'Exploring commitment and leadership in volunteer

organizations', Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 22(6), pp. 256-263.

Conger, J.A. and Kanungo R.N. (1998) Charismatic

leadership in organizations. Sage Publications.

Deniz, H. and Akerson, V. (2013) 'Examining the impact

of a professional development program on elementary

teachers’ views of nature of science and nature of

scientific inquiry, and science teaching efficacy

beliefs', Electronic Journal of Science Education,

17(3).

Dyne, L.V., Ang, S. and Botero, I.C. (2003)

'Conceptualizing employee silence and employee

voice as multidimensional constructs', Journal of

management studies, 40(6), pp. 1359-1392.

Elçi, M., et al. (2014) 'The Mediating Role of Mobbing on

the Relationship between Organizational Silence and

Turnover Intention', Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, vol. 150, pp. 1298-1309.

Jackson, T.A., Meyer, J.P. and Wang, X.-H. (2013)

'Leadership, commitment, and culture: A meta-

analysis', Journal of Leadership & Organizational

Studies, 20(1), pp. 84-106.

Johnson, K. (1981) 'Towards an understanding of labour

turnover', Service Industries Review, 1(1), pp. 4-17.

Luthan, F. (2006) Organization Behavior (Perilaku

Organisasi). Yogyakarta: ANDI.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991) 'A three-component

conceptualization of organizational commitment'

Human resource management review, 1(1), pp. 61-89.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen N.J. (1997) Commitment in The

Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application

(Advanced Topics in Organizational Behavior). CA:

Sage Publications.

Meyer, J.P., et al. (2002) 'Affective, continuance, and

normative commitment to the organization: A meta-

analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences',

Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), pp. 20-52.

Milliken, F.J., Morrison, E.W. and 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), pp. 1453-1476.

Morrison, E.W. and Milliken, F.J. (2000) 'Organizational

silence: A barrier to change and development in a

pluralistic world', Academy of Management review,

25(4), pp. 706-725.

Niu, H.-J. (2010) 'Investigating the effects of self-efficacy

on foodservice industry employees’ career

commitment', International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 29(4), pp. 743-750.

Rahmani, N. (2011) 'Komitmen organisasi pada hotel

BUMN di Indonesia', Dissertation, Universitas Gadjah

Mada, Yogyakarta.

Robbins, S. and Judge, T. (2004) 'Organizational change

and stress management', Organizational Behavior, 8th

Edition. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India.

Rowden, R.W. (2000) 'The relationship between

charismatic leadership behaviors and organizational

commitment', Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 21(1), pp. 30-35.

Schultz, D.P. and Schultz , S.E. (1986) Psychology and

Industry Today: An Introduction To Industrial and

Organizational Psychology. Macmillan Publishing Co,

Inc.

Walumbwa, F.O., et al. (2008) 'Authentic leadership:

Development and validation of a theory-based

measure', Journal of management, 34(1), pp. 89-126.

Whittington, J.L., Goodwin, V.L. and Murray, B. (2004)

'Transformational leadership, goal difficulty, and job

design: independent and interactive effects on

employee outcomes', The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5),

pp. 593-606.

Yukl, G.A. (2010) Leadership in Organizations. 7th ed.

New York: Prentice Hall.

Yuliawan, T.P. and Himam, F. (2007) 'The Grasshopper

Phenomenon: Studi Kasus Terhadap Profesional yang

Sering Berpindah-pindah Pekerjaan', Jurnal Psikologi,

34(1), pp. 76-88.

Zabid, A.R., Murali, S. and Juliana, J. (2003) 'The

influence of corporate culture and organisational

commitment on performance', Journal of Management

Development, 22(8), pp. 708-728.

The Roles of Authentic Leadership, Self-efﬁcacy, and Employees’ Silence on Organizational Commitment in BINUS University