This document summarizes a research study that analyzed potential differences in substitutes for leadership between academic and non-academic staff at Andalas University in Padang, Indonesia. The study distributed questionnaires to 254 employees, including 161 non-academic staff and 93 academic staff. The results found some differences in leadership substitutes between the two groups, with academic staff influenced by 2 factors and non-academic staff influenced by 5 factors. The study aimed to identify if substitutes for leadership exist at the university and what impacts they have when top executives are unable to directly influence subordinates.

1. “ANALYZING OF SUBSTITUTE FOR LEADERSHIP: IS THERE ANY
DIFFERENCE AMONG ACADEMIC AND NON ACADEMIC STAFF?”
CASE: ANDALAS UNIVERSITY
Rahmad Eka Putra
Economic Faculty, Andalas University, Padang
Dr. Rahmi Fahmy SE, MBA
ABSTRACT
The research has the purpose to find out and analyze about the differences of substitutes for
leadership among academic and non-academic staff. The research was conducted in the
head office and each faculty of Andalas University. The questionnaires were distributed to
254 employees specifically 161 non-academic staff and 93 academic staff using stratified
random sampling method. The data analyzed using SPSS 16. The research found the
differentiation of leadership substitute among academic and non-academic staff in Andalas
University. Moreover, there are some potential factors that make leadership substitute
happen for both types of staff. Additionally, the finding shows there are 2 factors that
potential as substitutes in academic and there are 5 factors that potential as substitutes in
non-academic.
Keywords: Substitutes for Leadership
INTRODUCTION
The leadership in the organization
has to change based on the
development and maturation of the
organization. Early on, in creating the
organization, the leaders have to
serve more as the animators. In the
organization’s building phase, they
must be more Creators of Culture. A
leader should be more sustainers of
the organization’s culture to maintain
the organization and when changes in
the organization are needed, they
must become Agents of change
(Schein, 1995).
The relationship between leader
behavior and subordinate readiness
(situational instrumentality) can be
moderated or influenced by the
characteristics of subordinates and
the readiness level of skill or
knowledge. Organizational
characteristics proposed as potential
substitutes included the level of
formality, inflexibility, highly active
advisory and staff functions, closely
knit and cohesive work groups, lack
of leader control over rewards, and
spatial distance between leader and
subordinates (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).
The concept of substitutes for
leadership represents an extension of
the some contingency approach
theory of leadership. The final
contingency approach suggests that
situational variables can be so
powerful if they actually substitute
for or neutralize the need for the
leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). A
substitute for leadership makes the
leadership style unnecessary or
redundant.

2. The ability to utilize substitutes to
fill leadership gaps is often
advantageous to organizations to be
success. It’s the ability of the leaders
to influence his subordinates by
making them more satisfied,
committed and in return increases
productivity (Mosadeghrad, 2003).
Leader need to fill all of that in order
to fulfill the subordinate’s
expectation and if the subordinates
already felt satisfy and committed, it
will increase the productivity from
each organization.
Andalas University is one of
popular university in Indonesia which
located in Padang, West Sumatera.
This university also noticed as the
only University in Sumatera which
get A for the acknowledgement. This
institution which has an intention to
be a world class university may take
a look that it is important for this
institution to combine the substitute
to fill leadership gap. Otherwise, the
researcher would like to know
whether there is a situation where
substitutes for leadership are exist in
UNAND or not. What happen to this
organization when there is no top
executive level who can give a direct
influence to the subordinates by
comparing among academic (which is
lecturer) and also non-academic.
Problem Statements
The research question of this
study are :
1. Are there any differences of
substitute for leadership among
academic and non-academic
staff?
2. What are the factors that
potential as the leadership
substitute for academic and non
academic staff ?
Research Objectives
The purposes of this study are:
1. To find out and analyze the
differentiation of substitutes for
leadership among academic and
non academic staff in Andalas
university
2. To find out and analyze the
certain factors of substitute for
leadership that happens to
academic and non academic
staff in Andalas University.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Substitute for Leadership
Leadership is influence
relationship among leaders and
followers who intend real changes and
outcomes that reflect their shared
purpose (Rost, 1993). Leadership
occurs among people; it is not
something done to people. Since
leadership involves people, there must
be followers (Daft, 2005). Leadership
is defined according to their individual
perspectives and the aspects of the
phenomenon of most interest to them
(Yukl, 1989).
There are three wide approach
to leadership as same as the new
leadership approach (Robbin, 1996).
The recent approach is the contingency
approach that suggest situational
variables can be so powerful that they
actually substitute for or neutralize the
need for the leadership (Kerr and
Jermier, 1978). A "substitute" is
defined to be a person or thing acting
or used in place of another (Fratangelo,

3. 1998). A "neutralizer" is defined as
something which is able to "paralyze,
destroy, or counteract the effectiveness
of" something else (Fratangelo, 1998).
Substitutes for leadership do
have direct effects on outcome
variables; these main effects of
substitutes for leadership could be
created in situations where leadership
was impossible, ineffective, or merely
inconvenient (Howell, Bowen,
Dorfman, Kerr, & Podsakoff, 1997).
(Lyon, 2003) describe Podsakoff et
al.’s (1996) meta-analysis of the
relationship of the substitutes for
leadership with job attitudes, role
perceptions, and performance. It shows
that substitutes for leadership had
stronger relationships with employee
criterion variables than did leader
behaviors.
A summary of the eight
propositions about leadership theory
upon which substitutes theory
developed is presented below: As
pressure increases, As intrinsic
satisfaction from a task increases, The
less the subordinate relies on the leader
for information, the less likely it is t h
a t the subordinate will accept
initiating structure behavior, The lack
of task ambiguity, As the difference
between the subordinates’ expectations
and his perception of behavior, The
lack of consideration, The greater the
autonomy of the subordinate, The
perceived upward influence
Substitutes Category
Individual Characteristics
Individual substitutes are
characteristics of the individual
employee that can substitute for
leadership, increasing the likelihood
that the employee will be satisfied and
productive at a distance.
Task Characteristics
Certain tasks characteristics
decrease the need to rely on others to
get work done and should therefore be
related to performance in a virtual
setting. However, these task
characteristics may not be
unanimously associated with higher
satisfaction.
Organizational Characteristics
This dimension includes
characteristics of the organization that
might affect the performance and
commitment of the subordinates. The
organizational characteristics in the
substitute’s world are organizational
formalization, organizational
inflexibility which means the rules of
the organization will tend to be
something that could be followed and
also obeyed.
Hypothesis
This research was designed to
investigate and analyze the substitutes
of leadership in Andalas University
Padang, West Sumatera by comparing
among academic and non-academic
staff. The hypothesis which can be
design in this research are:
H0 : There is no significant difference
of substitute for leadership among
academic and non academic staff in
Andalas University
Ha : There is significant difference of
substitute for leadership among
academic and non academic staff in
Andalas University

4. RESEARCH METHOLODGY
This research is a descriptive study
to describe the characteristics of the
variables. Descriptive studies are
undertaken in organization to learn
about and describe the characteristics
of a group of employees, as for
example, the age educational level, job
status, and length of service, who
working in a system (Sekaran, 2003).
Population and Sample
Population of the research are
the staff (employee and lecturer) in
University of Andalas. The total
amount of population in University of
Andalas is this research is 26.855
elements (January, 2014), that consists
of 24.604 students, 1.386 lecturers, and
865 employees, but in this research,
author only focus on lecturers and also
the employee which are the amount of
the population is around 2251.
Sekaran (2003) says that the
right sample size to use is more than
30 and less than 500 samples. Sample
of the research are the the staff
(employee and lecturer) in University
of Andalas. This sample is processed
by stratified convenience random
sampling. The total of the sample are
254 that consist of 161 in non
academic and 93 for academic.
Data Analysis
The data will be obtained
through questionnaires, and would be
processed by using Microsoft Office
Excel to obtain frequencies of
substitutes for leadership on employee
and lecturer. The SPSS with the recent
for windows program also been used to
analyze the differences of respondents
in terms of substitute for leadership by
obtaining One Sample T-Test.
Theoretically, the maximum score of
any dimension could be 5 and the
minimum 1. The mean between 1 and
2.49 represented low leadership
substitute, 2.50 to 3.50 represents
moderate substitutes for leadership and
between 3.50 until 5 represent high
leadership substitute (Kerr and Jermier,
1978).
RESULT AND ANALYSIS
The researcher will interpret and
analyze the data which given by the
employee and lecturer at University of
Andalas, as respondents. The
respondent consists of staff (employee
and lecturer) in every department and
faculty in Andalas University.
Questionnaires distributed on April
2014. On this research, there are 254
questionnaires which given to 254
respondents, specifically 161 for
employee and 93 for lecturer in
Andalas University. All of the
questionnaires are return completely

5. Validity Test
Validity Testing Academic –
Data Based on Research 2014
Dimension Indicator
Correct
Item
Validity
Ability
Experience,
Training and
Knowledge
AETK1 0.475 VALID
AETK2 0.494 VALID
AETK3
0.150
NOT
VALID
Professional
Orientation
PO1 0.438 VALID
PO2
0.131
NOT
VALID
PO3
0.048
NOT
VALID
Indifference
toward
Organizational
Rewards
ITOR1 0.381 VALID
ITOR2(R)
-0.075
NOT
VALID
ITOR3
-0.094
NOT
VALID
Unambiguous,
routine, and
methodologically
invariant tasks
CT1 0.376 VALID
CT2(R)
0.133
NOT
VALID
CT3
0.148
NOT
VALID
CT4 0.374 VALID
CT5 0.335 VALID
Task-provided
feedback
TPFC1 0.448 VALID
TPFC2
(R)
0.371 VALID
TPFC3 0.329 VALID
Intrinsically
Satisfying Task
IST1 0.437 VALID
IST2 (R) 0.378 VALID
IST3 0.367 VALID
Organizational
Formalization
OF1
0.165
NOT
VALID
OF2
0. 235
NOT
VALID
OF3 0.592 VALID
OF4 0.476 VALID
OF5 0.457 VALID
OF6 0.485 VALID
OF7 0.403 VALID
OF8 (R) 0.339 VALID
OF9 (R) 0.429 VALID
Organizational
Inflexibility
OI1 0.498 VALID
OI2 (R)
0.247
NOT
VALID
OI3 0.565 VALID
Advisory and
Staff Functions
ASF1
0.250
NOT
VALID
ASF2
0.101
NOT
VALID
ASF3 0.357 VALID
ASF4 0.310 VALID
Closely-knit,
cohesive,
interdependent
work groups
IWG1
0.160
NOT
VALID
IWG2 0.432 VALID
IWG3
0.121
NOT
VALID
IWG4 0.303 VALID
IWG5 0.354 VALID
Organizational
rewards not
within the
leader's control
NLC1 (R) 0.334 VALID
NLC2 (R) 0.324 VALID
NLC3 (R) 0.402 VALID
NLC4 (R)
0.168
NOT
VALID
NLC5 0.152 NOT
VALID
NLC6
0.165
NOT
VALID
NLC7 0.485 VALID
NLC8 (R)
0.186
NOT
VALID
Spatial distance
between superior
and subordinates
SDBS1 0.453 VALID
SDBS2 0.579 VALID
SDBS3 0.368 VALID
Subordinate
need for
independence
SNFI1 (R) 0.409 VALID
SNFI2
0.276
NOT
VALID
SNFI3
0.244
NOT
VALID
SNFI4 0.428 VALID
SNFI5
0.036
NOT
VALID
Source: proceed from questioners by using
SPSS
Validity Testing Non Academic –
Data Based on Research 2014
Dimension Indicator
Correct
Item
Validity
Ability
Experience,
Training and
Knowledge
AETK1 0.334 VALID
AETK2 0.317 VALID
AETK3
-0.168
NOT
VALID
Professional
Orientation
PO1 0.371 VALID
PO2 0.343 VALID
PO3
0.216
NOT
VALID
Indifference
toward
Organizational
Rewards
ITOR1 0.328 VALID
ITOR2(R)
0.095
NOT
VALID
ITOR3
0.388 VALID
Unambiguous,
routine, and
methodologically
invariant tasks
CT1 0.356 VALID
CT2(R)
0.200
NOT
VALID
CT3
0.202
NOT
VALID
CT4
0.366
NOT
VALID
CT5 0.320 VALID
Task-provided
feedback
concern
accomplishment
TPFC1 0.398 VALID
TPFC2
(R)
0.119
NOT
VALID
TPFC3
0.472 VALID
Intrinsically
Satisfying Task
IST1
0.298
NOT
VALID
IST2 (R) 0.345 VALID
IST3 0.335 VALID
Organizational
Formalization
OF1
0.156
NOT
VALID
OF2 0.527 VALID
OF3 0.341 VALID
OF4 0.386 VALID
OF5 0.487 VALID
OF6 0.377 VALID
OF7 0.331 VALID
OF8 (R)
-0.129
NOT
VALID
OF9 (R)
-0.188
NOT
VALID

6. Organizational
Inflexibility
OI1 0.448 VALID
OI2 (R)
0.116
NOT
VALID
OI3 0.641 VALID
Advisory and
Staff Functions
ASF1
0.269
NOT
VALID
ASF2
-0.091
NOT
VALID
ASF3 0.324 VALID
ASF4
0.177
NOT
VALID
Closely-knit,
cohesive,
interdependent
work groups
IWG1
0.240
NOT
VALID
IWG2 0.500 VALID
IWG3
0.103
NOT
VALID
IWG4 0.431 VALID
IWG5 0.324 VALID
Organizational
rewards not
within the
leader's control
NLC1 (R) 0.393 VALID
NLC2 (R) 0.363 VALID
NLC3 (R) 0.413 VALID
NLC4 (R)
0.133
NOT
VALID
NLC5
0.046
NOT
VALID
NLC6 0.327 VALID
NLC7 0.520 VALID
NLC8 (R)
0.289
NOT
VALID
Spatial distance
between superior
and subordinates
SDBS1 0.474 VALID
SDBS2 0.541 VALID
SDBS3 0.334 VALID
Subordinate
need for
independence
SNFI1 (R) 0.303 VALID
SNFI2 0.358 VALID
SNFI3 0.398 VALID
SNFI4 0.335 VALID
SNFI5
0.188
NOT
VALID
Source: proceed from questioners by using
SPSS
Reliability Test
Data based on research at
2014
Source: Processed from questionnaires using
SPSS
Frequency Distribution of
Respondent
Substitute for Leadership
No Variable Minimum Maximum Mean
1
Substitute
for
Leadership
(A)
2.32 4.10 3.29
2
Substitute
for
Leadership
(NA)
2.36 3.95 3.28
Source: Proceed from questioners by
using SPSS
The researcher got the data for
the average of the variable in each
sample. The average result in
leadership substitute for lecturer is
3.29 and for the employee are 3.28.
The result is not significantly different.
Theoretically, the maximum score of
any dimension could be 5 and the
minimum 1.
Based on Kerr and Jermier in
1978, mention the mean between 1 and
2.49 represented low leadership
substitute, 2.50 to 3.50 represents
moderate substitutes for leadership and
between 3.50 until 5 represent high
leadership substitute. It means overall
the average of substitute for leadership
in academic staff and non academic
staff is in moderate level of leadership
substitute. It could be sometimes true
to be happen and sometimes not to be
happen.
Variables
Cronbach's
Alpha
Item
Rem
ark
Substitute
for
Leadership
(A)
0.602 58
Reli
able
Substitute
for
Leadership
(NA)
0.607 58
Reli
able

7. Hypothesis Testing
Hypothes
is
Sig Remarks
Lecturer 0.000 Supported
Employe
es
0.000 Supported
Source: processed from questionnaires by
SPSS
Ha : There is significant difference of
substitute for leadership among
academic and non academic staff in
Andalas University
It showed that the t-test found
the significant differences, which is
lower than 0.05. Ha is supported. It
means there is a significant difference
in substitutes for leadership between
academic and non academic staff in
Andalas University and the previous
literature study is not supported the
current research that has been made by
researcher.
Substitutes for Leadership
Measurement
Total Academic Respondents
„Respond of Substitute for
Leadership‟
Dimension Item Ave Tot Status
Ability
Experience,
Training and
Knowledge
Dimension
AETK1 4.10
4.02 High
AETK2 3.95
Professional
Orientation
PO1 3.52 3.52 High
Indifference
toward
Organizational
Rewards
ITOR1 3.05 3.05
Moderate
Unambiguous,
routine, and
methodologically
invariant tasks
CT1 3.08
3.2 ModerateCT4 2.88
CT5 3.64
TPFC1 3.69 3.47 Moderate
Task Provided
Feedback
concerning
accomplishment
TPFC2 2.96
TPFC3 3.76
Intrinsically
Satisfying Tasks
IST1 3.72 3.50 Moderate
IST2 3.05
IST3 3.74
Organizational
Formalization
OF3 3.41
3.35 Moderate
OF4 3.17
OF5 3.56
OF6 3.60
OF7 3.62
OF8 3.05
OF9 3.09
Organizational
Inflexibility
OI2 2.32 2.7 Moderate
OI3 3.08
Advisory and
Staff Functions
ASF3 3.58 3.30 Moderate
ASF4 3.03
Closely-knit ,
cohesive,
interdependent
work groups
IWG2 3.25
3.01 ModerateIWG4 2.67
IWG5 3.13
Organizational
Reward not
within the
leader‟s control
NLC1 3.34
3.12 Moderate
NLC2 3.08
NLC3 3.46
NLC7 2.63
Spatial Distance
between
superior and
supervisor
SDBS1 3.51
3.15 ModerateSDBS2 2.90
SDBS3
3.04
Subordinate
Need for
Independence
SNFI1 3.61
3.43 Moderate
SNFI4
3.25
Source: primary data source
The result presented in table
shows the highest value is 4.02 from
Ability, Experience, Training and
Knowledge Dimension, it explains
these three important things will affect
the role of leader. By having the
abilities Ability, Experience, Training
and Knowledge Dimension, the
lecturer are be able to work
independent without leader’s guidance.
Leader is the one who can
influence others and make their
follower follow what they have done,
but this dimension already substitutes
the leadership role for the leader, boss
or chair in Andalas University.
The lowest value is 2.70 from
organization inflexibility. This
dimension is about the written rules
from Andalas University. It explains
that lecturers sometimes do not aware

8. about the rules and do not care about
the punishment that would be happen
for them.
The rules in Andalas University
are not really strict, so it means, the
leader or top executive management
should make really strict regulations in
making the lecturer in this organization
become discipline about the rules. Do
not make rule just become a simple
rules in the written documents.
Total Non Academic
Respondents „Respond of
Substitute for Leadership‟
Dimension Item Ave Tot Status
Ability
Experience,
Training and
Knowledge
Dimension
AETK1 3.95
3.89 High
AETK2 3.84
Professional
Orientation
PO1 3.52
3.52 High
PO2 3.53
Indifference
toward
Organizational
Rewards
ITOR1 2.77
2.92 Moderate
ITOR3 3.07
Unambiguous,
routine, and
methodologically
invariant tasks
CT1 3.03
3.18 Moderate
CT4 2.86
CT5 3.66
Task Provided
Feedback
concerning
accomplishment
TPFC1 3.60
3.57 High
TPFC3 3.54
Intrinsically
Satisfying Tasks
IST2 2.95
3.33 Moderate
IST3 3.72
Organizational
Formalization
OF2 3.94
3.64 High
OF3 3.55
OF4 3.55
OF5 3.64
OF6 3.54
OF7 3.65
Organizational
Inflexibility
OI1 2.36
2.74 Moderate
OI3 3.13
Advisory and
Staff Functions
ASF3 3.53 3.53 High
Closely-knit ,
cohesive,
interdependent
work groups
IWG2 3.11
3.01 Moderate
IWG4 2.77
IWG5 3.15
Organizational
Reward not
within the
leader‟s control
NLC1 3.42
3.14 Moderate
NLC2 3.03
NLC3 3.37
NLC6 3.29
NLC7 2.60
Spatial Distance
between
superior and
supervisor
SDBS1 3.27
2.92 Moderate
SDBS2 2.72
SDBS3 2.78
Subordinate
Need for
Independence
SNF1 3.61
3.19 ModerateSNF2 2.56
SNF3 3.13
SNF4 3.49
Source: primary data source
The result presented in table
shows the highest value is 3.89 from
Ability, Experience, Training and
Knowledge Dimension, it explains
these three important things will affect
the role of leader. By having the
abilities Ability, Experience, Training
and Knowledge Dimension, the
employee are be able to work
independent without leader’s guidance.
The lowest value is 2.74 from
organization inflexibility. This
dimension is about the written rules
from Andalas University. It explains
that employees do not aware about the
rules and do not care about the
punishment that would be happen for
them.
Comparison Result among
Academic and Non Academic
Respondents „Respond of
Substitute for Leadership‟
No Dimension
Total
(A)
Total
(NA)
1
Ability Experience, Training
and Knowledge Dimension
4.02 3.89
2 Professional Orientation 3.52 3.52
3
Indifference toward
Organizational Rewards
3.05 2.92
4
Unambiguous, routine, and
methodologically invariant
tasks
3.20 3.18
5
Task Provided Feedback
concerning accomplishment
3.47 3.57
6 Intrinsically Satisfying Tasks 3.50 3.33
7
Organizational
Formalization
3.35 3.64
8 Organizational Inflexibility 2.70 2.74
9
Advisory and Staff
Functions
3.30 3.53
10
Closely-knit , cohesive,
interdependent work groups
3.01 3.01

9. 11
Organizational Reward not
within the leader‟s control
3.12 3.14
12
Spatial Distance between
superior and supervisor
3.15 2.92
13
Subordinate Need for
Independence
3.43 3.19
Source: primary data source
Substitutes for leadership are
apparently prominent in many different
organizational settings, but their
existence is not explicated in any of the
dominant leadership theories (Kerr and
Jermier, 1978).
The highest value is ability,
experience, training, and knowledge is
the most potential leadership substitute
in Andalas University. By supporting
the contention which is given by the
data, most of staff whether lecturer and
employee perceived that their Ability,
Experience, Training, and Knowledge
rendered them competent enough to
conduct their daily activities
independent of the superior.
Comparison result among
Academic and Non Academic
respondents „Characteristic of
subordinate of Substitute for
Leadership‟
No Dimension
Total
Academic
Total
Non
Academic
1
Ability Experience,
Training and
Knowledge
Dimension
4.02 3.89
2
Professional
Orientation
3.52 3.52
3
Indifference toward
Organizational
Rewards
3.05 2.92
4
Subordinate Need for
Independence
3.43 3.19
Total 3.50 3.38
Source: primary data source
The result presented in table
shows the significant result about the
category of substitute for leadership in
term of subordinate orientation,
Academic staff which are lecturer are
having the highest value with 3.50
compare to non academic which are
employee in Andalas University who
only have the value 3.38.
It means the quality of
substitute for leadership for most of
lecturers in Andalas University are
bigger than employee, These
characteristic is related about the
individual personality, personality will
affect the professionalism in working
area, and professionalism will also
affect the commitment and results from
the individual.
Lecturer in Andalas University
also need for independence in setting
their working behavior compare to the
employees, independence mindset for
lecturer will make the lecturer could
manage the class better and create a
good environment to their working
scope. Employee will need the rest of
their team to create a good
environment and make the creative
working environment in their own
units.
Comparison result among
Academic and Non Academic
respondents „Characteristic of
the task of Substitute for
Leadership‟
No Dimension
Total
Academic
Total
Non
Academic
1
Unambiguous,
routine, and
methodologically
invariant tasks
3.20 3.18
2
Task Provided
Feedback
concerning
accomplishment
3.47 3.57
3
Intrinsically
Satisfying Tasks
3.50 3.33
Total 3.39 3.36
Source: primary data source
It means the quality of
substitute for leadership for most of

10. lecturers in Andalas University are
bigger than employee, by doing every
task based on passion will make
someone condition be better, any
pressure happened could be handle
well done.
In this data, the researcher gets
the point about the employees in
Andalas University. These employees
use their own feedback to asses about
their performance whether they do it
correctly or not. They analyze their job
description and make it connect by
themselves without any guidance from
their superior.
Comparison result among
Academic and Non Academic
respondents „Characteristic of
the organization of Substitute
for Leadership‟
No Dimension
Total
Academic
Total
Non
Academic
1
Organizational
Formalization
3.35 3.64
2
Organizational
Inflexibility
2.70 2.74
3
Advisory and
Staff
Functions
3.30 3.53
4
Closely-knit ,
cohesive,
interdependent
work groups
3.01 3.01
5
Organizational
Reward not
within the
leader‟s
control
3.12 3.14
6
Spatial
Distance
between
superior and
supervisor
3.15 2.92
Total 3.10 3.16
Source: primary data source
It means the quality of
substitute for leadership for most of
employees in Andalas University are
bigger than lecturer in term of
organization category, feedback is
important for every lecturer to get a
clear measurement and understanding
about how well we perform in one
company.
Based on these data, the
researchers conclude the employees in
Andalas University have good advisor
in assess their performance. The staff
will be important to assess the leader’s
behavior.
The feedback could affect the
positive and also negative. Positives
things will be happen if someone who
gets the feedback can accept the
feedback wisely, analyze it and make it
better for the future. It would be
different with the negative perspective,
because there will be pro and cons.
The cons will be happen if
someone personally can’t accept it and
prefer to think it over without any
action to improve it. Employees in
Andalas University will use the
organization staff to ask for
information and find a feedback; the
role of leader will be neutralized by
staff function in Andalas University.
CONCLUSION & IMPLICATION
The conclusions that could be
taken from the research are:
1. The result processed in one
sample T-Test has shown there
is a significant difference of
substitute for leadership among
academic and non academic
staff. The results shows the
ability, experience, training,
skill and knowledge was the
most believed substitute to exist
for both sample which are
academic and also
nonacademic. For the lower
score is organizational

11. inflexibility which shows the
substitute for leadership
received relatively low scores
and would limit the probability
of their functioning as
substitutes. Organizational
inflexibility which determines
these dimension are
“sometimes true and sometimes
untrue.” Therefore, these
substitutes are not believed to
exist, nor are they nonexistent
in the Andalas University.
2. Based on the result, the factors
that make substitute for
leadership happen in lecturers
in Andalas University are
ability, training, experience and
knowledge. These factors make
the role of leader could be
substitutes and the lecturers
don’t really need leader to
guide them in term of working
area. By having the ability
lecturer already is able to teach
and do their job description
well, by having the experience
lecturer can learn from the past
mistakes and will not make any
further problem in the future.
An experienced lecturer has
gained competence and
acquired the skill to conduct the
daily activities of lecturer
without principal input. The
other factor is the professional
orientation that makes lecturer
work professionally in finishing
their task.
3. Based on the result, there are 5
factors that make substitute for
leadership happen in employees
in Andalas University. Those
are ability, training, experience
and knowledge. Professional
Orientation, Performance
feedback, Organizational
formalization, and advisory of
staff functions. These factors
make the role of leader could
be substitutes and the
employees don’t really need
leader to guide them in term of
working area. The other four
factors exist to represent the
capacity of leadership
substitute for the non academic
staff such how to lead the work
professionally, give and get the
feedback, use the staff function
and also the formalization that
happen in Andalas University.
4. Based on the result, it shows
the differences between each
category of substitute for
leadership among academic and
non academic staff. These
categories lead the individual
characteristic and task
characteristic make the
leadership can be substitute for
the lecturers. House and
Mitchel (1974) suggest that
individual, task and
organizational characteristic
will help to determine whether
or not hierarchical leadership
likely to matter. The category
of organizational characteristics
employees in Andalas
University are having greater
value compare to lecturer. It
happen because the hierarchy
from the organization put staff
or employee as the main part to
manage the organization.

12. Implications
The result shows there is
significant difference of leadership
substitute for academic and non
academic staff. The differences is in
each dimension even though for
professional orientation and cohesive
work groups shows the both staff agree
in the same way about the professional
orientation can make leadership to be
substitute and also for cohesive work
groups usually exist to substitute the
leadership. Ability, experience,
training, and knowledge of skill are
considered as the most dimension that
substitute the leadership’s role. It could
be reasonable because most of the
respondent had obtained a master
degree even though most of their
experience is around 0-5 years.
It also shows two out of three
categories from substitute for
leadership, which are individual and
task characteristic as the categories that
supported substitute for leadership in
lecturer. In the other hand,
organization characteristic as the
supported category for leadership
substitute in employee of Andalas
University.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. and Shön, D. 1978.
Organizational Learning: A
Theory in Action Perspective.
New York: Addison-Wesley
Akinboye, J.O. (2005). Executive
behaviour battery. Ibadan:
Stirling-Horden Publishers.
Armstrong, M. (1999). Human
resources management practice.
London: Kogan Page.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K.
(1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 44,
Bass, B.M and Avolio, B.J. (1990).
Transformational leadership
development: Manual for the
multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Palo Alto: CA
Consulting Psychologist Press.
Bommer, William .H. (1995).
Contextual influences on
transformational leader
behavior’s effectiveness:
Transformational leadership in
substitutes for leadership
framework. Indiana University.
USA
Cook, D Thomas & Campbell T
Dhonald. (1979). Experimental
and quasi-experimental and
design for generalized causal
inference. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.
Daft, L Richard. (2005). The
Leadership Experience (Third
Edition). Canada: South-
Westren, Thomson
Desler, Gary. (2005). Human Resource
Management, 10th Edition. Ney
Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

13. Fahr, J.L., Podsakoff, P.M., & Cheng,
B.S. (1987). Culture-free
leadership effectiveness versus
moderators of leadership
behavior: An extension and test
of Kerr and Jermier’s
“substitutes for leadership”
model in Taiwan. Journal of
International Business Studies
18.
Federle, Mark Osborn. (1990).
Substitute for leadership in the
environment of of unionized
construction carpenter.
University of Michigan,
Michigan, USA.
Filley, A. C., House, R. J., & Kerr, S.
(1976). Managerial process and
organizational behavior (2nd
ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott,
Foresman.
Fratangelo, Catherine Ann (1998). :
The Relationship of Substitutes
for Leadership and
Organizational Climate in the
elementary school. S t John’s
University Jamaica, New York
Freeston, K.R. (1987). Leader
substitutes in educational
organizations. Educational
Administration Quarterly. 23,
2, 45-59.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The
validity of the job
characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 287-322
Gibson et al., (1995). Organizational
Behaviour, Structure, Process.
Tenth Edition. Richard D.
Irwin-McGraw Hill Inc. USA.
Griffin, Ricky W., & Ebert, Ronald J.
(2005). Business, 7th Edition.
Pearson Prentice-Hall. Inc
Hackman, R., & Oldham, G. (1976).
Motivation through the design
of work: Test of a theory.
Organizational Behavior and
Haman Performanee, 1976, 16,
250-279.
Hair, Josep F. Anderson, Tatham,
(1998). Multivariate Data
Analysis With Readings, 3rd
Edition. New York: Macmilan
Publishing Company.
Howell, J.P., Bowen, D.E., Dorfman,
P.W., Kerr, S. & Podsakoff,
P.M. (1990). Substitutes for
leadership: Effective
alternatives to ineffective
leadership. Organizational
Dynamics, 19(1), 21-38
Howell, J.P., Bowen, D.E., Dorfman,
P.W., Kerr, S. & Podsakoff,
P.M. (1997). Substitutes for
leadership: Their meaning and
measurement – an historical
assessment. Leadership
Quarterly, 8(2), 113-116.
Hutton, Mongezi (2007), The
relationship between leadership
style and employee
commitment: and exploratory
study in an electricity utility of

14. South Africa”. Rhodes
University. South Africa.
Jon P. Howell and Peter W.Doffman,
1986. Leadership and
Substitutes for Leadership
Among Professional and Non
Professional worker. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science
Jiang, Xin. (2010). How to Motivate
People Working in Teams.
International Journal of
Business and Management.
Vol. 5 Iss. 10, pg 223. Toronto:
Canadian center of science and
education.
Kerr, S. & Jermier, J. M. (1978),
“Substitutes for Leadership:
Their meaning and
Measurement,’’ Organizational
Behavior and Human
Performance 22 (1978): 375-
403;
Lyon, Julie Stella. (2003). Does distant
leadership make a difference?
Exploring the effect of
leadership and substitute for
leadership on virtual worker
performance and satisfaction.
University of Maryland. USA
Miner, J.B. (1975). The uncertain
future of the leadership
concept: An overview. In J.G.
Hunt and L.L. Larson (Eds.),
Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH:
Kent State University Press, pp.
197-208.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric
theory (2nd
ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2003), “The role
of participative management
(suggestion system) in hospital
effectiveness and efficiency”,
Research in Medical Sciences,
Vol. 8 No. 3, Isfahan, pp. 85-9.
(Relationship of Leadership
Styles employee commitment)
1587. Retrieved March 28,
2011 from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/256
799
Pallant, J. (2007), SPSS Survival
Manual: A Step by Step Guide
to Data Analysis using SPSS
for Windows (3rd edn.),
Berkshire, England: Open
University Press McGraw-Hill
Education.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and
Bommer, W.H. (1996), “Meta-
analysis of the relationships
between Kerr and Jermier’s
substitutes for leadership and
employee job attitudes, role
perceptions, and performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 81 No. 4, pp. 380-99

15. Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B.
(1996), “Transformational
Leader Behaviors and
Substitutes for Leadership as
Determinants of Employee
Satisfaction,Commitment,
Trust, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors”, Journal
of Management, Journal of
Management 1996 22: 259
Podsakoff, P.M. & MacKenzie, S.B.
(1997). Kerr and Jermier’s
substitutes for leadership
model: Background, empirical
assessment, and suggestions for
future research. Leadership
Quarterly, 8(2), 117-125
Pitner, N.J. (1986). Substitutes for
principal leader behavior: An
exploratory study. Educational
Administration Quarterly. 22,
2, 23-42.
Pitner, N.J. (1988). Leader substitutes:
Their factoral validity in
educational organizations.
Educational and Psychological
Measurement 48, 2, 307-315.
Robbins, S.P. (1996). Organizational
Behavior, 7th ed. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Robbins, Stephen P. and Mary Coulter.
(2002). Management 7th
edition. Pearson Education, Inc:
Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the
Twenty-First Century.
Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Safitri, Asni W (2013). The
Relationship Between
Leadership Styles and
Followership Style. (Case:
Andalas University). Padang.
Salancik, G.R. (1977). Commitment
and the control or
organizational behaviour and
belief. In BStaw and G.
Salancik (ed), New direction in
organizational behaviour.
Chicago: St Clair Press,pp. 1-
59.
Sanotoso, Singgih. (2001). Mengolah
Data Statistik secara
professional. Jakarta: PT Alex
Media Komputindo.
Schein, Edgar H. (1995). The leader of
the future: Sense and nonsense
about culture change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S. K., &
Niles-Jolly, K. (1994). Creating
the climate and culture of
success. Organizational
Dynamics, 23, 17-29.
Sekaran U. (2003). Research Methods
For Business: A Skill Building
Approach, 4Th Ed. New York,
Chichester, Weinheim,
Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16. Uzonwanne, Francis C. (2007).
Leadership style and decision
making models among
corporate leader in Non-Profit
organization. Capella
University
Yukl, G. A. (1989). “Managerial
leadership: A review of theory
and research”, Journal of
Management, 15(2):251-289.
Zedeck, S. Problems with the use of
"moderator" variables.
Psychological Bulletin,
1971,76, 295-310