Main conclusion of our first year research in Medan Municipal city is, Revitalizing Cooperatives, has to be start by revitalizing cooperatives’ human resources. In second year of our research, we did experimental study by grouping sample in to treatment and no treatment cooperatives, then implementing the revitalization model that we had developed in first year. The aims of this research are:1) to measure the achievement level between cooperative treatment versus no treatment, in building Motivation, Commitment, and Integrity (MCI) after education/ training program, and 2.a) to measure the perspective differences among cooperatives treatment, in how important it is to develop and to apply Cooperative Principle and Values (CPV), from the MCI perspective, 2.b) Do perspective differences also reflect the achievement level in building MCI, to develop and to apply variables dimension (CPV). It is found, achievement level of treatment cooperative in building MCI, is significantly different from no treatment. It is also found, there is a perspective differences among cooperative treatment in how important it is to develop and to apply CPV. But, although mean-differences is indifferent, it is not always mean they have an indifferent level of achievement in building MCI, to develop and to apply CPV; and vice versa different perspective is not necessary mean, they have different level of achievement, in terms of “good” with = > 0.375 or “bad” with = < 0.375. This study also reveals that: 1) character issues and organizational conflict have a very prominent effect in developing MCI, 2) continuing education is important in the process of revitalizing cooperatives human resources. These findings, support our conclusion in first year research
The conclusion of our first year research in Medan municipal city is, Revitalization of human resources is the key to Revitalize cooperatives, through continuing education (Nainggolan, Parulian, 2017, p.6680). We picked education as a key to revitalize human resources is because education is the fifth co-operative principle out of seven Rochdale principles and has remained so; education is also link to joint ownership and democratic control (ICA, 2002). Jenkins (2009 p.22), defined Education principles include: “Education, Training and Information”. Wilson (2014 p.2), also recognized “Early co-operators lived in societies where education was reserved for the privileged, but they recognized then, as today that education was fundamental to transforming their lives – a key to enlightenment and social progress. Education and training to members, managers, and employee is important, and also “ ..can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives (ICA, 2013).
We took Motivation, Commitment, and Integrity (MCI) as variables in building character, because 1) Motivation, leads someone ready for driven to achieve internal state (Anonymous, 2016) and building motivation can be learned (Mantell, 2012, p.2); 2) Commitment, where someone has Self-discipline (Young 2007), and helping people to personally connect to the change (Miller, 2011 p.3); 3) Integrity, is aligned with the term moral integrity and ethical conduct. (Podger D, et all, 2010), and because leader integrity has long been cited as an important if not the most important leader characteristic (Moorman and Grover, 2009; Dunn, 2009), where someone has sense of consistency between words and actions.
The aims of this research are:1) to measure the MCI achievement level between cooperative treatment group versus no treatment, and 2a) to measure the perspective differences of each cooperative treatment, in how important it is to develop and to apply CPV, from the MCI perspective/ point of view, 2b). Do perspective differences also reflect the achievement level to develop and to apply CPV dimension.
As it was said before, the key to Revitalize cooperatives in Medan municipal City, has to be start by Revitalizing human resources. The formulated approaches to Revitalize human resources, is education of the CPV, leadership, and competencies materials, embedded with continuing education of building Motivation, Commitment, and Integrity, as it was plotted in the model of revitalization, designed in our first year research (Karlonta and Parulian, 2017, Appendix1). Building Motivation, Commitment, and Integrity, are needs to develop positive mindset to act clean, honest and responsible. For this reason, In second year, the focus of our research is to evaluate the managers achievement to develop MCI of cooperatives sample, to boost the Cooperative Principle and Value (CPV) development and application. Managers are a focus of unit analysis,”.. because they are leaders who play a significant role in the decision process used by followers when deciding who they will follow, who they will trust, to whom they will be loyal and committed, and ultimately for whom they will perform” (Moorman, p 107) The presence of Qualified Human Resources (QHR) with strong MCI to act clean, honest, and responsible, are important factors to obtain GCG in practice. Education of CPV, competency, integrated with character building, is expected empowering the Managers of cooperatives as well as member especially treatment cooperative, to manage their cooperative especially in developing and applying CPV, to overcome the problem.
We do believe, to improve CPV knowledge, and competency, are not as difficult as to improve character of all Managers to build positive mindset. Therefore, this research is focused to measure the perspective of Managers among cooperatives treatment, to get CPV done in their daily job from the MCI point of view and how their perspectives different from one to another, considering the current management issues.
When it comes to motivation ……—being an "inny" or an "outy" can make all the difference . Without an "inny," it's difficult—if not impossible—to develop lasting motivation. The "inny" I'm talking about is "intrinsic motivation," or a drive to achieve that comes from inside a person and isn't motivated by external rewards. (, p.2). How to build Motivation? There are four strategies to build motivation, they are:
3.1.1 Building Self Efficacy
Mantell (2012) and Roobins Sthepen P, and Coulter Mary, (2010) said, a person with high self-efficacy believes in their ability to perform a task and achieve goals. There are three ways of building self-Efficacy they are:
Ensure early success; so choose activities you're certain you can do successfully.
Watch others succeed in the activity you want to try; Witnessing their successes can boost your own self-efficacy level.
Find a supportive voice; find Personal trainers, just be sure the feedback is realistic and focused on the progress you're making instead of comparing you to others.
SMARTER, stand for: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Timely, Enthusiastically, and Rewards). Setting goal specifically, can provide clear direction so that employees know what is expected of them. Employees know what to do and where they fit (Heatfield, 2017)
3.1.4 Commitment Contracts. The idea "commitment contracts," is grounded in which are exactly what they sound like: A person commits to a behavioral change and then establishes a "contract " whereby some consequence (usually a monetary one) results from the person failing to achieve their goal.
3.2 Commitment and Building Commitment.
Cambridge Dictionary Online defined, Commitment is; a willingness to give your time and energy to something that
you believe in, or a promise or firm decision to do something. At its root, commitment can be defined as intending to continue in a line of action. Therefore, commitment is considered an important variable, mainly because it is considered to be a key motivational variable, with powerful influence on relationship affect, cognition, and Motivation (Agnew, Christhoper, 2009). Young (2007) said, three important point to build Commitment are:
3.3 Integrity and Building Integrity.
Literally, there are so many meanings of integrity. In this research we cited integrity definition by Podger D, et all, (2010), “ what integrity mean is, it requires coherence among a set of moral values that require congruence between an agent’s behavior and this set of moral/social values over time and across social context(s)”. The meaning of integrity is aligned with the term moral integrity and ethical conduct used in the literature. Moral integrity implies more than acting in accordance with one’s words/values, which could be negative. It is associated with moral conduct and acting ethically. Integrity is very important, for “ .. Integrity, it’s a missing ingredient of our lifetime Livingstone, (2011). Business practitioners have a long history of advising leadership students and scholars that integrity is of central importance to effective leadership (Gostick & Telford, 2003 in Dunn, 2009 p.102). In the model developed by Turknett (in Shahid 2013 p. 66), integrity is the foundation of leadership and it involves a careful balance between respect and responsibility. Integrity is needed by leader and its follower.
The population in second year are twenty cooperatives; we took purposely out of fifty; the population in the first year. These twenty cooperatives are considered eligible to participate in the education/ training program to revitalize cooperative human resources. The eligibility of training participant are based on our experience in case of: a) cooperativeness, b). the willingness to set their time to join the training program, c). a need of Managers to empower their cooperatives. The education approach is done by implementing Revitalization model had been designed in the first year, and the material inside. After training program, we assume all of twenty cooperative have a relative same level of knowledge about CPV, and the importance of MCI to revitalize HR.
Then after training, out of twenty, we selected six cooperatives as a pilot project, to implement the revitalization model in practice. These six cooperatives are grouped into two, three of each. One group got with treatment (experimental study), and the other group without treatment. The treatment is done by setting all material needs, monitoring and evaluation form, and formulate job description as it appropriate to each cooperative. Treatment is followed by monitoring and evaluation, consultation, FGD, and follow up, to get a picture succeed of model implementation, during experimental period.
4.2 Research Variables.
Research variables are Motivation, Commitment, and Integrity, while variables dimensions are going are Cooperative Principles and Values (CPV), which consist of: Democracy, Qualified Human Resources (QHR), Independence, Transparency and Accountability. In this research, democracy we defined in broader sense, that it included voluntary membership, member control and member participation. Variable dimensions are sub variables that are going to be measure, how does each unit analysis success to build MCI in order to develop and to apply CPV.
4.3 Data Analysis
In accordance with the aim of this research, data are analyzed with two test. To measure level of achievement between treatment and no treatment cooperatives, data were analyzed with two independent sample t test. Then to measure level of achievement among treatment cooperative, data were analyzed with ANOVA. ANOVA analysis is appropriate to compare some variables at the time, and can minimize error in making comparison (Stanislaus U, 2006). We run AOVA with Further analysis byPost Hoc Test to measure mean differences in perspective to build MCI among the three cooperative treatment, and to compare their achievement level, by referring to Homogeneous subset.
4.4 Research design.
This research is experimental Population and sample research, sample treatment, and analytical methods are presented in Diagram-1 To measure achievement level between treatment and no treatment cooperative, is analyzed with one way ANOVA, while to measure Perspective differences to build MCI, data are analyzed with ANOVA Post Hoc test, and its Homogeneous subset, is used to measure level of achievement in building MCI, to develop and to apply variable dimensions (CPV)
measure the achievement level between treatment and no treatment, in building Motivation, Commitment and Integrity to develop and to apply CPV. Results of t-test for each variable are presented in 5.1.1.,5.1.2 and 5.1.3 below
5.1.1. Motivation; Levene’s two sample t-test.
5.1.2 Commitment; Levenes two sample t- test shown below.
5.1.3 Integrity Levenes two sample t- test
5.2 Second phase: Post Hoc Test, Perspective and
Homogeneous subset analysis.
Post Hoc Test is used to measure the perspective differences in building Motivation, Commitment and Integrity among cooperatives treatment, to develop and to apply CPV, while Homogeneous Subset is used to measure the level of achievement in building MCI, to develop and to apply each dimension. Post Hoc test is run for each variable to measure each dimension; which means there are five set of analysis for each variable. Therefore not to take big space, we summarized the result of Post Hoc test and its Homogeneous subset for each variable, as shown in Table 5-1,5-2 and 5-3.
5.2.1 Post Hoc Test and Homogeneous Subset Analysis, Perspective Motivation, Table 5-1.
5.2.2 Post Hoc Test and Homogeneous Subset Analysis, Perspective Commitment, Table 5-2.
5.2.2 Post Hoc Test and Homogeneous Subset Analysis, Perspective Integrity, Table 5-3.
The discussion will be started with the achievement result to build MCI in order to develop and to apply CPV between treatment group versus no treatment, then followed by perspective analysis among cooperative treatment.
These analysis are based on the result of two sample t-test presented in 5.1.1, 5.1.2, and 5.1.3. At the beginning of second year research, both group got the same material during the training program. So, conceptually both groups are supposed to have the same level of knowledge.
6.1.1. Achievement in building Motivation.
Levene’s t-test shown, present P-value= 0.552>0.05 means, varians between two group is equal. However, t- test for equality of means, is different significantly between group with α = 0.003. This means, on the average, achievement level of treatment cooperatives in building Motivation is better than no treatment. It can be said education program followed by continuous consultation and monitoring proved succeed to build Motivation.
6.1.2 Achievement in building Commitment.
Levene’s t-test shown, present P-value= 0.036 < 0.05 means, varians between two group is different. This means, on the average, achievement level of treatment cooperative in building commitment is better than no treatment, and is very significantly different from no treatment, with α = 0.000. This means, on the average, achievement level of treatment cooperatives in building Commitment, is better than no treatment. It can also be said education program followed by continuous consultation and monitoring proved succeed to build Motivation.
6.1.3 Achievement in building Integrity.
Levene’s test shown, present P-value= 0.263 > 0.05 means, varians between two group is equal. In this variable, t-test present α = 0.765. This means on the average, there is no differences in achievement level between treatment cooperatives from no treatment in building Integrity. For Integrity variable, Levene’s test result shows, even continuous education through consultation and monitoring, has not succeed to developed Integrity in cooperative treatment.
Comparing achievement level of the two groups it can be concluded treatment group has better achievement level in building Motivation and Commitment, but not succeed in building Integrity. Unfortunately we don’t have enough information to explain this reality, because this it quite beyond our research objective. What we might should a ware is statement of Livingstone, (2011) “ … Integrity, it’s a missing ingredient of our lifetime.
General characteristics of cooperatives treatment.
Before we start the discussion about perspective analysis, we would like to make a short description of treatment cooperative that might help reader to understand dimension issues. There are three cooperative treatment, they are: Kopinkra (KR), Sinar Jaya (SJ) and Tani Kreatif (TK). Each cooperative has different characteristic and different problem, dealing with its human resources, and financial issue.
KR activity is producing rattan industry with various products. KR supply some small kinds of raw material and also financial loan to members. KR had frequently got government financial support, as well as equipment. Ironically, KR has the worst condition financially, as well as managerially. Member of KR, is very disappointed to cooperative managers and board, for they believe there is no accountability and transparency deal with government’s financial support. Most members perceive there is no fair treatment in the usage of equipment which supported by government. The members also believe there is unfairness treatment of getting loan from cooperative. It is clear, most members distrust managers and board. So it very difficult for managers to build communication between managers and member.
Sinar Jaya (SJ), still young, about three years old, has good motivated managers (which are also founder), never got government support, but willing to, if any chance. More than 80%, members are trash picker, and the rest are pedicab drivers. This cooperative established, with a back ground of the willingness of founder to help its member to get financial loan, for most of them are not bankable. So voluntary saving is quite running well. Although Manager had only finished his senior high school, but he has a good motivation to learn how to operate his cooperative, and encouraging members to work hard and honest.
Tani Kreatif (TK), from the beginning, Founder was inspired by the fact of seeing problem facing by small farmer, in terms of planting time schedule, and harvest market, and committed to help. All members are small traditional farmer. Founder has a strong commitment not to accept any government support, mainly for the reason of accountability and transparency issues.
6.2.1 Perspective analysis_ Motivation.
6.2.1.(a) Perspective differences Motivation to develop and to apply Democracy.
As we said before, Democracy we mean in a broader sense, include equality, member controlled and member participation. Table only 3.57. While in SJ education plus mentoring process is succeed to build motivation, to develop and to apply Democracy dimension with = 4.00. A case study by Sovalainnen (2011 p.3) in two well recognized SMEs revealed, “ a distrustful atmosphere prevails, which hinders communication and interaction. Distrustful atmosphere is the case facing by KR’s, whereas communication is one way of applying democracy. Iuviene N, et all, (2010) conclude democracy is important principle to keep in managing cooperative, by saying “Leadership must be effective and democratic.However, leaders must know when to hand over control to worker-owners and be mindful of perpetuating relationships of dominance and subservience that can undermine democratic intentions”. Democracy can also be developed through education and even making democracy work in our cooperatives (Healy, 2005 p.2). Failure,..” re to build democracy and low application level in KR’s, can be understood, for so many disputes and disappointed between managers and members, therefore, as Healey p.2 said, “ there is no mind full to keep communication in the organization”; so CPV democracy in KR, is practically dead. Then, comparing perspective motivation of TK’s Managers to KR’s, Post Hoc test shows, significance differences with mean differences of 0.554,and α = .022. This different perspective also resulted a significant differences in developing and applying Democracy, as it showed in Homogeneous Subset, with the average value = 4.13. Meanwhile, motivation perspective between TK’s and SJ’s is indifferent, with α .864. Homogeneous subset for SJ and TK, indicated, both consider that to build motivation to developed and to apply CPV democracy is important in the process of revitalization, with = 4.13. and = 4.00 respectively. 5-1 above, is summary of Anova Post Hoc test and Homogeneous subset. Multiple mean comparisons of Post Hoc Test shows, perspective motivation of KR’s managers is indifferent from SJ’s, in how important it is to develop and to apply CPV-democracy, with mean differences - 0.429 and α .091. Uniquely, although their motivation perspective is indifferent, Homogeneous Subset shows, application level between KR’s an SJ’s is different. Education plus mentoring process in KR was not succeed yet to build motivation to develop and to apply the principle of Democracy, which is classified bad, with
6.2.1.(b) Perspective differences in Motivation to develop QHR.
One of CPV dimension is QHR. And it is well understood that education is the way of getting QHR. Post Hoc Test result shows, motivation perspective KR’s Manager, to develop QHR, is indifferent from SJ’s with mean value . = 3.50 dan = 3.00, respectively. This mean KR’s and SJ’s not succeed to build motivation, to develop and to apply QHR. Tohidy (2012, p.36) in his research in tourism tourism industry, found out “…human resources empowerment will make them capable of finding solution to problems or improve the existing set up”. Wilson M, (2016 p.2), also found, education and training for members is important, so they can contribute effectively to the development of their cooperatives. 500 and α 0.05 5. Referring to Homogeneous subset, this indifferent perspective, also reflect indifferent level achievement, for both are classified bad, with
Then comparing perspective motivation of TK’s with KR’s, mean comparison is TK’s significantly different from KR’s with mean differences 0.87 = 3.88 versus = 3.00. Although current Managers of KR’s have a desire to empower their human resources, it seems they are stuck in the matter of how to build members trust to managers, and board. Meanwhile, although perspective SJ’s is indifferent from TK’s, Homogeneous subset shows, only TK’s succeeded in building motivation, to develop and to apply QHR with = 3.88 versus 3.50. Empowering human resources is actually important as it concluded by Ardahaey et all (2012), “ There is a strong tendency in present organizations across the world to empower their personal to increase efficiency and improve working systems”, Success of TK’s might be easy to understand, for the founder mission is to help small farmer, and one of Manager are well educated, with agriculture background. SJ’s founder actually has a very strong motivation to empower all members, unfortunately they found it is not easy to stimulate the "inny"/ "intrinsic motivation," of members, that should had driven intrinsic achieve, remembering most members are trash picker, pedicab drivers, with low education, not open minded, and less self-confidence. Whereas, self-confidence is believed a matter of changing some fundamental beliefs that can help someone to build and maintain a high level of self-motivation (Mantell,p.7). “The motivation to empower QHR leads to high level of initiative and creativity from the employee… and is therefore, extremely important for ensuring high quality performance” (Osabiya, 2015). 5 and α 0.001. This significant mean differences is also reflected in level of achievement to build motivation with in
6.2.1.(c) Perspective differences in Motivation to develop Independence
In cooperative, Independence principle is mainly meant by financially self-help. Post Hoc Test shows, KR’s Managers perspective motivation in how important it is develop motivation to be independent, is indifferent from SJ’s with mean differences = .0214, and α .686; but significantly different from TK’s with mean .714, and α = .010. Then comparing mean differences of SJ’s to TK’s, the mean is indifferent. However, though the mean is indifferent, motivation to develop independency between SJ’s and TK’s is indifferent, in fact only TK’s who succeeded in developing and to applying CPV, with =3.88, while KR’s and SJ’s cooperative only have = 3.50 dan = 3.29, respectively. The success of TK’s is not surprising, for they have a very strong commitment to be independent financially. SJ’s, as young cooperative are still in the process of accumulating their financial strength, and have much to learn how to manage cooperative in accordance with independency principle. SJ’s condition and its young age, need to eagerly educate its member. We understand well, in cooperatives main financial source in are from member. A case study in Endamohoni-Woreda by Solomon, (2017) p.11) said, “...access to training has positive relationship with members’ ability to make voluntary savings as it is expected, and is significant at 5%”. All of these three cooperatives, also operate financial loan to its member, so voluntary saving is very important. KR’s failure to build motivation to develop Independence and to apply it, is probably trigger by internal disputes, and distrust between managers and members.
6.2.1.(d) Perspective differences in Motivation to develop Transparency
Transparency may cover financial issue as well as information content. Honesty is the key to transparency. Post Hoc Test perspective motivation shows there is no mean differences at all among these three treatment cooperative in building motivation to be transparent, with all α > 0.0 ˂ 3,75. Referring to cooperatives’ characteristic, in KR’s case, an explanation of low achievement of transparency probably caused by “… distrustful atmosphere” (Sovalainnen p.3) and caused the dead of democracy. Our previous research suggest distrustful atmosphere mainly trigger by big problem in business ethics, in terms of : KR’s failed to maintain/ to manage open communication to most of member/ (as customer), even engage in practice that favor one party without the other (such as using equipment which supported by government) (Nainggolan and Parulian, 2017 p.6677) whereas Gebler D 2011) revealed “ Transparency embodies honesty and open communication”. KR could reduce the ethical problem because “…training of staff enhance their ability to cope with the difficult ethical problems (Kasasbeh et all ). In the case of Malaysian cooperative, (Mohamed and Othman, 2013 p.2283) it is proved, that transparency is important as to increase reputation in the eyes of public interest as well as to improve the cooperative’s image..”, and “…to ensure the sustainability of the cooperative (Mohamed and Othman p.2284); transparency also important in achieving competitive advantage (Tohidy, p.36). 5. Homogeneous Subset also shows, neither one of them met the good criteria to develop and to apply transparency, with all
6.2.1.(e) Perspective differences in Motivation to develop Accountability
Transparency and accountability is a pair dimension which are complementary to one another. Post Hoc Test shows no mean differences at all among these three cooperatives treatment in building motivation to be accountable with all α > 0.0 ˂ 3,75. Coleman, W. D., and Porter, T. (2000); Ebrahim, A, and Weisb E. (2007) in Mohamad et all (2013 p.1504) said, “...the core components of accountability are transparency and compliance. As we may see, low achievement is also a reality in building motivation to be transparent. For transparency and accountability are complementary to one another, it is not surprisingly to see the result. What should be done by all cooperative treatment is to empower their human resources create effective cooperative governance , for effective cooperative governance is important to promote accountability and transparency in cooperative (Mohamad ,et all 1506). TK’s achievement in developing and applying transparency and accountability dimension is higher than the other two cooperatives. However, we don’t have a further explanation why TK’s achievement for these two dimensions is low. However, the result shows TK’s has a better perspective to develop motivation to be accountable, yet, the achievement cannot be categorized well.5. Homogeneous Subset also shows, neither one of them met the good criteria to develop and to apply accountability, with all
6.2.2 Perspective Analysis _Commitment
6.2.2.(a) Perspective differences in Commitment develop and to apply Democracy.
The concept of analysis for commitment variable is just the same approach as Motivation variable. Analysis of anova Post Hoc test and Homogeneous subset of commitment variable is presented in Table 5-2 above.
Multiple mean-comparison of Post Hoc test shows perspective commitment of KR’s Managers is significantly different from SJ’s and TK’s in how important it is to develop and to apply CPV-democracy, with mean differences -0.429 and α .030, while mean comparison of SJ’s is indifferent from TK’s with α = 1.000. Homogeneous Subset shows, SJ’s and TK’s is succeeded in building commitment, to develop and to apply Democracy dimension with the same = 4.00, while application level of KR’s is classified as bad, with only 3.57. This means both TK’s and SJ’s are conscious the important of building integrity, in developing and applying CPV in cooperative management in the process of revitalization, and proved succeed. Contrary, for KR, the education plus mentoring process was not succeed yet to build commitment develop and to apply the principle of Democracy. Failure to build motivation and low application level in KR’s, can be understood, for so many disputes and disappointed between managers and members. Refer to definition of Cheney G, (1995 p.170), to apply democracy not only need commitment, but also motivation and integrity, to “ allows for the ongoing modification of the organization's activities and policies by the group. Cheney (p.190) also said, “ democratic workplace is not just a good idea, but it does take a special kind of collective commitment to make it happen. Organization commitment is also a vital component in any effective organization. (Brantley, 1993, in Shagholi.2011,p.249) said, “..in any organization, empowering communication, cooperation and commitment are essential skills to improve.
6.2.2.(b) Perspective differences in Commitment to develop and to apply QHR.
Commitment to empower HR, has to be start from individual, before developing organization commitment. Post Hoc Test result shows, commitment perspective KR’s Manager, to develop QHR, is indifferent from SJ’s with mean value .2 =3.88; while KR’s and SJ’ were classified bad, with = 3.50 dan = 3.00, respectively. Success of TK’s to develop commitment to have QHR might be easily to understand, for the founder mission is to help and empower small farmer. One of Manager as well as a board member are well educated, with agriculture background and are willing to learn from their daily activity, and empowering their members become target to be achieved. A researched about organizational commitment in education by Shagholi, et all, p.249) disclose, “ when teachers are empowered in areas important to them, they at the same time build the capacity of students. In the case of TK, Shagholi, et all’s conclusion become reality, where qualified. Managers build the capacity of cooperative members, got the technology from the right instructor, their own leader with good commitment. What we got from field, and the interview is the succeed of TK’s to assure their member the important of commitment to follow the guidance, to keep the harvest quality to be acceptable in their market. Chang (2006), in Shagholi p.249) said, Organizational commitment is important to achieve human resources capabilities. Next is SJ: SJ’s founder actually has a very strong motivation and commitment to empower all member, unfortunately they found it is not easy to stimulate the "inny"/ "intrinsic motivation," of members, that should drive intrinsic achievement. SJ’s has to keep their commitment to develop individual motivation, before they move to develop organization commitment. “Member education needs to be an important focus, more than simply informing co-operative members about the business and encouraging trading loyalty – But it must first provide avenues to learn about co-operative identity and values and should help further understanding of the rights and responsibilities of membership, including their need to exercise their democratic rights.” (Wilson, 2014 p.2). Different case are faced by KR’s. Though current Managers of KR have a desire to empower their human resources, it seems they are stuck in the matter of how to build members trust to managers, and board. For KR, Co-operative education and training program should provide managers and as well as member, to enable them to understand the distinct nature of their organization and the needs of members. 50 and α 0.571; but significantly different from TK’s with mean differences 0.625 and α 0.024. But between SJ’s and TK’s mean is indifferent. Further result of Homogeneous subset shows, only TK’s succeed to develop and to apply QHR with
6.2.2.(c) Perspective differences in Commitment to develop and to apply Independence
Independence, is a very important principle of cooperative, for it is cover some value such as, self-help and self-responsible- financially, and managerially through member control. It means to develop independence is very important in cooperative. Result Post Hoc Test perspective commitment shows, KR’s Manager, to develop Independence, is indifferent from SJ’s with mean value -.446 and α 0.142; but significantly different from TK’s with mean differences 0.696 and α 0.012. Meanwhile perspective commitment between SJ’s and TK’s is indifferent with α = 0. =3.88; while KR’s achievement is classified bad, with = 3.43. On the other side TK is succeed to build motivation to be independence, with achievement = 4.13. This level of achievement might be easily to understand, for from the beginning, the principle of independence financially, is the first outline to accept, if anybody want to join the TK cooperative. TK has a policy not to accept any financial or equipment support from government. Their policies in turn, trigger each member to pay their duty, even to do voluntary saving in their cooperative. SJ’s founder also has a very strong commitment to be independent financially, and luckily, most members prefer to save their money in cooperative instead of bank, for it is easier for them to get loan from their own cooperative than bank. Again, different case are faced by KR’s. KR’s have many things to do, to solve many problem they are facing such as settle the disputes, develop trust between manager and member, as well as among the member before they can develop any CPV dimension. Most members of KR, do not care any longer to cooperative. In the view of Ellram (1991) in Martins, a partnership, as in a cooperative, must be built on a strong commitment between the parties. Whereas Shagholi (p. 248) found, commitment organization, was a significant level of maintaining membership, and prominent level of attachment in the organization so the member can say, ” I feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization”. A study in SACCOs (Salomon, p 10) show that the number of years that members stayed is positively related to the ability of the members to have voluntary savings, and is significant at 10%. This means, maintaining membership is important as a source cooperative financial strength. The depth of the commitment of team members to work together effectively to accomplish the goals of the team is a critical factor in team success. (, 2015). 5 5 5. Though mean value of commitment perspective between KR’s and SJ’s is indifferent, Homogeneous subset shows, SJ’s succeed to build commitment to be independence, as well as to develop and to apply independence with
6.2.2.(d) Perspective differences in Commitment to develop and to apply Tranparency.
As it had been said, trust and honesty is a key to transparency. A research in Brazilian credit cooperative by Martins et all (2017 p. = 4.00. Homogeneous Subset also shows, KR’s and SJ’s failed to develop and to apply transparency, with = 3,38 and = 3.57 respectively. In Our first year research one out of three indicators, of transparency is, accessability of government regulation and policy. Treatment Cooperatives admit it is very difficult to access government regulation indicator, and then, make it more difficult to understand. This means, to develop motivation to be transparent, has to be supported by transparency of regulation as well. 56) found, trust directly and positively influenced commitment. This mean trust is not only a key of transparency, but also a key of commitment. Post Hoc Test shows perspective commitment to be transparent is indifferent between KR’s and SJ’s’ with mean differences .196 and α .752, and also indifferent from TK’s with mean differences .429, and α = .176. Meanwhile, there is a significant differences in commitment to be transparent between SJ’s and TK”s with mean value = .625 and α .023. Although mean value of KR’s is indifferent from TK’s, Homogeneous subset shows TK is succeed to develop commitment to be transparence with
In Japan, a research in commitment organization by Tao, et all (1998, p.202) said, we should conclude, organizational climate, especially relationships with colleagues, is a critical factor in influencing various aspects of organization commitment. (Gebler. D 2011) said, a partnership, as in a co-operative, must be built on a strong commitment between the parties. “ ..Transparency embodies honesty and open communication…” So as a leader, (Christine Allen p.3), advice, you have to lead by example, “ Go first. Take risks with openness and honesty, and encourage team members to do the same. The benefits, including increased innovation, collaboration and quality, will be unparalleled!” Further, by being proactive in opening up its information, and avoid the mistrust, when information is revealed after the fact (Richman,2000).
6.2.2.(e) Perspective differences in Commitment to develop and to apply Accountability.
Building commitment is important, for it is feasible to assume that trust and commitment are positively associated, whereas trust is one assumption of the existence of commitment (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Walter, Müller, Helfert, & Ritter, 2003), in Martins p.49). Result Pot Hoc test analysis of accountability dimension, give the same conclusion as it is in motivation variable, in the essence there is no difference perspective commitment among the three cooperative, with all α >.05, viewed from motivation perspective as well as perspective commitment, about the importance of building motivation and commitment to be accountable. Uniquely, though the perspective is indifferent among the three, Homogeneous Subset shows, TK’s and SJ’s is regard succeed in developing and applying accountability dimension with = 4.13, and = 3.86. Accountability as well as transparency are aligned with democracy in a sense of the role of member control. Foot ware company Patagonia, providing transparency throughout its supply chain means reducing any negative social and environmental impacts the company might have. When companies are open with employees, shareholders, and the general public, those businesses are able to build trust while also holding themselves accountable. (Richman p.2)
6.2.3 Perspective Analysis _Integrity.
6.2.3.(a) Perspective Integrity to develop and to apply Democracy.
Integrity is important, because people with integrity, are able to balance respect and responsibility, and they are able to share their values with others (Duggar, 2011); whereas open in sharing information can encourage democratic processes and active participation from all owners ( Jenkins J, 2009 s.19). Multiple mean comparison of Post Hoc Test shows, Integrity perspective of KR’s Managers is indifferent from SJ’s in considering how important it is to develop and to apply CPV-democracy, with mean differences -.449 and α .07 = 3.88, while application level of KR’s is classified bad, with = 3.43. For KR, the education plus mentoring process was not succeeded in building Integrity to apply the principle of Democracy. Failure to develop democracy and low application level in KR’s, can be understood, for so many disputes, distrust, and disappointed between managers and members. This situation make KR’s to have difficulty to start opening communication between them. 5. Uniquely, though the integrity perspective is indifferent, Homogeneous Subset shows, their achievement is different. SJ’s is succeed to develop and to apply Democracy dimension with
Then, comparing integrity perspective of TK’s Managers to KR’s, Post Hoc test shows, significance differences with mean differences of 0,= 4.00, means TK’s Manager have the best motivation to apply Democracy. This means managers of TK and SJ, are conscious the important of applying CPV-Democracy in cooperative management in the process of revitalization their human resources, and proved succeed. Members of SJ and TK support their leaders for they see consistency effort to develop democracy. This consistency effort reflect what Cheney (p.189) said: “ There seems to be a strong sense among worker-members that democracy itself is a process rather than a specific structural arrangement upon which a group or organization comes to rest or rely”; It’s a series of actions (Healey p.1), and it need integrity for sure. To take KR case as an example, KR’s have to learn how to open communication between managers and members, so the process of democracy can be started. 5 54,and α = .022. This different perspective also resulted a significant differences in developing and applying Democracy, as it showed in Homogeneous Subset, with the average value
To develop QHR is very important issue in every single organization for Human Resources are the brain and pilot of every activity. QHR perspective integrity, is focused in two issues, they are a) CPV competency and b) character (both moral and behavior). Post Hoc Test result shows, integrity perspective KR’s Manager, to develop QHR, is significantly different from SJ’s and TK’s with mean differences .7 =3.75 and; = 4.13 respectively. Succeed of TK’s might be easy to understand, for historically, the founder mission is to help small farmer, to increase the member knowledge of doing farm better, in terms of increase harvest, quality of product and pest prevention. SJ’s managers which are also founders, although faced with a very low educated people, and not opened-mind, SJ’s quite success to develop their integrity. SJ’s manager is supported by members, for they perceived existence of leader integrity. 50 and α 0.01; and -.1.125 with α .000 respectively; whereas integrity perspective of SJ’s is indifferent from TK’s, with mean-differences .375 and α .117. Homogeneous subset analysis shows, TK’s and SJ’s is succeeded in building integrity to develop and to apply QHR with
Unfortunately, SJ’s Manager do not much aware the importance of education in empowering their human resources. Although SJ’s level of achievement is qualified good, wit =3.75, yet all managers and members are really need to enhance their competency and character, as need as KR. A study by Dobre (2013 p.59) revealed, empowerment do not only enhances efficiency, growth and innovation but they also increase employee motivation and trust in the organization. Iuvienne 2010, also noted, “ Education is critical for a cooperative network’s long-term sustainability. It is a key for leadership development, management training, workplace democracy acculturation, political education and promoting a social vision”. Honesty and ethical conduct, by definition, are both aligned with moral integrity, which are also create trust. Duggar (2011) conclude, “ when we have “trust” in our dealings, … it is usually because the leadership of the company has created a culture of integrity. Furthermore, (Shahid, 74) conclude, “ the culture of integrity also impacts the behavior and administration of the leadership team and the quality of the corporate executive system”.
Empowering human resources to improve QHR in CPV- competency as principle knowledge cooperative management, (Mohamad, et all, 2013, p.1507), can be positioned in cooperatives by way of training and education. Though current Managers of KR have a desire to empower their human resources, it seems they are stuck in the matter of how to build members trust to managers, and board and others internal conflict issues.
6.2.3.(c) Perspective Integrity to develop and to apply Independence.
Jenkins (2009 s.22) recommends, in applying the independence principle, cooperative need to consider a way to “.. Act as independent organizations through your member’s control, and promote independence as a true cooperative advantage”. Tao (1998), in his study about organizational commitment found, “...organizational climate has significant effect on organizational commitment. It was interesting that this variable was the common predictor of all the components. This result suggests the importance of human relationships in the workplace for employees’ commitment toward their companies”.
Post Hoc Test shows integrity perspective to be transparent are significantly different one from another, among cooperatives, with all α < 0.0 = 4.00; while the other two, are not succeed, with < 3.75. In Our previous research one out of three indicators, of transparency, is accessability of government regulation and policy. All treatment cooperatives admit it is very difficult to access this indicator. This means, to develop integrity to be transparent, has to be supported by transparency of regulation as well. Effective cooperative governance is important to promote accountability and transparency in cooperative (Mohamed,et all, p.1506).5. Uniquely, only TK’s who succeed to develop attitude and to act transparently with
A research by (Kasassbeh, et all (2014 p.279), in the cellular communications in Jordan, found, “ There is a statistically significant effect of business ethics (in terms of honesty, integrity, and transparency) in achieving competitive advantage (cost reduction, innovation and renewal) ". Disclosure prove will enhance public trust (Mohamad, et all, p.1504). Therefore, trust is an important factor for an organization that wants to be successful, as it has the ability to enhance employees’ motivation and foster interpersonal communication (Dobre, p.58). Employees value integrity and honesty as a key component for leadership. Leaders should create a culture of trust simply because it’s the right thing to do.
6.2.3.(e) Perspective Integrity to develop and to apply Accountability.
Accountability is a matter of fair responsibility of an organization, by someone who in charge to do and to accomplish things, to authoritative source. Accountability may push successful feedback systems and good governance in any organizations including cooperative organizations. Post Hoc test on accountability, give the same conclusion as it is in transparency; in the essence that there is no perspective differences among the three cooperative, to develop and to apply accountability with all α > 0.0 = 4.13, and = 3.86 respectively, while KR’s only achieved = 3.00. KR’s have to work hard to build trust, and culture of integrity in their cooperative. According to (Shahid p.73), “Fair responsibility, need trust and integrity because: ” both are able to balance dignity and accountability, and they are able to share their values with others. Integrity Action (2013) believes, “Without transparency and accountability, it is hard to avoid fraud. This last organization proved, integrity can be built through education, and “..their integrity education network are an essential part of a national system that mobilize all sectors of society to prevent corruption, fraud, unethical behavior and mismanagement of public funds. Lack of integrity among the management and the members in some cooperatives, are contributing to the inefficient performance of cooperatives in Malaysia experience, may affect the ability of cooperative to maintain certain level of accountability (Mohamad, et all p.1503). The same issue also faced by Indonesian cooperatives, for such a long time, but yet unsolved, especially dealing with government support.5. Uniquely, though the perspective is indifferent, Homogeneous Subset shows, TK’s and SJ’s is regard succeed in building integrity to develop and to apply transparency and accountability dimension with
Understanding and Application. What we understand out of such a long discussion and explanation is that Post Hoc test of MCI perspective analysis among cooperatives treatment shows, although mean-differences is indifferent, it is not always mean they have an indifferent level of achievement in building MCI, to develop and to apply CPV; and vice versa different perspective is not necessary mean, they have different level of achievement, in terms of “good” with = > 0.375 or “bad” with = < 0.375. Referring to the case faced by KR, this study reveals that character issues has a very prominent effect in developing MCI, such as: internal distrustful atmosphere (Solavainnen, 2011), ethical problem (Kasasbeh, et all, 2014 ); (Duggar, 2006), honesty and open communication (Allen C, 2017 ); (Duggar, 2006); (Gebler, 2011); (Healey, 2005), consistency effort (Cheney, 1995). While competency and leadership have prominent effect on transparency (Mohamad and Othman 2013) and Accountability (Mohamad, et all 2013),
It is found, achievement level of treatment cooperatives in building Motivation and Commitment, is significantly different from no treatment, but has no difference in building Integrity. Yet, continuing education is important in the process of human resources revitalization.
Continuous education integrated with character building in terms of building MCI, is of great importance, in the process of human resources revitalization, and therefore support our first year conclusion.
Character issues, as well as organization conflict have a very prominent effect in building MCI, and in the process of developing and applying variable dimensions (CPV).
The importance of Education, training, and information as the fifth principle of cooperatives, is strongly emphasized by the world's cooperative organizations (ICA 2013) in the process of revitalizing human resources. This importance is also admit by some previous experts and researchers, because applying this principle consistently, boost positive effect to cooperative such as: Sustainability, (ICA 2013); (Iuvienne 2010), deepen their commitment to the cooperative model (Jenkins 2009), contribute effectively to the development of cooperative (Wilson M 2016), knowledge management (Mohamad, et all, 2013), fundamental transforming,…. and a key to enlightenment and social progress (Wilson, 2016), and proved to be succeed in various countries (Nainggolan and Parulian, 2017).
First of all, we wishes to thank the reviewer of this article, Andri Zainal PhD, and Marlon Sihombing PhD for their insights on this paper. Special thank we also give to officer in Cooperative department, of Medan city, Arjuna Sembiring, head of Cooperative office Medan city, and Darwin Perangin-angin, who really support this research by disclosed so many important issues in cooperative development. We also thank to Mukhlis, at the office of National Cooperative Council, who shared his many experience in cooperative development in Medan, and Murdeni Muis, as a former cooperative officer, who express many idea, during the ongoing FGD. Thank you to our student, Rangga, Turisno Sihombing, Rika F, Sri M, and Ricky T, whom so helpful in many ways.
- Introduction Part of the introduction is based on Vassiliki Markidou, ‘Shakespeare’s Greek Plays’, Ph.D. diss., Lancaster University, 1998. Available at EThOS (British Library e-theses online service), http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.533059 (accessed 27 May 2016). Shakespeare and Greece.. Google Scholar
- Trust, Truth, and Transparency: Why Hard Facts and Corporate Honesty Matter Peacock Matt. Mastering Business for Strategic Communicators.2017;:151-157. Google Scholar
- Human Resources Empowerment and Its Role in the Sustainable Tourism Ardahaey FatemeTohidy, Nabilou Hamid. Asian Social Science.2011-dec. Google Scholar
- Cambridge illustrated dictionary of astronomy Choice Reviews Online.2008-aug;:45-6520. Google Scholar
- Democracy in the workplace: Theory and practice from the perspective of communication Cheney George. Journal of Applied Communication Research.1995-aug;:167-200. Google Scholar
- Business Ethics and the Sciences Rothlin Stephan, McCann Dennis. International Business Ethics.2016;:47-63. Google Scholar
- The effects of formal mentoring on employee work motivation, organizational commitment and job performance Orpen Christopher. The Learning Organization.1997-may;:53-60. Google Scholar
- Corporate integrity: rethinking organizational ethics and leadership Choice Reviews Online.2006-jan;:43-2735. Google Scholar
- Perceived leader integrity scale: An instrument for assessing employee perceptions of leader integrity Craig SBartholomew, Gustafson SigridB. The Leadership Quarterly.1998-jun;:127-145. Google Scholar
- Work Cooperatives Wolski Jan. Cooperativism and Democracy.;:241-265. Google Scholar
- A Teacher’s Companion to Essential Motivation in the Classroom .2015. Google Scholar
- EMPLOYMENT STABILIZATION INSIDE FIRMS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF WORKER COOPERATIVES NAVARRA Cecilia. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics.2016-jan;:563-585. Google Scholar
- Worker Cooperatives in Practice Malleson Tom. After Occupy.2014;:54-90. Google Scholar
- 49th Annual Device Research Conference [front matter]  49th Annual Device Research Conference Digest.1991. Google Scholar
- The impact of the transformational leadership in the administrative creativity: An Applicative Study on the industrial companies (Mining and Extraction) in Jordan kasasbeh EmadAli, Harada DrYoshifumi, Osman DrAbdullahBin, Noor DrldrisMd. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences.2014-may. Google Scholar
- Article not yet available online .2001. Google Scholar
- What is Value? The Blue Line Imperative.2015;:1-21. Google Scholar
- The level of influence of trust, commitment, cooperation, and power in the interorganizational relationships of Brazilian credit cooperatives Martins DeniseMaria, Faria AnaCristinade, Prearo LeandroCampi, Arruda AlessandroGustavoSouza. Revista de Administração.2017-jan;:47-58. Google Scholar
- Adoption of IFRS in Malaysia and the information content of earnings Othman IntanWaheedah, Ching PokWee, Arshad Roshayani. 2011 IEEE Colloquium on Humanities, Science and Engineering.2011. Google Scholar
- Mosque Fund Management: Issues on Accountability and Internal Controls Mohamed IntanSalwani, Aziz NoorHidayahAb, Masrek MohamadNoorman, Daud NorzaidiMohd. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.2014-aug;:189-194. Google Scholar
- Your complete guide to college success: How to study smart, achieve your goals, and enjoy campus life. Foss DonaldJ. .2013. Google Scholar
- Hill, Maj. Gen. Giles Patrick, (born 6 Jan. 1967), General Officer Commanding 1st (UK) Division, since 2015 .2015. Google Scholar
- Challenges to leader integrity Moorman Robert, Grover Steven. Ethical Dilemmas in Management.2008;:53-63. Google Scholar
- The effect of employees motivation on organizational performance Osabiya BabatundeJoseph. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research.2015-may;:62-75. Google Scholar
- The Earth Charter and the ESDinds Initiative Podger Dimity, Piggot Georgia, Zahradnik Martin, Janoušková Svatava, Velasco Ismael, Hak Tomas, Dahl Arthur, Jimenez Alicia, Harder MarieK. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development.2010-sep;:297-305. Google Scholar
- Co-operative Principles and Co-operative Law Across the Globe HenrĂż Hagen, Michie Jonathan, Blasi JosephR, Borzaga Carlo. .2017. Google Scholar
- Observer motion controls for multiple targets considering Doppler-bearing measurements Kim Jonghoek, Suh Taeil, Ryu Jonha. 2016 16th International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems (ICCAS).2016. Google Scholar
- ANALISIS SIMULASI KEBIJAKAN PENINGKATAN EKSPOR MANGGIS INDONESIA Ashari Tiara, Setiawan Budi, Syafrial Syafrial. HABITAT.2015-apr;:61-70. Google Scholar
- Work–Life Balance: Can You Actually Make That Happen? You Dahui. Frontiers in Pediatrics.2016-jan. Google Scholar
- The consequences of organizational commitment in education Shagholi Reihaneh, Zabihi MohammadReza, Atefi Masood, Moayedi Farzaneh. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences.2011;:246-250. Google Scholar
- Introduction Part of the introduction is based on Vassiliki Markidou, ‘Shakespeare’s Greek Plays’, Ph.D. diss., Lancaster University, 1998. Available at EThOS (British Library e-theses online service), http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.533059 (accessed 27 May 2016). Shakespeare and Greece.. Google Scholar
- Financial product development and members’ voluntary saving behavior in saving and credit cooperatives in Tigray: A case study in Endamohoni Woreda Dirar SolomonAbadi, Berhanu Tekeste, Getachew Dereje, Azadi Hossein, McMillan David. Cogent Economics & Finance.2017-feb. Google Scholar
- Leadership in Higher Education in Adopting a Telecommuting Program Snodgrass PJ, Brewer ErnestW. Technology and Its Impact on Educational Leadership.;:90-103. Google Scholar
- Building the Team Harrod Molly, Saint Sanjay, Stock RobertW. .2017. Google Scholar
- Motivation to learn Hallam Susan, Hallam Susan, Cross Ian, Thaut Michael. .2012. Google Scholar
- A study of antecedents of organizational commitment Tao Masao, Takagi Hiroto, Ishida Masahiro, Masuda Kei. Japanese Psychological Research.1998-nov;:198-205. Google Scholar
- Motivation as Important as Education in Type 2 Diabetes TUCKER MIRIAME. Clinical Psychiatry News.2008-mar. Google Scholar
- ARE COOPERATIVES MORE PRODUCTIVE THAN INVESTOR-OWNED FIRMS? CROSS-INDUSTRY EVIDENCE FROM PORTUGAL MONTEIRO NatáliaP, STRAUME OddRune. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics.2018-mar. Google Scholar