1. CASE STUDY
REVIEW ON MODIFICATION OF LAFFERTY’S 1973
“LIFE STYLE INVENTORY” THAT APPLY TO PUBLIC SERVICES
IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES, EAST JAVA PROVINCE 2014:
HUMAN RESOURCE ROLES IN TODAYS COMPANY
ASSURING BUSINESS SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH
APPLICATION OF PSYCHOMETRIC MEASUREMENT FOR SELECTION OF
EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE HIGH PERFORMANCE AND SUPERIOR PROFILE

2. INTRODUCTION
Main Results and Outcomes
This study presents the results of a case study
concerning implementation of assessment/test (in
the Leadership Training Program) which measure the
capacity of participants as high performance
employees.”
The study reveals important notes or evaluation on psychometric
measures of Lafferty’s Life Style Inventory as adopted in the
instrument of Assessment/Test which measures “Employee
Profiles and Performance Predictors” (E3P).
214 March 2015

3. • This study is to examine the modifications on
“psychometric measurement of Life Style Inventory
(Lafferty, 1973)” that apply to specific context of
employees in public services (top Government Officers).
• It is also to evaluate the benefits of instrument
modification based on Lafferty’s 1973 – Life Style
Inventory.
The results of examination and evaluation are expected
to be available and feasible for supporting any needs
related to developing business sustainability through
best practices of people management.
14 March 2015 3
Purposes and Aim of The Study

4. 414 March 2015
Do employees prefer to perform
Constructive-Active Style rather than
Passive-Defensive and/or Agressive-
Defensive?
FOCUS OF STUDY
Developing business sustainability through
best practices of people management

5. • The report of this study also serves as a benchmark for sustainable-
further Case Study in order to develop and create specific enrichment
to the efforts of developing a model of career management system:
contributor model.
• The study has assumed that “the most contributive profiles of human
resources who satisfy contributor model will be employees who
perform well in the achievement of superior performances profile.”
When the assumption apply to those kind of employees, then they
should also be available for selection by succession management
program with the use of test instrument based on Lafferty’s 1973 Life
Style Inventory as modified into an instrument of self assessment/test
that measures “Employee Profiles and Performance Predictors” (E3P).
BENCHMARKING
FOR SUSTAINABLE-FURTHER CASE STUDY
514 March 2015

6. • A total of 40 top-persons/officers from government offices in
East Java Province completely responded to 240-item inventory
in sessions of test-assessment being integrated as part of
leadership training program.
• Using the method of self-assessment and supported by
internal validation process, the study has reported that the
correlation between responses of participants and
comprehensiveness of “Life Style Inventory Assessment/ Test”
has been internally consistent.
• The pattern of correlations among the items of life styles has
also indicated good construct validity.
How do the Examination and Evaluation work well?
614 March 2015

7. • Factor analysis of the twelve life styles has revealed that the
instrument has been feasible and reliable for defining ways of
selecting employees based on three cluster orientations or domains
instead of four as hypothesized originally by Lafferty in the year of
1973.
• Three cluster orientations/domains include: Constructive-active
Style, Passive-Defensive Style, and Aggressive-Defensive Style (In line
with Human Synergistics International – HSI ).
• The factor analysis was undertaken within an integrated process
which facilitated activities of mapping out the factors of twelve life
styles, as analyzed by three important perspectives of management: a)
Profile of key level management, b) Profile of managerial
effectiveness, and c) Profile of problem solving
FACTOR ANALYSIS
714 March 2015

8. • The findings have indicated that the average of 40 participants has
performed more on Passive–Defensive Style and Aggressive-
Defensive Style.
• According to Lafferty (1973) this kind of performance has been less
ideal than Constructive–Active Style. It is necessary for top
executives (key level managers) to perform better on the cluster of
Constructive–Active Style rather than the other two clusters.
• The higher percentage of acquisition level in capacity of
Constructive-active Style would be better and suitable for best
chosen employees. Otherwise, the higher percentage of
acquisition level in capacity of Passive-defensive Style and/or
Aggressive-Defensive Style would be the worst condition for
management succession program.
General Profiles
Average Achievement of 40 Participants
814 March 2015

9. • By design, this study undertook an evaluation on how the
psychometric measurement of Life Style Inventory (Lafferty, 1973)
applies to specific employees in public services context (Government
Officers).
• Related to arlier study, there is an important question to examine:
It was concluded in the earlier study that: “The aim of implementing a
contributor model in career management was to answer the question of how the
employees as professional workers at a specific company should contribute to
organizational success today, and how are these same employees
necessarily to develop superior profiles of professional works in order to
ensure similar success for their tomorrow career?” (Soemarman, 2013)
• Current study continues to answer the second part of question in
earlier study.
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
914 March 2015

10. Two Specific Inquiries:
• How should professional workers as employees develop their future
career with certain assurances on their superior profiles as
contributor models?
• What kind of career management “contributor model” by which
specific company is capable to establish? How does the model work
well and support the findings of employees’ superior models?
Those two inquiries above need more specific direction which seem to
be similar with the findings of other study on contribution models of
high performance employees.
(Gene Dalton, Drs and Paul Thompson, 1977)
Further Reflection/Evaluation
1014 March 2015

11. • Other research revealed that high performing employees
“(engineers in the research sample) continually widened the scope
of their contributions by changing the Styles of behaviors they
demonstrated in their jobs over time.”
• “These engineers realized that the Styles of contributions that made
them successful early in their careers would not lead to success
later in their careers. In order to remain relevant with their
organizations’ changing expectations, change in behavior and
how their work was accomplished was needed.”
Earlier Findings on High Performing Employees
(Gene Dalton, Drs and Paul Thompson, 1977)
1114 March 2015

12. Important agenda from earlier study: How to develop ways or
provide instruments to measure superior performances of
employees?
• The agenda give assurances: It is significant and feasible to
facilitate the identification and development of employees’
superior performances profile.
• Therefore, our case study provides an overview or evaluation
by which an instrument that measures the style or patterns
of thinking and behavior on behalf of employees future
career is available and reasonable.
An Instrument to measure is Available and Reasonable
1214 March 2015

13. In our case study, the assessment/test of E3P (Employees Profiles and
Performance Predictors) proposes an assumption that “the capacity of
Human Resources can be measured by superior-predictive performance
and profiles in the 12 (twelve) Life Style Inventory (LSI) of Lafferty 1973.”
• The modification of Lafferty’s LSI (1973) has been feasible since the
instrument can be used by different context of application (Nediger,
W. G., & Chelladurai, P. 1989).
• Before applying the modification of Lafferty’s LSI into different
context, it is important to consider how the feasibility for
implementation must be consistent with reliability standard
required by Lafferty’s LSI instrument (Johns, E. F. 1989).
LITERATURE REVIEW: Reliability Standard
1314 March 2015

14. • In this study the instrument of LSI being modified has been scrutinized by
comparing between LSI method and other approaches as elaborated in MBTI
Test and managerial test application (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator – MBTI
2014, and Managerial Test Application, Cooke, R. A. 1989).
What to modify:
• Originally, the LSI uses “a combination of psychological and managerial
theories to help individuals identify their beliefs, values, behaviors, and
assumptions” (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).
• The instrument of LSI presents twenty statements for each of the twelve life
styles (total 240 statements).
• According to Lafferty, these ‘240 statements believed to be influential upon
the ways people think and behave.’ These 240 statements were constructed ‘in
the LSI 1 instrument as a self-assessment whereas the LSI 2 uses similar format
and life styles to assess an individual through input from five or more other
people.’
RESEARCH METHOD AS REFLECTED IN MODIFICATION OF LSI
1414 March 2015

15. • The LSI method of Lafferty ensures the validity of the instrument when used
in combination of LSI 1 and LSI 2 to identify strengths and weaknesses of
employees in developing a self-improvement plan, namely “consensual
validity.” (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).
• According to HSI (2013): “The Life Styles Inventory, uses Maslow's (1954)
hierarchy of human needs, which postulated physiological needs as the
strongest human needs, followed by safety needs, belonging needs, self-
esteem/self-importance needs, and finally fully developed personality needs
(Kaplan, R. M.; Saccuzzo, D. P. 2009).
• HSI (2013) also explains: “Lafferty supplements his approach to leadership
and management behavior with material from other need theorists,
management theorists, and personality psychologists (Nediger, W. G., &
Chelladurai, 1989) in order to develop a more well rounded instrument.”
Research Method in Modification continued1...
1514 March 2015

16. • This study only use LSI 1 and replace the LSI 2 with other
instrument called Test on Best Practices of Competencies
(developed by this study).
• The purpose of replacing LSI 2 with ‘Test on Best Practices of
Competencies’ is to assure the validity of administration on LSI 1
based on internal control of validity with more concrete samples
from practical behaviors related to specific competencies or
softskills (own by individual employee) in day to day basis.
• The replacement of LSI 2 was administered simultaneously within
participants self-assessment and the evaluation from co-workers.
Research Method in Modification continued 2..
1614 March 2015

17. • The procedure of test administration in modification described
above is to satisfy the requirement concerning “Consensual validity”
as the measure of agreement between self-assessment and
assessment by others (Cooke, Rousseau, & Lafferty, 1987).
Research Method in Modification continued 3..
1714 March 2015
• Test administration also supports participants to apply LSI 2 voluntary and
give feedbacks to this study. The results of feedback indicated “consensual
validity” based on assessment of affection scales (on level III of affection
‘organizing’).
• The use of LSI 2 plus-plus is to validate the findings of LSI and provide the
profiles with contextual data that include: best practices of competencies
(softskills) and level of affection scales as well.

18. Research Method in Modification continued 4..
1814 March 2015
LIFE STYLE INVENTORY
LSI I – Humanistic Helpful
LSI II – Affiliative
LSI III – Approval
LSI IV – Conventional
LSI V – Dependence
LSI VI – Avoidance
LSI VII – Opposition
LSI VIII – Power
LSI IX – Competition
LSI X – Perfectionistic
LSI XI – Achievement
LSI XII – Self-Actualization
1. Kesadaran Organisasi
(Organizational awareness)
2. Percaya Diri (Self-confidence)
3. Mengembangkan Orang lain
(Developing others)
4. Kepemimpinan Tim (Team
leaderpship)
5. Mendengar, memahami, dan
menanggapi (Listening,
understanding and responding)
6. Kesediaan berbagi
pengetahuan/keahlian/kecakapan
(Expertise, Sharing of)
7. Dampak dan pengaruh (Impact and
influence )
8. Pengendalian diri (Self-control)
9. Motivasi Pribadi atau orientasi
pencapaian (Personal motivation or
achievement orientation)
10. Perencanaan dan inisiatif
(Planning and initiative )
11. Kompetensi berpikir kritis
(Critical thinking: analytical
and conseptual thinking)
12. Pencarian informasi
(Information seeking )
13. Kepedulian tatanan dan kualitas
(Concern for order and quality)
14. Orientasi layanan klien (Client-
service orientation)
15. Keluwesan penyesuaian
(Flexibility)
16. Kerjasama Tim (Teamwork
and co-operation)
17. Empati (Emphaty)
COMPETENCIES - SOFTSKILLS

19. 14 March 2015 19
Results based on Standard of Key Level Management
Proportional Scores, Average Achievement of 40 Participants

20. Quick-look on Results
2014 March 2015

21. 2114 March 2015

22. 2214 March 2015

23. Three Clusters of Factor Analysis:
Constructive-Active, Passive-Defensive, Agressive-Defensive
2314 March 2015

24. Results of Factor Analysis
2414 March 2015
Constructive-Active Profile 81.70%
Passive-Defensive Profile 145.15%
Agressive-Defensive Profile 128.35%

25. Results of Average 40 Participants
2514 March 2015
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
3.01
1.40
3.28 3.42
3.69
3.30
4.01
2.79 2.79
2.55
3.21
2.71

26. Results of Key Level Management
International Standard
2614 March 2015
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
3.00
3.60
3.25
3.75
2.60
2.40
2.25 2.25 2.33
1.67
2.17
2.60

27. Comparison: Results of Average 40 Participants and
Key Level Management - International Standard
2714 March 2015
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
3.00
3.60
3.25
3.75
2.60
2.40
2.25 2.25 2.33
1.67
2.17
2.60
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
XI XII I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
3.01
1.40
3.28 3.42
3.69
3.30
4.01
2.79 2.79
2.55
3.21
2.71
Figure 1: Achievement of Average 40 Participants
Based on the Standard of Key Level Management
Figure 2 : LSI -International Standard of Key Level Management

28. Results of Key Level Management Standard
Proportional Scores, Average Achievement of 40 Participants
2814 March 2015

29. Constructive-
Active
59.80%
Agressive-
Defensive
Passive-
Defensive
Results of Factor Analysis: Average 40 Participants
2914 March 2015
167.23%

30. 3014 March 2015Results in comparison of perspective: PBC Vs KLM

31. 3114 March 2015
Constructive
-Active
59.80%
Agressive-
Defensive
Passive-
Defensive
167.23%
In Key Level Management, participants have been
preocupied by strong profiles of Passive-Defensive
and Agressive-Defensive
Participants have performed medium scale of Constructive-
Active Profile. Eventually, they have been capable to exceed with
strong problem solving capacity.

32. 3214 March 2015
Thank You