COMMUNICATIVE LEADERSHIP, WORKING ENVIRONMENT

AND EMPLOYEES’ EXTRA ROLE PERFORMANCE

‘PROVIDING SERVICE’: A CASE STUDY OF
SOUTH JAKARTA MATAHARI
DEPARTMENT STORES

THESIS

Presented by:
Name
Student ID
R : Endah Setyowati
: 172.1028.0098
P
Concentration : Corporate
Communication
S

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

L

The Magister Ilmu Komunikasi Degree

JAKARTA
MAR, 2020
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost praises and thanks to God the Almighty for being with me,

and giving His blessing, strength, and courage to me to complete my

research. It was only His strength that enabled me to do such thorny, tiring

and yet exciting short journey in writing this research.

Many thanks I address to my thesis advisor, Ms. Janet Pinaria for her

guidance and the spirit she has given, Mr Ari S. Widodo for his insights and

R
long discussion, and for thesis coordinator Mr. Tunggul and Mr Albert for their

kind helps. Without their supports I would have never been able to finish my
P
thesis.

I also thanks to my parents for their endless prayers, my husband Fahmi

S

Harsandono for his understanding and patience during my study and

research especially in the month of February in which I mostly locked my self

L

up in the studying room day and night, my sons Dega Hayuningwang and

Eba Diwangkara for their support, being nice and always being there for me

when I needed them. I hope this will also encourage them in pursuing their

education.

Abundant thanks to Mr. Kevin who has allowed me to do this research in

Matahari Department Store, my friend Tri Budi Handayani who has

introduced and advocated this great PR school to me, and my beloved fun

and witty classmates: Ade who was very patient in helping me arranging the

pages, Dagna, Dyah Ian, Jonathan, Lisa, Michicka, and Ria, who have made
things easier to go through and have supported each others in the joy and

sorrow moment, my lecturers who have shared their great and fruitfull

knowledge. It is like Ibu Kita Kartini saying “Habis gelap terbiltlah terang” that

could describe my condition from zero knowledge of PR to “good” one.

Many thanks to all people who have supported me in completing my thesis

directly and indirectly. Last but not least, I would like to apologize if there any

mistakes or wrongdoing during the research writing that I did intentionally or

unintentionally and if the result of the research hurts people’s feeling.

R
P
Jakarta, March 2020

Endah Setyowati
S
L
L
S
P
R
 RESEARCH ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

I, Endah Setyowati, a student of Master’s Degree Programme of STIKOM

London School of Public Relation-Jakarta majoring in Corporate

Communication with a Student ID 172.1028.0098, certify that my thesis

entitled “Communicative Leadership, Working Environment and Employee

Performance ‘Providing Service’: A Case Study of South Jakarta Matahari

Department Store” is my own work and adhered to academic integrity.

R
If, in the future, any part of this manuscript is proven to be a result of
P
plagiarism, I am willing to accept the consequences that will lead to the

cancellation of my Master’s Degree from STIKOM London School of Public

S

Relations-Jakarta
L

Jakarta, 3th March 2020

Endah Setyowati
CURRICULUM VITAE

Endah Setyowati

0815 8946280

PROFILE

Passionate customer service expert with more than 13 years of experience

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
R
2019 – now Managing Partner EMT, PT. Erajaya Megah Tiga
P
2006 - 2018 Head of Customer Service Dept. Matahari Department Store,

PT. Matahari Department Store

S

2001 -2006 Training Manager, PT. Mitra Adiperkasa

L

1997 – 1999 HRD, PT. Bintang Tunggal Gemilang

1995 – 1997 Training Supervisor, Gajah Tunggal Group

1994 – 1995 Bahasa Instructor, Indonesia Australia Language Foundation

1993 – 1994 English Teacher, International Language Program

EDUCATION

1988 – 1993 English Department, Satya Wacana Christian University

ABSTRACT

SEKOLAH TINGGI ILMU KOMUNIKASI

LONDON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS-JAKARTA
MASTER DEGREE IN COMMUNICATION

Name : Endah Setyowati

NIM : 172.1028.0098
Thesis Title : Communicative Leadership, Working Environment and
Employee Performance ‘Providing Service’: A Case Study
of South Jakarta Matahari Department Store
Total Page :
R
References : books, journal articles
P
Competition in retail industry is tougher nowadays. To win the
competition, an organization needs to have good outputs which one of them
derived from front liners’ performance: providing service excellence. Good
interaction with customers is ‘must have’ to result excellent service. In order
S

to conduct good interaction, the organization needs to apply communicative

leadership which according to (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2014)
categorized into four behavior: Initiating Structure, Facilitating Work,
Relational Dynamic, and Representing Employee and the Unit, which most of
L

them are also reflected in the behavior working environment factors: Goal
setting, performance feedback, Supervisor support and mentoring/coaching.
The purpose of the research is to reveal whether communicative
leadership behaviors and working environment factors positively influence
employee performance which is providing service excellence to customers
both separately and simultaneously, how communicative leadership
behaviors and behavior working environment factors are applied in the
organization. The research employed mixed method where quantitative data
was obtained through questionnaire surveys of 772 MDS employees, and
three FGDs and an in-depht interview to support the data.
The research finding confirmed that Communicative Leadership
behaviors influenced 25.1% of Employees extra role Performance. Employee
Performance was 48% influenced by Behavior Working Environment.
Communicative Leadership and Working Environment collectively influenced
51.2% of Employee Performance. In addition, the organization had not
applied good communicative leadership and behavior working environment
factors well.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................. ii

TABLE OF FIGURES ...................................................................................... x

CHAPTER I .................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background of the Study ...................................................................... 1

1.2.

1.3.
R
Problem Statement ......................................................................... 11

Study Objectives ............................................................................. 15

P
1.4. Significance of the Study ................................................................ 17

1.4.1. Academic Significance ................................................................ 17

S

1.4.2. Practical Significance .................................................................. 17

1.5. Scope and Delimitation ................................................................... 18

L

1.6. Definition of Term .................................................................................. 19

CHAPTER II ................................................................................................. 23

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK..................................................................... 23

2.1. Literature Review ............................................................................ 23

2. 2. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................ 24

Organizational Communication .................................................................... 25

Communicative Leadership ......................................................................... 26

Working Environment ................................................................................... 29

Employee Performance: Service Excellence ............................................... 35

ii
2.3 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 38

CHAPTER III ................................................................................................ 39

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD ......................................................... 39

3.1. Research Paradigm .............................................................................. 39

3.2. Research Method .................................................................................. 40

3.2.1. Quantitative Method ........................................................................... 40

3.2.2. Qualitative Method ............................................................................. 41

3.2.3. Mixed Method .................................................................................... 41

R
3.2.4 Data Collection Technique .................................................................. 43

3.3.1. Primary Data ...................................................................................... 44

P
Population and Sampling ............................................................................. 45

Key Informant............................................................................................... 47
S

Questionnaire............................................................................................... 48

Focus Group Discussion .............................................................................. 50

L

In-Depth Interview ........................................................................................ 50

3.3.2. Secondary Data ................................................................................. 59

3.3 Data Analysis Technique ....................................................................... 59

3.3.1 Pre Test .............................................................................................. 60

3.4.1.1 Validity Test ..................................................................................... 60

3.4.1.2 Reliability Test.................................................................................. 61

3.4.2 Data Triangulation ............................................................................... 61

3.4.3 Descriptive Test .................................................................................. 61

3.4.4 Classical Assumption Test .................................................................. 62

iii
3.4.4.1 Normality Test .................................................................................. 62

3.4.4.2 Multicollinearity Test......................................................................... 62

3.4.4.3 Heteroscedasticity Test .................................................................... 63

3.4.5 Correlation Analysis ............................................................................ 63

3.4.6 Regression Analysis ........................................................................... 64

3.4.6.1 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis ................................................ 65

3.4.7 Variable Operationalization ................................................................. 66

3.4.8 Qualitative Data Analysis .................................................................... 73

R
3.4.9. Research Focus ................................................................................. 74

3.5 Time and Place of Study ........................................................................ 83

P
3.6 Limitation of Research ........................................................................... 85

CHAPTER IV ............................................................................................... 86
S

QUANTITATIVE and qualitative ANALYSIS ................................................ 86

4.1 Research Object Description ................................................................. 86

L

4.1.1 Matahari Department Store Overview ................................................. 86

4.1.1 Characteristics of Respondents and Informants ............................... 200

4.1.2.1 Respondents .................................................................................. 200

Age and Gender of Respondents............................................................... 200

Location of Questioanire Dispatch ............................................................. 202

4.2 Key Informants ..................................................................................... 203

4.3 Pre-Test Result ...................................................................................... 88

4.3.1 Validity Result ..................................................................................... 88

4.3.2 Reliability Result ................................................................................. 90

iv
4.4 Descriptive Test and Qualitative Results ............................................... 92

4.4.1 Variable X1: Communicative Leadership (Communication Behaviors) 92

4.4.1.1 Initiating Structure ............................................................................ 94

4.4.1.2 Facilitating Work ............................................................................ 110

4.4.1.3 Relational Dynamic ........................................................................ 129

4.4.1.4 Representing Employees and The Unit ......................................... 143

4.4.2 Variable X2: Working Environment (Behavioral / Non-Physical Working

Environment).............................................................................................. 156

R
4.4.2.1 Goal Setting ................................................................................... 158

4.4.2.2 Performance Feedback .................................................................. 180

P
4.4.2.3 Supervisor Support ........................................................................ 208

4.4.2.4 Mentoring and Coaching ................................................................ 227

S

4.4.3 Variable Y: Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior Performance -

Service Excellence) ................................................................................... 247

L

4.4.3.1 Delivering the Promise ................................................................... 251

4.4.3.2 Providing A Personal Touch ........................................................... 255

4.4.3.3 Going the Extra Mile ...................................................................... 258

4.4.3.4 Dealing Well with Problems and Quiries ........................................ 261

4.5 Classical Assumption Test ................................................................... 264

4.5.1 Normality Test ................................................................................... 264

4.5.2 Multicollinearity Test ......................................................................... 266

4.5.3 Heteroscedasticity Test ..................................................................... 267

4.6 Correlation Analysis ............................................................................. 268

v
4.7 Regression Analysis ............................................................................ 271

4.7.1 Simple Linear Regression Analysis Hypothesis 1 ............................. 271

4.7.2 Simple Linear Regression Analysis Hypothesis 2 ............................. 273

4.7.3 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis ................................................. 274

4.7.4 Determination Coefficient Test .......................................................... 275

4.7.5 F Test ................................................................................................ 278

4.7.6 t Test ................................................................................................. 280

CHAPTER V .............................................................................................. 303

R
Discussion ................................................................................................. 303

5.1 Communicative Leadership.................................................................. 303

P
5.1.1 Initiating Structure ............................................................................. 303

5.1.2 Facilitating Work ............................................................................... 200

S

5.1.3 Relational Dynamic ........................................................................... 203

5.1.4 Representing Employee and the Unit ............................................... 206

L

5.2 Working Environment (Behavioral / Non-Physical Working Environment)

................................................................................................................... 208

5.2.1 Goal Setting ...................................................................................... 208

5.2.2 Performance Feedback ..................................................................... 211

5.2.3 Supervisor Support ........................................................................... 215

5.2.4 Mentoring and Coaching ................................................................... 219

5.3 Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior Performance – Service

Excellence) ................................................................................................ 222

vi
5.4 Communicative Leadership (X1) and Non-Physical Working Environment

to Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior Performance – Service

Excellence) ................................................................................................ 225

CHAPTER VI ............................................................................................. 304

Conclusion and recommendatION ............................................................. 304

6.1. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 304

6.2 Recommendation ................................................................................. 305

6.2.1 Theoritical Recommendation ............................................................ 305

R
6.2.2. Practical Recommendation .............................................................. 306

References................................................................................................. 336
P
Appendix .................................................................................................... 346
S
L

vii
 TABLE OF FIGURES

R
P
S
L

x
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

Indonesian retail industry has been in a dark stage for the past few

years.We have been bombarded with news about a large number of retail

stores that closed in 2017, such as 190 7-eleven outlets (Kusuma, 2017),

713 stores in Glodok, four Hypermart stores, Ramayana’s eight branches,

R
Matahari Department Store’s two stores, Lotus’s five channels, and some

Dabenham’s showrooms (Daftar Retail di Indonesia yang Memilih Menutup

P
Usaha, 2017). Despite the fact that the slow growth occurred in semester 1

2017: “more or less retail growth in April was at 4% but decreased by 3.6% in
S

May and those numbers are taken from 5 formats of retailers which are

minimarket, supermarket, hypermarket, department stores and wholesalers”

L

(Fauzi, 2017), the retail industry is at its peak of competitive state. This is

because the products and brands sold in the industry are similar. For

instance brands such as “Executive”, “Simplicity”, “Kickers”, “Adidas” and

“Maybelline” and many other brands, are offered by fashion stores or most

department stores in Indonesia.

Even though on line retail seems to threaten brick and mortar retailers,

it has not yet impacted the business significantly especially in the department

1
 2

stores. For example based on Matahari Department Store’s KYC (Know Your

Customer) survey that was conducted in 2017, it showed that only 3.05% of

its customers shopped on line (Matahari Department Store, 2017). Still, no

matter how small the percentage was, it would reduce the cake slice in the

market.

To win the competition in the industry stores or department stores

need to have a differenciation, and it lies on the service delivery that

employees provide as products offered and the ambience are similar among

R
the stores. Johnston (1995) also said that predominant and determinant

aspect of customers’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction is staff-customers

P
interaction. Hence, front liners play a very important role in generating the

company’s cash and to winning the competition. Front liners are defined as
S

people who work on the front lines of a business operation, primarily in

customer service role (McQuerrey, 2018). In other words, no matter how

L

good the products that are offered, or how nice the stores look, if the people

in the stores serve the customers in a bad way and in an inappropriate

manner, sooner or later the customers will leave and never come back. This

will influence the longevity of a company. That is why front liners are the

spearhead of the company.

However, front liners will only perform well if they have good

knowledge of what they are doing, what their company’s objectives are and

how they achieve the goals. It is leaders’ accountability in organizations to

ensure their front liners stay on the right track. As a cosequency, leaders play
 3

a very crucial part in ensuring excellent service delivery, and yet too many

service providers are under led because of insufficiency in the service

leadership as most of the time leaders are not in the field to coach, praise,

correct or observe their teams or subordinates (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, &

Berry, 1990).

A research in a so called ‘Alpha’ bank in the United State of America

showed that the service quality did not happen, because the front liners did

not fully focus on the customers they were serving, it also revealed that there

R
were two things that hindered excellent service, the first one was inadequate

of role support such as not enough training and coaching from skilled leaders
P
and the second one was inadequate of role environment such as the bank

culture in which good performance went unnoticed, and was unappreciated

S

or unrewarded by immediate supervisors or leaders (Berry, Parasuraman, &

Zeithaml, 1988). It means the above bank leaders did not apply
L

communication behaviors both for manager-employee level and team or unit

level as they did not facilitate work for their subordinates and have a

relational dynamics.

When the writer was still the Head of Customer Service Department in

PT. Matahari Department Store, there was once a hard complaint from a

customer which actually started with a simple case. A customer just needed

to exchange a product he bought. Unfortunately, the customer service officer

who handled the case needed a leader’s authorization, ans was unable to get

one. None of store leaders who were supposed to be on the working site /
 4

floor at all time were around. During the waiting time the officer had already

tried to page leaders through PA several times and searched them on the

floor but no avail. It took more than 30 minutes for a leader to appear before

the customers who was in a hurry and it obviously resulted a formal apology

demand. Regrettably, it was not just any formal apology that the furious

customer wanted but a top management one that should involve not only the

store manager but also Directors of the company, otherwise he would

escalate the case to a higher level. The small product exchange case turned

R
into a chaotic case in the company and created disappointment in customer.

It was just because the leaders failed to present on the working site. This
P
incident would not have happened if the leaders had been present on the site

at all time.
S

A customer complaints occured due to MDS leader was another story

that tinted MDS’s journey was when there was a front liner who did not do
L

her job as expected by her leader. Instead of coaching her and waited until

she finished attending a customer, the supervisor raised her voice and said

improper words to her in front of customers who were being served by the

front liner then. The customers felt not being respected and humiliated then

complained instantly to MDS management. The leader who should have set

an example for her team did the opposite. She taught no manner to her team

indirectly. The above cases picture what Johnston (1995) said that

predominant and determinant aspect of customers’ satisfaction and

dissatisfaction is staff-customer interaction or interface.

 5

Besides applying a good leadership in the organization, providing

good working environment should draw organization management’s

attention. Bäckström, Ingelsson and Johansson (2016) also said that a

succesfull organization practices excellence in leadership, and good working

environment. Unfortunately, based on the result of a pre-survey about

working environment in Matahari Department Stores (MDS), which was

conducted in 5 (five) South Jakarta stores (MDS Pejaten Village, MDS

Kemang Village, MDS Kalibata, MDS Citos and MDS Blok M), as shown in

R
figure 1 below, there was only one working environment factor that had an

index above 80 or had highest index which was 82. It was goal setting factor.
P
The rest 9 (nine) factors were below 80. They were physical factor that had

the smallest index (65) and was followed by role congruity factor 66, then
S

environmental factor 69, job aid 70, supervisor support factor and opportunity

to apply factor had the same index which was 74, and was followed by
L

performance feedback factor, defined process factor and mentoring /

coaching factor which was 76. According to Anjar Prayitno, a manager in

MDS Store Operation, the good index of Matahari Department Store

standard was 81 – 90 while for fair index was 71 – 80, and below 71 was

considered poor. It meant out of 10 working environment factors, only one

was good, 5 factors were fair and 4 were poor.

 6

Figure 1: Working Environment Factors

R
P
Sources: Pre research data, 2018
S

Figure 2: Bottom Index in Mentoring / Coaching, Performance Feedback, Job

L

Aid, Environmental Factors, Supervisor Support, Physical Factors, & Role

Congruity
 7

Source: Pre research data 2018

The figure 2 above shows that Matahari Department Stores

employees wanted their leaders to provide enough time to coach them. Even

though among the bottom indexes it had the highest index: 70, it was still

considered below average / poor based on MDS standard. Doing regular

feedback on front liners at least in quarterly basis to improve their skill and

performance was what the employees wanted and it had index 65. The

employees also considered their job aid in the field was not up to date and

R
needed up dated from time to time, hence the index was only 65. In term of

resting area and ventilation the employees thought they were not satisfying,
P
so the index was 63. The front liners also rated their immediate supervisors

as not empathetic enough as they were not able to share their problems with
S

their supervisors. This factor had an index below 60 which was 59. The

employees also felt that the organization did not provide them with enough
L

benches in the canteen for all employees to sit and relax during their break

time. As a result this physical factors had the second lowest index: 50. The

last factor that was on the bottom index was role congruity. Employees

thought that male employees were more easily to get promoted in the

company, as the index was still very low at 49.

Factors shown in figure 1 that involve interaction between leaders and

subordinates are goal setting, mentoring/coaching, performance feedback

and supervisor support. According to Alex, the MDS General Manager those

4 factors were becoming the management priorities in improving store

 8

operating excellence. If we see further on the four factors above, Supervisor

Support index was at the bottom, meaning that the leaders had not provided

the followers with enough support yet such as giving reward or

acknowledgment, being empathetic by being a good listener for their

followers and having good reciprocal communication.

The index of Matahari Department Stores leaders’ presence in the

area or on the floor that was represented by MOD (Manager on Duty) was

only 63 in the Mystery Shopping Report (Matahari Department Store, 2017)

R
although MDS standard was 100. The absence of leaders will cause weak

relationships due to lack of informal and formal socialization. Leaders’

P
presence is important not only to entwine interaction that results a

communication with customers but also build good relationship with the
S

employees, especially millennial employees who value teamwork.

Howe & Strauss (2000) categorized millennials as people who were

L

born between the years of 1982 to 2000. Chen and Choi (2007) mentioned

that millennials regard work environment more than their previous

predecessors’ generation which are Boomers and Gen Xers do.

Unfortunately, Matahari Department Stores’ lack is now highly regarded by

the young workers / millennials or in other words, what considered priority for

millennials has not been provided by the stores. To attract the millennials to

stay and perform in the company, they must be treated in n such a way that

matches their values and self-worth. By having a taken for granted working

environment which millennials value a lot, will worsen not only their state of
 9

being as their value is not granted but also leave disappointment in them that

causes them putting more effort in managing their emotion displays.

Howe and Strauss (2000) explained that millennials’ traits are self

confident and enjoy team work. Millennials tend to articulate what they want

very clearly and express their feeling openly as they are very confident. They

rarely filter their emotional display. Morris and Feldman (1996. p.99) also

stressed on “. . . the greater the variety of emotions to be displayed, the

greater the emotional labor of role occupants will be”. Let alone without

R
having any obstacles in their emotions, millennials will still have little

problems in managing their feeling display.

P
Not only having unsupportive leaders, the uncondusive working

environment worsens the millennial employee’s condition. As Grandey (2003)

S

said in her study that personnel in an organization who feel positive at work

will conduct less acting during their work. In other words, the above condition
L

will make the millennial front liners unhappy, then they will have to act more

which is not millennials’ strength. Failure in acting will create bad interaction

with customers. Thurau, Groth, Paul and Gremler (2006, p.62) said “a

change in a customer’s emotions due to an employee’s emotional display

should influence the customer’s satisfaction”. This means due to millennial

front liners’ negative emotional display will change their customers’ emotion

to negative and it will perceive bad service. If the front liners do not show

positive emotion display it is difficult to gain valuable or good behavior

performance. In fact, it will create a ripple effect, which also can be a vicious
 10

circle: bad leadership and bad working environment will cause an inadequate

behavior performance, an inadequate behavior performance causes

unsatisfactory or poor customer service.

Again, when the front liners feel depressed, tensed, or stressful about

their job and they need someone higher whom they can trust and listen, the

leaders should be there for them to help find some solutions. If their leaders

are unavailable they cannot release their problems, their interaction with

customers then will be disruptive. In short, most millennials will face problems

R
in covering up their emotions if they are not well coached, guided, listened to,

and supported.
P
Matahari Department Store was chosen for the research because it

represents Indonesian fashion retailers and currently is the biggest fashion

S

retailer in Indonesia whose gross sale was IDR 17,546.9 billion. In its annual

report 2017, MDS’s net income IDR 1,907 billion consists of 37.1% direct
L

purchase (DP) products and 62.9% consignment products (CV). 154

Matahari Department Stores are present in 73 cities from Papua to Aceh with

total 980,031 meter square (Matahari Department Store, 2018).

 11

Figure 3: Region Sales Contribution by Region

Sales Contribution
16,10% 5%

16,60% 61,80%

Java Sumatra Kal,Sel, Mal Others

Source: (2017 Annual Report Matahari Department Store, 2018)

The above figure shows that Java contributed the biggest sales which

R
was 61.8% compared to other regions as most of Matahari stores were

located in Java. Jakarta stores were chosen because not only economical
P
reason as the writer lives in Jakarta but also Jakarta stores are the pilot

stores of MDS. In term of employee number, in 2017 Annual Report Matahari

S

Department Store, it had direct and consignment employees who worked in

the stores with total number of 50.309, and 80% of them which was 40.248
L

were millennial (Matahari Department Store, 2018).

1.2. Problem Statement

80% of front liners’ time is occupied with interacting with customers,

and the rest 20% is doing the store activities, and sharpen up their

knowledge and skills (based on Matahari Department Store’s Sales

Associate’s job description). If front liners fail to provide good service most

likely customers will feel reluctant to buy the product, and the company
 12

performance will be affected as its financial target will not be achieved. Good

service will only happen when service providers develop good interaction

with customers during their working time. In the pre survey conducted, the

front liners rated their service to their customers was quite low which was 69.

Based on MDS standard, that index is categorized poor.

How good interactions are obtained in MDS? They can only be

obtained if MDS front liners are well led and leaders are present at all time

and do some coaching, training, give feedback, be close and supportive to

R
their team, provide problem solving, actively monitor opportunities and threat,

build network, and so on. In short if they apply communicative leadership

P
behaviors and provide good working environment to their team, interaction

between them will be entwined and indirectly it will go down to the team’s
S

interaction with customers. The question is, have MDS leaders displayed

such behavior and provided what should have? Referring to the leaders
L

(MOD) report, and preliminary survey result in Matahari Department Store

that are already explained earlier, MDS leaders had not applied

communicative leadership and the organization had not provided the front

liners with the positive working environment (WE).

In addition, based on the survey conducted by the researcher

regarding service that customers received, MDS customers perceived MDS

front liners service was even lower than what front liners valued. It was 60,

meaning also poor.

 13

To summarize, the phenomena of problems underlined the research

are:

 Tough competition in retail industry forces MDS to have good quality

of front liners who are empowered, well trained, knowledgeable of

what they are doing, task and customers oriented, full spirit or

enthusiastic, etc to stay and win the battle.

 Inadequate leaders’ involvement in fostering the empoyees that

occured in MDS prevented the above quality to happen resulting


R
communicative leadership was not well applied.

The leader absences and indifference during in need created more

P
serious problem and made communicative leadership impossible to be

applied.
S

 The non-physical or behavioral working environment factors in MDS

that involved interaction between leaders and followers / front liners

L

were lacking

 The result of VOC (Voice of Customer) report 2017 stated that MDS

Service Excellence index was still poor (68.8) and people / front liners

index was below than store index (67.9) (Matahari Department Store,

2018.
 14

Figure 4: Service Excellence Index

R
Source: (2017 Voice of Customers Report, 2018)
P
S

More studies on workplace condition and employee outcome are needed

(Jayaweera, 2015) and yet there has not been a study examines working
L

environment on employees’ performance in a department store context.

Hence, the study will focus on whether MDS leaders have conducted

communicative leadership and provided millennial employees with positive

behavioral working environment. How communicative leadership and working

environment factors applied impact the service excellence provided by the

front liners are also become the center of the study. Moreover, in Indonesia

there isn’t any study on communicative leadership and working environment

that influence employees’ performance with department stores as the object

of the research yet. The writer believes that if those are applied in the
 15

organization, employees’ good behavior performance will be achieved or

service excellence index will be better. This research will be guided by

research questions and statements that are divided into 2

Quantitative research statements:

1. Leader communication behaviors that are reflected in the working

environment factors influence employees’ behavior performance.

2. Working environment factors that involve interaction between leaders

and followers influence the millennial front liners’ behavior

R
performance which is providing excellent service to customers.

3. Communicative leadership and behavior working environment

P
influence the employees’ behavior performance

Qualitative research questions:

S

1. How is communicative leadership behaviors applied in the

organization?
L

2. How is behavior working environment factors applied in the

organization?

3. How is service excellence applied by front liners?

1.3. Study Objectives

This mixed methods study addressed the influence of communicative

leadership and working environment factors on employee behavior

performance which is providing service. An explanatory sequential mixed

method design was used, and it is a type of design in which quantitative and
 16

qualitative data are collected then continued with collecting qualitative data to

explain the previous data, and then they are merged. In this study surveys

data was used to test the theory of communicative leadership, working

environment and employee performance that predict communicative

leadership behavior and behavior working environment factors will influence

the employee behavior performance: providing service that is measured in

service excellence concept for millennials front liners at Matahari Department

Store. The FGD and in-depth interview were used to explore how MDS

R
leaders apply the communication behaviors and working environment factors

in MDS. The reason for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data is to
P
develop a complete understanding of the problem that qualitative data will

explain the result of the survey. In other words, the purposes of this study are
S

to:

1. Test whether communicative leadership behaviors that are also

L

reflected in working environment articles influence the employees’

behavior performances.

2. Investigate whether working environment factors that involve

interaction between leaders and followers influence the millennial front

liners’ behavior performance which is providing service excellence to

customers.

3. Investigate whether communicative leadership and non-physical

working environment influence the front liners’ behavior performance

which is providing service to customers.

 17

4. Reveal how communicative leadership behavior and behavior working

environment factors are applied in Matahari Department Store

1.4. Significance of the Study

This research is expected to have academic and practical significance

as explained in the following.

1.4.1. Academic Significance

R
This research will hopefully contribute and extend the discussion on

the theory of communicative leadership by incorporating some behavior

P
working environment factors into the communicative leadership behaviors. It

is also expected that this research will enrich the notion of employees’
S

behavior performance specifically in regard to service excellence. Lastly, it is

hoped to deepen the knowledge of service excellence theory in the retail

L

industry.

1.4.2. Practical Significance

The retail industry in general and department stores specifically will

benefit the finding of the research. Asian and Indonesian department store

management in this case are the HR departments, store operation

departments, and top management itself will benefit as they will be aware of

which communicative leadership behavior that has and has not been applied

and which behavior factors of a working environment that need special

 18

attention. By knowing how millennial front liners desire to be led will also

benefit the organization as because if it is applied they will likely to stay

longer and perform better. Understanding how both variables can influence

employee behavior performance will be another advantage. Furthermore,

MDS’s management, leaders of stores (both supervisors and managers) will

gain information on communicative leadership behaviors and dimension of

working environment factors that they need to focus on. Finally and the most

important of all that Matahari Department Store will be able to access all

R
information and be able to apply all the finding to improve its employees’

performance which is providing service excellence.

P
1.5. Scope and Delimitation
S

The scope covers the communicative leadership behaviors that are

also reflected in working environment factors which involve interaction

L

between front liners’ and their leaders. Although Chandrasekar (2011)

mentioned there are 11 factors of working environment, only 4 factors will be

discussed in the research. This because only behavior working environment

factors that involve interaction which is related with the writer major of study:

communication, moreover, those behavior working environments also

reflected in communicative leader behaviors. Moreover, those factors

according to MDS General Manager become management’ focus at the

moment. Therefore, front liners’ take home pay, the way front liners get their

meals, layout and career path will not be discussed in this research. On the
 19

performance side, the writer will cover employee behavior performance only

which is providing service and measured by service excellence. The service

excellence perception is obtained from the employees’ point a view.

1.6. Definition of Term

Front liners: an integral description of a job in which infers a body of work that

R
constitutes an individual and/or a department that deals directly with

customers; fundamentally in customer service whereas Matahari Department

P
Store is operating in
S

Leader: As of Matahari Department Store, a set of individuals held liable

towards the corporation and its operations; mainly any supervisor and every
L

level above

Stores: Matahari Department Store is to be considered as an established

retail on the basis of selling products to their customers

MOD (Manager on Duty): As its fundamental understanding is to consider the

act of anointing any of Matahari Department Store supervisors to be held

liable towards the corporation and its operation

 20

Communicative leadership:

Working environment: Matahari Department Store is as considered to be the

environment of which its employee completes their tasks, constituting the

direct surrounding of the work place that effects and hones its employee

Behavior performance: Matahari Department Store front liners in providing

service to customers and store activities as well as knowledge and skills

R
Variable: characteristics or attribute of individuals or organizations that can

be measured and observed

P
Dependent variable: Variable that is tested and measured in a scientific
S

experiment
L

Independent variable: Variable that the experimenter controls

Mixed method: Method of research which combine quantitative and

qualitative approach

Quantitative Method: Description of trends or opinion from a certain

population by study the sample of population

Qualitative Method: Method that relies on text and image data

 21

Triangulation method: A method of surveying by deviding it into triangle

Explanatory sequential: Menthod that used both quantitative data and

qualitative data in which qualitative data is used to explain further the survey /

quantitative data

Correlation analysis: The statistical tool used to study the closeness of the

R
relationship between two or more variable
P
Multiple regression: An extension of simple linear regression
S
L
 23

CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Literature Review

Retail industry is service industry, and therefore retail organizations

need to put most of their attention to the moment and place that establish a

service encounter such as their employee’s contact and interaction with their

customers. Every interaction is an opportunity to either build or devalue

R
customers’ connection with the organization emotionally (Wagner & Harter,

2006 cited in Zwifel. H, 2010. p. 8). Therefore, interactions conveyed by front

liners play a critical part in stimulating customers’ participation that eventually

P
leads to improving customer value (Hau, Anh, & Thuy, 2016). Internally, a
S

process of interaction and communication constructs leadership (Johansson,

Miller, & Hamrin, 2014). The types of interaction occurs in an organization

L

shape the organization environment (Fairhurst, 2007). This also emphazied

by Johansson, Miller & Hamrin (2014) that working environment is shaped

and influenced by the organization leaders and communication applied by the

employees. Basically, “communicative leadership leads to higher levels of

individual performance ….higher levels of performance at the unit level”

(Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011, p.4).

According to Ripley (2003) working environment factors have a major

influence on an employee behavior. An empirical study done by Stallworth

and Kleiner, it shows that when employees’ needs are fulfilled in an office
 24

design area, they will work more efficiently (Stallworth & Kleiner, 1996). The

working environment also impacts an individual’s behavior while he or she is

on the job which directly impacts his or her work outcome (Carson, Cardy, &

Dobbins, 1991). Working environment positively affects employees’

performance but behavioral working environment has greater effect on

employees’ performance (Haynes, 2008; Leblebici, 2012).

Job performance is the way how front liners perform their work such

as dealing with customers (Rashid, Sah, Ariffin, Ghani, & Yunus, 2016). Front

R
liners’ interactions with their customers are considered as providing service

to customers and is part of their behavior performance. It is believed that all

P
types of extra-role behavior performance contribute to the organization’s

performance (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).

S
L

2. 2. Theoretical Framework

There are 3 key aspects that will be elaborated in this study. Leaders’

communicative behaviors, working environment factors that the organization

should focus on to support the front liners’ performance, Sales Assistant or

front liners’ behavior performance which is providing service to customers

that is characterized in service excellence. However, the writer will also

describe a little about the theory that becomes the umbrella of the three,

which is organizational communication.

 25

Organizational Communication

Communication is an inevitable act done by any individuals, including

members in an organization. The communication occurs in organization has

an aim which is to convey messages from any members to others. When

conveying messages runs smoothly or the message is well conveyed means

the communication is good or the other versa. If communication occurs in an

organization is bad, organization’s productivity time will be wasted. According

to Haris and Nelson (2008) poor communication caused 14% of each 40-

R
hour work week wasted which made 7 productive weeks a year. Hence good

communication in an organization is very crucial.

P
Organization, according to Miller (2008) is “social collectives,

embedded in a larger environment, in which activities are coordinated to

S

achieve individual and collective goal” (p.1). Miller also adds that organization

could be seen as a big container which people or employees work within and
L

within which products and service are made or created (2008). Hence, Miller

defines communication in an organization as isolated incidents that can be

examined within the isolated boundaries of organizational container (2008).

Modaff, DeWine, and Butler (2007) define organizational

communication as “the process of creating, exchanging, interpreting

(correctly or incorrectly), and storing messages within a system of human

interrelationships” (p.3). The process it self in organizational communication

according to Modaff et al. (2007) shows dynamic nature as it explains the

communication occurrs at a particular time depends on its previous condition

 26

and will reflect future expectation, for example: the communication between

leaders and followers at presents is related to its prior leader-subordinates

interaction, and expectation of the future between them. Hence,

communication is not only important to organizations, but also critical to

leaders of organizations as the key to good leadership is effective

communication and ability to listen effectively (Harris & Nelson, 2008).

Unfortunately, in most organizations area that need of improvement is

communication and the major cause of more than half a problem of

R
employee performance is caused by inadequate information about

organization, customers, and individual performance (Harris & Nelson).

P
Harris and Neeson also mentioned when the above informations are

improved, the performance can also be improved by 20-50% (2008).

S

Communicative Leadership

The concept of communicative leadership developed in Sweden in

L

the late 1990s in response to business development environment (Högström

et al. 1999 cited by Johansson, 2011). Communicative leadership is

influenced by two communication approaches that focus on transmission of

information and formation of meaning (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011).

According to Modaff, DeWine and Butler (2007), a leader influences other to

reach common goals not for the individual but for group’s advantage. Modaff

et al. (2007) also stated that “leadership is about understanding and

addressing the needs of organizational members and helping them move

forward in meeting their personal and professional goals”, “It is a process that
 27

takes place in every human interaction”. It means leadership is never far from

interaction and communication.

Leadership theories that have an important influence on leadership

practice are the syle approach, contingency theory & path-goal theory, leader

member exchange theory (LMX), and transformational leadership

(Johansson et al. 2011). Leaders influence a single member, a group of

people within an organization and even the organization itself through

controlled, purposeful transfer of meaning (Barrett, 1995). In tradition view,

R
communication in leadership is one way where leaders are sending the

message and employees understand the message and act on it. As the
P
concept developed, transmission view that was used by LMX theory as a

guidance, improved to sense making which communication in leadership is a

S

dynamic and cicular interaction where both parties leaders and employees

actively participate (Johansson et al. 2011). Then we can define

L

communicative leader as “one who engage employees in dialogue, actively

shares and seeks feedback, practices participative decision making, and is

perceived as open and involved” (Johansson et al. 2011), and leaders’

effectiveness or ineffectiveness can be judged by their quality of

communicative behaviors (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin 2014).

Leader communication behaviors that are applied in organizational

context are classified into four categories or called profile of center

communication behaviors (Johansson et al. 2011):

 28

1. Initiating Structure: for individual employee, leaders have to set goals

& expectation, do planning & allocate tasks, while for the team they

have to define mission for the unit, do planning & allocate task, set

goals & expectation for the unit.

2. Facilitating work: for individual employee, leaders have to coach &

train, and do performance feedback, for the group level leaders have

to provide timely and effective feedback, engage employees in

problem solving & decision making.

R
3. Relational dynamic: for both individual and team, leaders have to be

open as in approachable, good listeners, trustworthy. They also have

P
to display supportive behavior and constructive approach on conflict-

full issues.
S

4. Representing employees and the unit: Leaders have to be able to

apply upward influence and get resources from upper management,

L

while for the unit leaders have to actively monitor opportunities and

threats, build good networking internally and externally, manage the

boundaries in working with other units as to protect the unit mission,

and provide resources for the unit.

The writer will use the above 4 behaviors: initiating structure, facilitating work,

relational dynamic and representing to measure how communicative

leadership is applied in Matahari Department Store. If MDS leaders apply the

4 above leadership behaviours well, the researcher believe better MDS

employees’ performance will be acquired.

 29

Working Environment

Unfortunately, front liners’ good behavior performance cannot be

taken for granted, they need to have good working conditions in order to be

able to perform well, as a positive and supportive working environment will

encourage and enable employees to perform effectively (Oswald, 2012).

Working environment (WE) is defined as a working place model that involves

physical aspects, psycho-social and organizational surrounding in it (Busck,

Knudsen, & Lind, 2010) and the surrounding place in which a person works

R
and interacts with others professionally and socially (Ollukkaran &

Gunaseelan, 2012). Stallworth & Kleiner (1996) emphasize that WE is

P
divided into 2 (two) categories: physical which consists of components that

relate an employee to his or her ability to connect with his or her office
S

environment, such as ventilation, heating, lighting, circulation space, and

non-physical or behavior which consists of components that relate to his or

L

her interaction with colleagues such as social and work interaction.

The working environment component that relates to the researcher’s

study is interaction or called behavior component which according to Haynes

(2008) has the greatest effect on productivity. Chandrasekar (2011)

elaborates working environement into 11 factors. They are: goal setting,

performance feedback, role congruity, defined processes, workplace

incentives, supervisor support, mentoring and coaching, opportunity to apply,

job aids, environment factors, and physical factors, but as outlined in the
 30

delimitation, the writer will only discuss behavior factors of WE which are goal

setting, performance feedback, supervisor support and mentoring / coaching.

Most offices are designed based on the nature of the business and the

individual who carries out the job within the place (Tetteh, Asiedu, Odei, Afful,

& Akwaboah, 2012), and Chandrasekar (2011) added that the quality of a

working environment impacts employees’ motivation and performance as it

influences a great deal of collaboration or interaction with other employees.

In his research, Ajala (2012) mentioned that nine out of ten workers believed,

R
and Lee & Brand (2005) emphasized that the quality of their working

environment affects employees’ attitude, behavior, satisfaction and increases

P
their productivity / performance. A study in Mbeya city found out that 86% of

reproductive and child care employees did not perform well as their working
S

condition was poor.

The non-physical or behavior working environment that enables one to

L

build up interaction includes:

1. Goal Setting

Employees are involved in setting meaningful goals of their job and

measurement of their performance both formally and informally, which

is done together with organization management and or their

immediate supervisor (Chandrasekar, 2011). Goal setting is one of a

tool to attract employees’ motivation as it is to guide the behavior and

motivate to perform better (Leblebici, 2012). Effective goals will help to

 31

gain commitment from both parties: organization and employees

which results more people doing more than required and eventually

will increase performance (Erez, Earley, & Hulin, 2017). Leblebici

summarized that effective goals should be specific not generalized

ones, difficult not easy ones, should be accepted by the group, have a

frequent and relevant feedback and done in open communication

(2012).

2. Performance feedback

R
Performance feedback is an information given by an immediate

supervisor or management on how an employee perform

P
(Chandrasekar, 2011). The information can be both positive feedback

on what an employee has been doing right, as well as feedback on

S

what requires improvement (Oswald, 2012). In many studies,

feedback has been hypothesized to be a key factor in improving

L

organization effectiveness (Larson Jr, 1984). In organizational view,

feedback is important to enable employees to stay on the right track

as the desired goal and maintain their effort in the high level, in

individual view it is needed to identify whether an employee has

achieved his personal goal (Larson Jr). Frequent or regular and

relevant feedback will create effectiveness in employees’ job activities.

According to Prue & Fairbank (1981) performance feedback can be

done in daily, weekly, bi & tri weekly, or monthly basis. In fact,

managers who give effective feedback will contribute to the effective

 32

performance of his or her front liners (Boshoff & Mels, 1995). Based

on Pure & Fairbank’s study, effective feedback can be done at a short

glance and extensive analysis, privately or publicly (which has greater

effects), in a written, verbal, mechanical or self recorded form, and

with content of individual performance vs his previous performance,

individual performance vs standard public performance, group

performance vs their previous performance, group performance vs

standard group performance and individual presentation as group

R
percentage (Prue & Fairbank). Chandrasekar (2011), also said that

besides conducted feedback formally, leaders in organizations could

P
also did it informally by gaining closer relationship for both parties /

sides. On the other hand when feedback was not well accepted by
S

employees, it would have negative consequencies such as

demoralized, or unperformed state (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler, 2007).

L

It was also mentioned that feedback is a form of communication

between members of an organization that covers task guidance,

personal guidance and other guidance if any both implicitly and

explicitly (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler).

3. Supervisor support

According to Burke, Michael, Borucki & Hurley (1992) supervisor

support is the degree to which followers in an organization feel their

leaders’s support, encouragement and interest / involvement to them.

Supervisors who are concerned and support their subordinates or

 33

employees’ work by providing helpful, supportive and trust in a work

climate, can be also categorized as supervisor support (Yoon, Beatty,

& Suh, 2001). In other words, when supervisors are unavailable to

their employees for example they rarely help employees during the

work, hardly encourage those who are struggling with the work and do

not show concern when the employees experience bad incident or

have problems; it can be considered lack or unsatisfactory supervisor

support.

R
Supervisors’ interpersonal skills are crucial in encouraging employees’

relation and improving their self-confidences which in return improves

P
their performance (Oswald, 2012). Hence, employees need the

presence of skilled supervisors to assist them in their daily job and

S

also in achieving their future goals in the organization. Oswald (2012)

also stated that supportive supervision is very important for employees

L

in order to perform their tasks better. Singh (2000) emphasizes that

with supportive superior front liners’ performance will be enhanced.

4. Mentoring / coaching

Douglas (1997) defines mentoring as “an intense relationship in which

a senior person oversees the career development and psychosocial

development of less-experienced person”. While coaching is a short

and more focus form of mentoring that relates to job task, skills and

performed by giving instruction, demonstration and high impact

feedback (Hopkin-Thompson, 2000). According to Rhodes & Beneicke

 34

(2002) coaching is a process that involves learning and improvement

and resulting better and enhanced performance, while mentoring is “a

task which consists of coaching, comprehensive counselling and

leader support. This is closely related to supervisory support, as

Chandrasekar (2011) wrote that respected and skilled superiors

should be available to help employees in carrying out their tasks. Both

mentoring and coaching should be done on schedule with outcome

clearly defined.

R
The working environment in an office or organization impacts

organization’s members’ morale, productivity and engagement- both

P
positively and negatively” (Chandrasekar, 2011). Even though a company’s

productivity depends on many factors, it is undeniable that the individual

S

performance of employees contributes to an organization’s good

performance through their physical and mental effort and energies

L

(Ganapathi & Balaji, 2008). Moreover, when a company relies only on

compensation package as an extrinsic motivator it will not have a long lasting

result as it has limited / short term effect on employees’ performance

(Leblebici, 2012). Having a proper workplace environment can increase

employees’ performance that leads to increasing in productivity as well

(Boles, Pelletier, & Lynch, 2004).

It means when an organization does not provide its employees with a

good working environment, their employees’ behavior performance will not

be good as the service excellence is not well performed. The above

 35

behavioral WE factors: goal setting, performance feedback, supervisor

support and mentoring/ coaching are the dimensions that are used by the

researcher to evaluate how Matahari Department Store applies those 4

factors. Again, if MDS provides employees with good or positive behavioral

working environment factors, it will lead to better MDS employees’

performance or better service as the writer believes.

Employee Performance: Service Excellence

The performance of employees is measured by the output they

R
produce (Tetteh, Asiedu, Odei, Afful, & Akwaboah, 2012). When an

organization has a standard performance, it enables employees to reach

P
their target on track and the superior or employer can monitor and help them

to achieve better result (Naharuddin & Sadegi, 2013). Front liners’

S

performance is measured by two things: outcome performance which

generates $ (money) for the company and behavior performance which is

L

providing service to customers and store activities as well as knowledge and

skills (Yap, Bove, & Beveland, 2009). Behavior performance has two

aspects: in-role which clearly states the front liners’ job description and extra-

role which is not specified clearly in the job description but it actually mean

more than or beyond what is stated in the job description (Fang, Evan, &

Zou, 2005). Unfortunately, for the delimitation of the study the writer only

focus on extra-role behavior performance.

One of extra-role behavior performance that Podsakoff, Mackenzie,

Paine, & Bachrach (2000) identified is helping behavior. It relates to providing

 36

service to customers which Podsakoff et al. (2000) explored that helping

behavior refers to assisting customers voluntarily. Hence, front liners’ extra-

role behavior performance is generated from their daily activities which is

interacting with customers to provide excellent service.

Kaufmann (2012) defined service as an action to create value for

someone else and service excellent as taking the next step up to create more

value for someone else. While according to Brady & Cronin (2001) good

service is willingness to go above and beyond or extra mile. In other words

R
front liners must have a willingness to create more value for customers in

order to go the extra mile. When customers perceive the front liners’ action
P
quality as good or positive, they are likely to experience satisfaction (Brady &

Cronin, 2001). Customer perceived quality is the customer’s judgment of the

S

quality of service (Johnston & Kong, 2011), which is derived from the result of

comparing customers’ expectation and perceptions of from front liners

L

attitude and behavior (Forne, 2014). When service delivered does not only

meet customers’ expectation but also exceeds it with a touch of delight

involves, it is called service excellence (Oliver, Rust, & Varkee, 1997).

Factors of service excellence is: delivering the promise, providing a personal

touch, going the extra mile, dealing well with problem or queries (Johnston,

2004), and those factors are used by the writer to measure the service

provided from employees perceived excellence.

 37

Figure 5: Johnston Model of Service Excellence

R
P
Source: (Johnston, 2004)

Based on Johnston (2004) indicators the four dimension of service

S

exceleence above were derived from customers FGD he conducted and

some of them are:

L

a. Delivering the promise: the company through employees do what they

say, the service is delivered consistently

b. Providing a personal touch: the front liners treat customers like

individual, sales staff know customers without they tell them

c. Extra mile: The front liners anticipate customers’ need, they fall over

themselves to help custoemers

d. Dealing well with problem and queries: employees are happy and

willing to sort things out when there a problem, they know what to do if

there is a problem
 38

To summarize, theories that I will use are communicative leadership

that is developed by Johansson et al. (2011) to study the link between

Matahari Department Stores’ leaders that apply communicative behaviors

and employees’ performance, and working environment that is developed

by Chandrasekar (2011) communication behaviors of the leaders applied

to study the correlation between behavioral working environment factors

and MDS employees’ performance, while Service Excellence as the

extra-role behavior performance that is developed by Johnston (2004) to

R
study MDS employees’ service excellence. As applied to my study, I

expect that communicative leadership and behavioral working

P
environment factors that are applied in MDS influence service excellence

of MDS employees.
S

2.3 Conceptual Framework

L

Conceptual framework
 39

Figure 6: Conceptual Framework

R
P
S
L

The conceptual framework above explains the communicative

leadership behaviors and behavior working environment influence front liners

job performance which is providing service excellence. It is believed that

when communicative leadership behaviors and working environment are

positive the front liners’ performance will also be positive and that leads to

customers’ good perceived service excellence.

 40

Ho1. Communicative leadership behaviors do not influence employee

performance.

Ha1. Communicative leadership behaviors influence employee performance

Ho2. Behavioral working environment factors do not influence the front

liners’ behavior performance which is providing excellent service to

customers

Ha2. Behavioral working environment factors influence the front liners’

behavior performance which is providing excellent service to

customers
R
Ho3. Communicative leadership and behavioral working environment do not
P
influence front liners’ behavior performance which is providing service

excellence
S

Ha3. Communicative leadership and behavioral working environment

influence front liners’ behavior performance which is providing service

L

excellence.
 39

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

3.1. Research Paradigm

Positivist principals that have led positivist social research the whole

time ground the post-positivist assumption about social knowledge greatly

(Miller K. I., 2000). Many researchers found that positivism cannot satisfy

their social research requirement then mixing paradigm of positivism and

R
interpretivism became an option. Guba (1990) labelled post-positivist as

modified objectivist that the search of knowledge still concentrates on the the
P
causal explanation for regularities observed in physic and social domain.

Miller (2000) also added that post positivist uses as unbiased as possible
S

method and attempts to be mindful of values that compromise neutrality, as it

upholds objectivity by depending on critical review from scholar community.

L

According to Creswell (2014) post positivist studies problems that need to be

found out and evaluated their causes that influence outcome.

The writer chose post-positivism as a paradigm as it focuses more on

investigating the phenomena of the problem more objectively. The post-

postivism approach concentrates on quantitative data and with the help of

qualitative data the results will be strngtened. This in line with what the writer

did that her dominant research was quantitative one while qualitative

research helped and explained her previous quantitative findings.

 40

This philosophical worldview suits the writer’s research in which she

used quantitative method to test the theories and used qualitative method to

explain more on the result. In a Mixed method research researchers have

freedom in involving quantitative and qualitative assumption, methods,

techniques and research procedures to accomplish their research objectives

(Creswell, 2014), this was also the reason why the writer used mixed

method.

3.2. Research Method

3.2.1. Quantitative Method

R
Quantative design was originally used in psychology to conduct
P
experiments, then it was also used to study non experimental researches that

are known as causal-comparative research and correlational design

S

(Creswell, 2014).

Quantitative or numeric according to Creswell (2014) is a description of

L

trends or opinion from a certain population by studying the sample of

population in which the approach applies postpositivism perspective in

developing a particular knowledge to identify the causes that influence the

outcome. In other words, quantitative is a technical method that emphasizes

statistical data usage and mathematical numbers, and from the result of the

study a researcher usually makes a conclusion of generalizing the population

itself. The generalization comes from an analyisis of numeric raw data that is

transformed into valuable insight to determine a correlation between

independent variables and dependent variable.

 41

3.2.2. Qualitative Method

Qualitative design developed during 1990s and into the 21st century which

historically were used in the field of anthropology, sociology, humanities, and

evaluation which constructed narrative and phenomenological researches,

grounded theory and ethnographic designs, and also case studies (Creswell,

2014).

Eventhough the process in qualitative method are similar with quantitative

one, scholarly those method are different as qualitative relies on text and

R
image data while quantitative relies on statiscal numbers, also in analizing

data qualitative method has unique steps (Creswell, 2014). When a

P
researcher applies this method he will gain an extensive result as it enables

him to explore further on the topic of research.

S

The stages in qualitative method are started with data collection, then

continued with data reduction, the following step is data display and ends
L

with conclusion.

3.2.3. Mixed Method

The mixed method that is used in this study was developed in 1980s

which actually introduced by Campbell and Fisk back in 1959 when they

studied psychological traits, eventhough they only used quantitative method

other researchers were stimulated to collect multiple data such as interviews

and surveys which then were called multiple methods or mixed method
 42

(Creswell, 2014). As all methods either qualitative or quantitative have bias

and weaknesses, to neutralize the weaknesses of each data it is suggested

that a researcher collects both quantitative and qualitative data for a study.

Qualitative data tends to explore open ended information while quantitative is

more closed ended information that derived from surveys or questionnaires

and mixed method involve both of data in which the data is integrated and

combined (Creswell).

One of mixed method’s advantages when it is used for a research which

R
combines quantitative and qualitative approaches in terms of paradigm, data

collection, and data analysis is to obtain deeper and wider information on the
P
case of study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Other advantages that they

described are:
S

a. It helps to answer questions that cannot be answered by neither

quantitative nor qualitative.

L

b. It is more practical in which a researcher is free to apply all methods in

addressing the problem.

c. It applies triangulating data sources when integrating quantitative and

qualitative data that one data base is used to check the accuracy or

validity of other data base, to explain other data base, and to lead to

better instruments.

The writer used mixed method because it also allowed her to conduct a

quantitative survey which was followed by interviewing few respondents who

 43

participated in the survey in order to obtain clearer information on the case

study. The model applied in the study was explanatory sequential mixed

method meaning the researcher conducted two phases of project. The first

phase was when the researcher collected quantitative data, and analyzed its

result, then she did a plan to do a qualitative data collection based on the

quantitative result. The overall purpose of the design is to have the qualitative

data helping in explaining more detail the initial quantitative result (Creswell,

2014).

3.2.4 Data Collection Technique

R
The researcher used the above mixed method design and it reflected
P
from the surveys that started initially before the FGDs and interviews. After

the writer analyzed the data, the result from surveys was used to gather
S

detail information qualitatively as the quantitative result was still general or

broad. In other words, qualitative data was the follow up of quantitative

L

questions in a form of open ended questions, or qualitative method were

used to help in explaining and adding information on the quantitative findings.

The explanatory sequential mixed method design model is as follows:

 44

Figure 7: Explanatory Sequential Mixed Method

Source: (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011)

3.3.1. Primary Data

R
Primary data is defined as specific data that is collected to fit the

research problem being studied (Hox & Boeije, 2005). In this study the primary
P
data was gathered from the questionnaires surveys, Focus Group Discussion

(FGD) and interviews. The data collections was conducted in 5 stores of

S

Matahari Department Stores in South Jakarta. Millennial front liners who were

born between 1982 and 2000 were given questionnaire surveys. However, in
L

the FGD not all informants had taken the survey and only 50% had. While their

leaders did not do the surveys and were only interviewed and joined in FGDs.

The survey conducted was cross-sectional as the data collected at one

point in time, and the forms of data collection were group administration and

personal interviews.
 45

Population and Sampling

Population is defined by (Curwin & Slater, 2008) as all people or items

of interest in a particular study, and according to Paynes (2004) sampling is a

process in selecting groups of persons or social phenomena from the larger

space as a subject with a particular issue be studied (2004). Matahari

Department Stores front liners population in the selected five stores: MDS

Kalibata, MDS Pejaten Village, MDS Citos, MDS Kemang Village and MDS

Blok M Plaza was 1.396 and the number of personnel who were born

R
from1982 to 2000 (stratification of the population) was 80% of the population

which was 1.117 people.

P
In this quantitative data collecting, the sample used was probability

sample where every population element has a chance of being selected or

S

gives every element of equal chance to be selected (Blaikie, 2003). It is

called random sampling as it a mathematical concept which implies that each

L

element is unconnected with others (Payne & Payne, 2004). The sampling

method chosen was simple random sampling in which the selection process

gives every possible element of the same chance of being selected (Blaikie).

To closely represent the above MDS population the writer applied Slovin’s

formula in determining the number of respondents:

N
n = ____________

1 + Ne²
 46

Notes:

n = sample size

N = population size

e = margin of error

By using this formula the number of respondents counted as:

1.117 : 1 + (1.117 x 0.0004) = 772. The total population of millennials front

liners in the five stores 1.117 people, margin error tolerated is 2% so the

R
number of the sample was 772 front liners. As the number of the population

of each store is different so the sample will follows the population. The
P
sample derived from MDS Kalibata is 95, MDS Citos is 242, MDS Pejaten

Village is 245, MDS Kemang Village is 69, and MDS Blok M is 120. The
S

table of sampling took place in 5 south Jakarta MDS stores is as follows:

Table 1
L

The Number of Population and Sample Respondents

Store # Population # Millenials # respondents

MDS Citos 451 351 242

MDS Kalibata 164 131 95

MDS Pejaten Village 452 362 245

 47

MDS Kemang Village 119 95 69

MDS Blok M Plaza 210 168 120

TOTAL 1.396 1.117 772

Key Informant

The unit of analysis in the qualitative data collection is partial in MDS

stores located in South Jakarta in which ranges from individuals front liners to

R
store top management (Regional Managers / GM). The number of informants

chose for FGD were much less than the number of respondents which was
P
only 10 people per session. The front liners informants of FGD who were

supposed to initially participate as respondents in the previous questionnaire

S

surveys could not join the the event due to some technical issues.

Fortunately, only 50% of them who had never taken the initial survey. The
L

informants in FGDs were chosen based on their length of service, some were

new kids on the block with length of service was less than a year and some

were with the company for more than 3 years.

The second layer informants in FGD were the supervisor whom the

respondents reported to directly. The number of leader informants was 10

people. In term of length of service was similar with the first layer FGD.

The third layer informants who joined in FGD were 4 store managers

who acting as the CEO of the store. In representing the head office

management, the researcher interviewed The Regional Manager / General

 48

Manager of MDS as an informant. The Researcher chose him as the key

informant because most of the stores were under him and that made him

know better about the store organization than any other General Managers.

Questions in both in depth interview and FGDs were similar related to

elements in the research. However, the questions in FGD were not rigid and

tent to be flexible. They were being explored more when needed as to gather

deeper answers and information.

Questionnaire
R
P
According to Hox & Boeiji (2005) a questionnaire is a number of

standardized questions that are asked in a standardized answer category.

S

Considering cost effectiveness, the questionnaire was conducted in surveys

in which they were done individually and by group. The questionnaire

L

consists of some closed-ended and open-ended questions. The writer used

Likert scale for the scale format of 1-5 form strongly disagree to strongly

agree, as Mangold (1992) suggested that a five-point scale appears to be

less confusing and increases the response rate. The continuous 1-5 scale is

shown as follows:

Table 2
Likert scale 1-5

1 2 3 4 5
 49

Strongly Disagree neutral / do Agree Strongly

disagree not know agree

Source: (Hair, Jr, Bush, & Ortinau, 2003)

When the respondents chose scale strongly disagree (1) and disagree

(2) it means that the communicative leadership behaviors were not applied

and behavior working environment factors in Matahari Department Store

were not in good condition. On the contrary, when respondents chose

R
strongly agree (5) or agree (4), it means that the communicative leadership

behaviors were well conducted and behavior working environment factors in

P
Matahari Department Store were well applied. The respondents chose

neutral (3) only means they did not know or were unsure whether the
S

communicative leadership behaviors and behavior working environment

factors were applied enough or not. In analyzing the respondents’ responses

L

in term of description analysis the writer chose to range the mean results as

follow:

Table 3
Scale of Responses

1.00 - 1.60 1.70 – 2.40 2.50 – 3.50 3.60 – 4.20 4.40 – 5.00

Very bad Bad moderate Good Very good

Source: Sugiyono (2012)

 50

Other questions such as age, tribe, etc. were derived from open-

ended questionnaire data. The questionaires with both open and closed-

ended questions had been tested in pre survey with 30 respondents in 3

MDS stores. The survey instrument: quantitative questionaires were

specifically designed for the research.

Focus Group Discussion

In order to inquire deeper and more information on certain areas, the

writer carried out simultaneous qualitative interviews and FGD as the

R
instrument. The Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted in three

different layers. The first one was conducted for 10 front liners, the second
P
one was for supervisors, and the third one was for managerial level. FGD

was conducted to derive detail information to explain the survey result. Each
S

group was given questions to be discussed deeply on communicative

leadership behaviors and behavior working environment factors for example

L

how their leaders set goals and expectation. When an informant had different

opinion or perspective towards the issue from other informants, then the

writer explored more by asking further questions.

In-Depth Interview

According to Boyce and Neale (2006) in-depth interview is a

qualitative data gathering method in which an extensive face to face

individual or small group interview is conducted to obtain the informants’

 51

perpective towards the issue being studied. In this study, the researcher

implemented a semi-structured, probing question in in-depth interview data

generation by interviewing MDS management representative to inquire more

information about communicative leadership behaviors, behavioral working

environment factors and front liners’ performance which measured using

service excellence. The questions were asked thoroughly to acquire deeper

information on the issue, for example the writer asked how much training

programs MDS employees received, when the answer was somehow

R
different from the front liners’ the writer threw more detailed questions to find

out the differences and the reason why it was different.

P
The interview questions design both for FGD and in-depth interview is

as follows:
S

Table 4
Interview Questions Design
L

Elements Sub-Elements Questions

Initiating Goal &  Do you know MDS goals

Structure expectation  How does MDS set its goal

setting  How do MDS leaders set their

group goal
 52

 How do MDS leaders explain

their expectations towards their

team

Task planning &  How do MDS leaders plan their

allocation team’s tasks, explain and

allocate them

Company  Do you know MDS mission

mission defining
R
statement?

How do MDS leaders define

company mission that shared to

P
their team
S

Facilitating Coaching &  How do MDS leaders coach their

Work training execution team

L

 How often do they coach

 How are training activities in

MDS being executed

Timely & relevant  How do MDS leaders give

performance feedbacks to their team

feedback  When and how often do they

give feedback
 53

Employees  How do MDS leaders solve

engagement in problems and make decision

problem solving  Are their team engaged in the

& decision process

making

Relational Openess  How approachable are MDS

Dynamic leaders?

 How trustworthy are they

Supportive
R



Are they good listeners

Are MDS leaders willing to help

P
their team
S

Constructive  How do MDS leaders solve

approach on internal conflicts?

L

conflict-full issue  How fast do they solve it

Representing Upward influence  Do MDS leaders dare influence

top management / their

superiors

 How do they convey what their

team’s needs & wants

Active monitor  How do MDS leaders respond to

opportunities and threats

 54

 How and how often do they

convey those issues to their

team

Networking  Do MDS leaders have good

networking

 How is their relationship with

suppliers, merchandisers and

other departments

Goal Setting Clear goals R




What are MDS’s goals

Can you explain MDS’s goals

P
Specific goals  How do you think of MDS goals
S

 Are they specific enough

Goal acceptance  How do you think of MDS goals

L

& commitment  How do you apply them on your

daily activites

 Are there any rejection towards

the goals

 What about your commitment to

the goals

Difficult but  Do you think MDS goal is easy

attainable goals to achieve and why

 55

 Do you think you can achive the

goals and why

Frequently  How often are MDS goals being

reviewed and reviewed

revised goals  Have MDS goals been revised

 How often are they being revised

Performance Mentioning things  How do MDS leaders give

Feedback done right &

areas to improve R 
feedback on their team’s

performance
P
Do they mention things done

right & areas to improve

S

Frequently done  How often do MDS leaders give

performance feedback to their

L

team

Done formally &  How do MDS leaders do

informally (candid performance feedback

& time specific)  Besides formal way, do they do

it informally

 How do they do informally

Consist of task  Do MDS leaders explain and

guidance & guide their teams in doing their

 56

personal task during performance

evaluation feedback sessions

 Do they also evaluate their

personal related to work in the

performance feedback

Good deliverance  Do you think the feedback is

important for your improvement

 Do you feel you want to improve

R your performance after being

given feedback and why

P
Acceptable  How do you react to the

feedback
S

 Do you accept it and why

L

Supervisor Value  Do MDS leaders value their

Support contribution team contribution

 How do they value it

Availability to  How long do MDS leaders spend

help their time on the floor / in the

counter

 Are they available when you

need their help

 57

Willingness to  How is MDS leaders’ willingness

help to help their team

 Are they voluntarily helping you

or you need to push them

Care about well  Are MDS leaders close to their

being team

 Do they care about you

 Are they open to you

Mentoring /

Coaching
Series of agreed

conversation
R
 How often do MDS leaders
P
coach / mentor their team

 Do they make schedule for

S

sessions

 Do MDS leaders stick to the

L

agreed time of sessions

Time  Are MDS leaders take time in

Commitment the mentoring / coaching

process and why

 Do they commit with time

provided

Coach-mentor  Is the process of coach-mentor

role simplification easy or complicated

 58

 Could you describe it

Basic progress  How do MDS leaders conduct

implementation the coahing / mentoring process

 Do you have one to one session

or one to many

Learning habit &  How is learning habit in MDS

personal  How do your leaders implement

development

implementation R personal development for their

team
P
Service Delivering the  How is your service to customer

Excellence promise  What are commitments or

S

promises MDS give to

customers
L

 How does it do

Personal touch  How do you treat your customer

 How do you give personal

service to customers

Extra mile  How does MDS carry out extra

mile in the service

 How do you anticipate

customers’ need
 59

Dealing with  How does MDS deal with

problem / queries customers quiries

 How does MDS deal with

customers complaint

 How fast MDS deal with quiries

and complaints

3.3.2. Secondary Data

R
Secondary data according to Hox & Boeiji (2005) is data that is collected

by other researchers or other sources such as official statistics. Therefore,

P
besides using data that is collected by the researcher herself, she also used

some data that was collected by other parties about the object of the study
S

prior to the research such as: Laporan Hasil Survey Omnibus: Service
L

Quality Index (SQI) 2017, Know Your Customer (KYC) 2017, Voice of

Customer (VOC) 2017, Mystery Shopping Report 2017 and Annual Report

2017, Wall magazine, Logbook, and OKB Program.

3.3 Data Analysis Technique

The researcher used designed quantitative and qualitative instruments

in the study. The closed-ended questionaires consist of a total of 31

questions from 8 dimension of 2 independent variables and 5 questions from

dependent variable dimensions. The questions of dependent variable

 60

dimension were asked to both front liners and customers. To ensure the

validity and reliability of the content, prediction and construct the researcher

did a pilot testing of sampling respondents prior to the survey. The data

collected for quantitative surveys was processed using SPSS (Statistical

Packages for the Social Sciences) 22 for analysis.

3.3.1 Pre Test

Validity and reliability in a research can be recognized by doing a pre-

R
test of each item of questions to respondents. The score gathered for each

item questions is tested for validity and reliability. The researcher has already
P
done the pre-test of 30 respondents in South Jakarta. The store tested are:

MDS Kalibata 5 (five) people, MDS Citos 10 people and MDS Pejaten 15
S

(fifteen) people.
L

3.4.1.1 Validity Test

Validity refers concept which accurately measured or it called valid

when it measures what it is supposed to (Heale & Twycross, 2015). Creswell

(2012) defines validity as “the degree to which all of the evidence points to

the intended interpretation of test scores for the proposed purpose”. Validity

shows how far the measurement chosen can measure an item that is being

measured. The question or indicator of instrument can be categorized

 61

significant or valid if the calculated value r (correlation coefficient) is positive

and higher than the table value which is 0.05 (Priyatno, 2017).

3.4.1.2 Reliability Test

Reliability is to which extent a research instrument consistently has the

same result over the same and repeated situation and occasion (Heale &

Twycross, 2015). An instrument is categorized reliable when the result is the

same from any angle of measurement. Alpha Cronbach is usually used to

R
test the reliability, If alpha value is less than 0, 6 it is categorized as

unreliable, 0.7 categorized as acceptable, and 0.8 as very good (Priyatno,

P
2017).
S

3.4.2 Data Triangulation

L

Quantitatively, data was analized by cross checking, what had been

gathered in the FGD of front liners was crosschecked with FGD of MDS

leaders, both supervisor and store managers, then it was also crosschecked

with management interview. The documents from secondary data also used to

perform the validity of data.

3.4.3 Descriptive Test

Descriptive statistics is a technique that shows a summarization or

 62

a set of raw data that we already gathered before (Berger, 2000). The

descriptive statistics concepts that are very common used are: frequency

distribution which is how many times certain value showed over an analized

sample, measures of central tendency such as mean, median, and mode,

standard deviation which is the point to which the data observed deviate from

the mean.

3.4.4 Classical Assumption Test

R
According to Riadi (2015), how big the significance a study in a
P
Parametric test should pass the validity of normality, multicollinearity, and

heteroscedasticity.
S
L

3.4.4.1 Normality Test

The purpose of normality test is to asses the central tendency

measures whether they are in normal distribution (Berger, 2000). When the

distribution of a set of data is not far apart, the data can be categorized as

normal.

3.4.4.2 Multicollinearity Test

Multicollinearity is a state where there is a linear correlation between

independent variables in multi regression model (Riadi, 2015). The

 63

multicollinearity occurance can be tested using VIF (Variance Inflation

Factor). The data is considered free from multicollinearity when the tolerance

value is greater than 0.10 (tolerance ≥ 0.10) or VIF value is less than 10 (VIF

≤ 10).

3.4.4.3 Heteroscedasticity Test

It is a Glejser test to identify the variant inequality of the residual

occurs in a set of data (Riadi, 2015). If the result forms a particular pattern it

indicates there is heteroscedasticity, on the other hand when the pattern is

R
not significant or spread in a scatterplot the data is free from

heteroscedasticity.
P
S

3.4.5 Correlation Analysis

Correlation is a measurement of a relationship between variables

L

(Patrick, Christa, & Lothar A, 2018). Correlation analysis is often used to

decide whether a relationship does exist between two variables and if it does,

how strong or how significant the relationship is (Taylor, 1990). Pearson’s

product moment r or r coefficient usually refers to this analysis. The range

value is from -1 to 0 and to +1, when the correlation is 0 (zero) indicates

there is no relationship between variables measured, when r coefficient

approaches +1 the stronger association is between measured variables

(Taylor, 1990). He also adds that positive r coefficeient shows that a raise in

fisrt variable corresponds to a raise in second variable while a negative r

 64

coefficient shows an opposite relationship that when the first variable

increases, the second variable deacreses (1990).

The strength of correlation coefficient is described in the rules of

thumb as follows:

Table 5
Rules of Thumb about Strenght of Correlation Coefficients

Range of Coefficient Discription of Strenght

± .81 to ± 1.00
R Very Strong
P
± .61 to ± .80 Strong

± .41 to ± .60 Moderate

S

± .21 to ± .40 Weak

L

± .00 to ± .20 None

Source: (Hair, Jr, Bush, & Ortinau, 2003)

3.4.6 Regression Analysis

“One of the most important types of data analysis is regression”

(Gallo, 2015). Regression analysis itself is a mathematical way of gathering

and determining on which variables are significant, as to creating impact

(Gallo).
 65

3.4.6.1 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

According to Hair et al. (2003) multiple regression is used when we

want to analyze the influence of several independent variables (X) on the

dependent variable (Y). The formula would be like:

Y= a+b1 X1+b2X2

Note:

X1 and X2
R
: Dependent variable

: Independent variable 1 & 2

P
a : intercept

b1 and b2 : Regression coefficient

S

(Misbahuddin & Hasan, 2014).

L

In the regression analysis some tests that are conducted are F test, R

test, and T test. F test is performed to find out wheter the independent

variables in a regression model influence the dependant variable. R test is

used to “show the percentage of variation in one variable that is accounted

for by another variable” while T test “examines the questions of whether the

regression coefficient is different enough from zero to be statistically

significant (Hair, Jr, Bush, & Ortinau, 2003). T

In the study the writer tested more than two variables, and used

multiple regression to know:

 66

a. Whether the communicative leadership behaviors influence the

front liners’ performance.

b. Whether behavioral factors of working environment influence the

front liners’ performance.

3.4.7 Variable Operationalization

According to (Creswell, 2014) variables refer to characteristics or

attribute of individuals or organizations that can be measured and observed.

The study involve two types of variables: independent variable—a variable

R
that influences outcome which is also known as a predictor variable. A

dependent variable—a variable that depends on independent variable and

P
outcome of influence of independent variable (Creswell, 2014). The writer

explains the variables in the table below:

S

Table 6
Operational Variables
L

Variables Operational Dimension Indicator Scale

Definition

X1

Commu Leaders who Initiating Goals & Likert

engage structure expectation setting

nicative
employees in
Leadership
dialogue,
 67

actively share Task Planning &

and seek feed- Allocation

back, practice

participative
Company mission
decision
defining & sharing
making, and are

perceived as

open and

involved
R
P
S
L

Facilitating Coaching & Likert

work training execution

Timely & relevant

performance

feedback
 68

Employees

engagement in

problem solving &

decision making

Relational Openess Likert

dynamic
Supportive

R Constructive
P
approach on

conflict-full issue
S
L

Representing Upward influence Likert

Active monitor

Networking &

manage

boundaries
 69

X2

Behavioral Components Goal setting Clearly described / Likert

Working that relate to set up goals

Environ employees’

interaction with
ment
Specific goals
colleagues

suach as social

and work

interaction R Goal acceptance

P
Difficult but

attainable goals
S
L

Frequently

reviewed & revised

Performance Regularly Likert

Feedback conducted
 70

Mentioning things

done right & areas

to improve

Done formally and

informally (candid

& time specific)

R Containing both
P
task guidance &

personal
S

evaluation
L

Deliverance that

results good

consequencies

Acceptable

Willingness to help Likert

 71

Supervisor

Support
Availability to help

Care about

employees’ well

being

R Value contribution
P
Mentoring / Series of Likert
S

Coaching conversation
L

Time commitment

Coach-mentor role

simplification

Basic progress

implementation
 72

Learning habit &

personal

development

implementation

Service

Excellence
Service that

exceeds
R
Delivering the Doing what they

promise say
Likert
P
expectation and
Delivering the
requires
service
S

organizations to
consistently
do more than
L

they promise

Treating
Personal
customers like
touch
individual

Knowing about

customers without

they tell
 73

Extra mile Anticipating

customers’ need

Falling over

yourselves to help
Dealing with
customers
problem /

quiries

Being happy and

R willing to sort

problems out
P
Knowing what to

do if there is a
S

problem
L

3.4.8 Qualitative Data Analysis

In the qualitative data analyisis the writer started with data collection,

then continued with data reduction and followed up with data display. The

detail steps are as follow:

a. Data collection: in primary data gathering process the researcher

did 3 FGDs and an in-depht interview on some informants

 74

b. Data reduction: After FGDs and interview transcription the writer

did the coding and selection on the information, only related data

that answer the research questions and objectives were used

c. Data display: The selected data that support the research

objectives then are displayed to further data analysis

3.4.9. Research Focus

The research was focusing on communicative leadership behavior and

R
behavioral working environment that was applied in 5 South Jakarta Matahari

Department Store which influence MDS employees’ performance: providing

P
service. The research focus is as follows:

Table 7
S

Research Focus
L

Research Elements Sub-elements Evidence Method

Object

Commu Initiating Goal & Briefing & FGD,

structure explanation Inter

nicative expectation

Leadership view
setting
 75

Briefing &

explanation
Task planning &

Allocation

Training, briefing,

explanation
Company mission

defining

Facilitating

work
R
Coaching &

training execution
Spending time

together in
FGD,

Inter
P
learning conver
view
sation and in
S

room training
L

Giving feedback

Timely & relevant on time and to

performance the point

feedback

Engaging

Employees employees in

engagement in making desicion

Problem solving
 76

& decision

making

Relational Openess Approachable FGD,

dynamic Inter
Good listener

view
Trustworthy

R
Supportive Willing to help
P
S

Constructive Fast in solving

L

approach on internal conflict

conflict-full issue

Represent- Upward influence Eager to convey FGD,

ing what employees Inter

needs & wants to

view
management
 77

Active monitor Informing

opportunities &

threats to

employees

Networking
Have a good

relationship with

suppliers or

R Merchandiser
P
Behavioral Goal Clear Goals Understanding & FGD,
S

Working setting having ability to Inter

Environ explain
view
L

company’s goals
ment

Specific goals
Written, wall

magazine,

logbook,

explanation
 78

Goal acceptance Positive

& commitment behaviors

towards

company’s goal /

applying the goals

Difficult but
Wrtitten on daily,
attainable goals
monthly, and

R yearly

achievement
P
S

Frequently Explanation &

reviewed & briefing by leader

L

revised goals weekly and

monthly

Perfor Mentioning things Logbook, STAR FGD,

done right & Inter

mance
areas to improve
Feedback view
 79

Personal

conversation &

explanation
Frequently done

Done formaly &

Logbook
informally (candid

& time specific) Personal

Explanation

R
Consists of task

guidance &
Logbook
P
personal
Personal
evaluation
S

Explanation

Logbook
L

Good deliverance

Logbook of

Acceptable improvement

Feedback

Positive

behaviors
 80

towards feedback

/ following up the

feedback

Supervisor Value Informal and FGD,

Support contribution Formal program Inter

work of
view
recognition

R
P
Spending time in
Availability to
counter / work
S

help
place
L

Willingness to
Teamwork
help

Close
Care about well
relationship, know
being
what

subordinates’
 81

need

(professionally)

Mentoring / Series of agreed On schedule FGD,

Coaching conversation sessions as Inter

written on
view
logbook

R
Time commitment
Not in a hurry
P
while mentoring in

counter
S

Coach-mentor Easy process not

role simplification complicated

L

Basic progress Brief conducted &

implementation one to one

session

Logbook

Learning habit &

personal OKB
 82

development SA

implementation

Behavior Service Delivering the Friendly service, FGD,

Perform excellence promise 7 days exchange Inter

policy
ance View

R
Personal touch
Calling customers

by name
P
S

Carrying
Extra mile
customers’
L

products to

carpark / lobby

Finding products

as customers
Dealing with
need & handling
problem / quiries
customer

complaints well
 83

In the qualitative data analyisis the writer started with data collection,

then continued with data reduction and followed up with data display. The

detail steps are as follow:

d. Data collection: in primary data gathering process the researcher

did 3 FGDs and an in-depht interview on some informants

e. Data reduction: After FGDs and interview transcription the writer

did the coding and selection on the information, only related data

R
that answer the research questions and objectives were used

f. Data display: The selected data that support the research

P
objectives then are displayed to further data analysis
S

3.5 Time and Place of Study

The survey took place in December 2018 while the pilot survey was done
L

in early December 2018. The writer did FGDs and interview in January 2019.

The place study was conducted in 5 stores as mentioned above: MDS

Kalibata: 95, MDS Citos: 242, MDS Pejaten Village: 245, MDS Kemang

Village: 69, and MDS Blok M: 120. The schedule of the study is as follows:

Table 8
Schedule of the Study

Activities Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Feb Mar
 84

Thesis

Proposal

Questionaire

preparation

Questionaire

distribution

Data input

Quantitative

data
R
P
analysis

Qualitative
S

questions

preparation
L

FGDs

Interview

Data

transcript &

coding

Qualitative

analysis
 85

Integration

Fisrt Draft

Final Draft

3.6 Limitation of Research

Even though there are 11 factors of a working environment according to

Chandrasekar (2011) which are: Goal Setting, Performance Feedback, Role

R
Congruity, Defined Processes, Workplace Incentives, Supervisor Support,

Mentoring / Coaching, Opportunity to apply, Job Aids, Environmental Factors,

P
and Physical Factors, in the study the researcher will only cover 4 factors of

WE which are: Goal Setting, Performance Feedback, Supervisor Support,

S

and Mentoring / Coaching. This is because:

1. The researcher focused on the problems that Matahari Department

L

Stores had based on the pre survey conducted. The factors that had

result below good and related with interaction were only discussed.

2. The four factors are also related with communicative leadership

behavior

3. The factors discussed based on what management considered

important and needed to take quick action.

In variable performance, the writer did not discuss outcome performance

because the writer wanted to correlate with service excellence which parts of

the behavior performance and not outcome performance. Moreover the in-
 86

role performance which was written in the job description of MDS front liners

did not give a clear picture of how they should provide service excellence so

the writer only discussed the extra-role behavior performance.

R
P
S
L
 CHAPTER IV

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS

4.1 Research Object Description

4.1.1 Matahari Department Store Overview

Matahari Department Store (MDS) was established in 1958 in Pasar

Baru Jakarta. It started the department store concept in 1972 and opened the

R
first store outside Jakarta which was Bogor (SM Boor) in 1980. By early 2018

it had 154 stores nationwide and became a public listed company where its
P
initial public offering was in 1992 and listed in Jakarta and Surabaya Stock

Exchange as MPPA as the stock code. In 2009 PT Pacific Utama tbk.

S

acquired Matahari Department Store and allowed it to be a stand-alone

public company under LPPF as the stock code. As of the 2017 annual report
L

was issued, the public ownership of MDS reached 82.52% (Matahari

Department Store, 2018).

MDS’s Direct Purchased products received a lot of awards such as

Best Brands, Netizen Fashion Choice Award, etc. are Nevada, Cole,

Connexion, Little M, American Jeans, Monterosa, Whiteberry and so on.

Exclusive brands such as Levi’s, Polo, Clinique, Revlon, Logo, Fladeo, etc.

were among consignment brands that available in store. The success of

selling its products because MDS has loyalty card known as MCC then, was

first launched in 2000 and changed its name to MRO (Matahari Reward

86
OVO) once it was acquired by OVO in 2018. In 2017 Annual Report it is

writer that in 2006 Matahari Department Store also launched Co-Brand BCA

Matahari Credit Card, Matahari App and MatahariStore.com which later in

late 2018 will be Matahari.com (Matahari Department Store, 2018).

MDS employed 51.187 people which consists of 12.602 MDS

employees and 38.585 consignment employees. Its employees range from

different level as shown in the figure below:

Figure 8

R
Classification of Employees by Grade & Employee Breakdown by Geography
P
S
L

Source: (2017 Annual Report Matahari Department Store, 2018)

From the figure above the number of employees in DKI Jakarta as a city

takes the biggest among others. Hence, the writer chose Jakarta store

employees as the object of the study besides Jakarta stores also become

pilot stores for other MDS stores.

199
 Matahari’s vision is all Indonesian can afford to look and feel good

while its mission is to provide our customers with affordable quality fashion

and a welcoming shopping environment that provides a feel good experience

and enhances overall quality of life (Matahari Department Store, 2018). One

of ways in making unforgettable shopping experiences is by providing

customers with friendly and helpful staff where they are part of service

excellence characteristics.

R
4.1.1 Characteristics of Respondents and Informants

The characteristics of respondents on the questionnaires are: age,

P
gender, education, marital status, length of service and number of children,

ethnic group, and area of domicile. Those are shown in the following tables.
S
L

4.1.2.1 Respondents

Age and Gender of Respondents

Based on the criteria requirement that only millennials were surveyed

then the age of respondents range between 18 – 35 years old, and 56% of

front liners surveyed are those who were born between the year of 2.000 and

1.996.

200
Table 9
Age and Respondents Percentage

AGE # OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

19-23 433 56%

24-29 272 35%

30-36 65 R 8.4%
P
TOTAL 772 100%
S

In order to representing the female front liners that take up to more

than 80%, the gender of respondents is 84.2% of total respondents.

L

Table 10
Gender and Respondents Percentage

GENDER # OF RESPONDENTS PERCENTAGE

Female 650 84,2%

Male 122 15,8%

TOTAL 772 100%

201
Location of Questioanire Dispatch

Table 11
Questionaire Dispatch Location

LOCATION OF # OF RESPONDENTS

STORE

Citos 242

Kalibata 95

Pejaten 245
R
P
Kemang 69

Blok M Plaza 120

S
L

Figure 9
Respondents Percentage

Respondents Percentage

9
12 32

16

31

MDS Pejaten MDS Citos MDS Blok M MDS Kalibata MDS Kemang

202
 In term of response rate / completion rate of the surveys distributed is

shown as follows:

Table 12
The Response Rate

# Questionaire # Questionaire # Questionaire %

did valid used

892 772 772 86.5

R
P
4.2 Key Informants

In collecting some qualitative data the researcher conducted in-depth

S

interview and FGDs. The key informants’ profile of the study is as follows:

1. The Regional Manager of Jakarta 2 (South Jakarta)

L

Name : Alex Wirawan

DOB : 5 July 1971

Address : PG House

Email : alexwirawan.rumbu@gmail.com

2. The Store Manager of MDS Pejaten Village

Name : Makky Pamungkas

DOB : 24 Nov 1968

Address : Jl Koala XVI Blok A13 no 15 Taman Permata Cikunir

Jati Bening Bekasi Selatan

203
 Email : makkypamungkas@yahoo.com

3. The Store Manager of MDS Kemang Village

Name : Suhendar Sunardi

DOB : 31 Desember 1969

Address : Jl Menteng Sukabumi IV

Email : suhendar.sunardi@gmail.com

R
P
S
L

204
 87

4. The Store Manager of MDS Kalibata

Name : Budi Suratno

DOB : 24 March 1971

Address : Jl Nanas 3 No 1 Utan Kayu

Email : budisuratno2403@gmail.com

5. The Assistant Store Manager of MDS Citos

Name : Dea Adiartin Mulyani

DOB : 15 July 1991

Address

Email
R
: Jl Cilandak 7 No 19 Cilandak

: adiadea1507@gmail.com
P
6. Supervisors of MDS Kalibata, MDS Kemang Village, MDS Blok M

Plaza, MDS Pejaten Village, MDS Citos

S

Name : Ahmad Parizal, Alex Widjaya, Gabby Elfanda

Mumpunie, Ajat Muliana, Fakhri Isnan, Rizky Marudur,

L

Satriandi N, Gina F, Meidyna Silvi, Letasha Simbolon

Age : 18 – 23 = 5 people, 24 – 29 = 4 people, 30 – 40 = 1

person, 41 – 50 =

Area of Staying: South Jakarta & Depok

7. Sales Associates of MDS Kalibata, MDS Pejaten Village, MDS

Kemang Village, MDS Citos, MDS Blok M Plaza

 88

Name : Santy Nurmala Sari, Rifkiana, Defitri Erfiana, Arum

Ratna Sari, Dea Monica, Choirunisyah, Mahdalia, Jafar,

Rosalia Dewi, Diba Tiffani

Age : 18 – 23 = 5 people, 24 – 29 = 4 people, 30 – 40 = 1

person

Area of Staying: South Jakarta & Depok

To anticipate the after mistreat by management of the company and to

apply ethics in the analysis, the researcher did not mention names for

R
informants when writing informants’ statements, except the Store Managers

and General Manager’s.

P
4.3 Pre-Test Result
S

4.3.1 Validity Result

Table 13
L

Validity result

Variable Questions Calculated r Tabulated r Note

X1.1 1 0.883 0.134 Valid

2 0.868 0.134 Valid

3 0.878 0.134 Valid

X1.2 1 0.886 0.134 Valid

2 0.902 0.134 Valid

 89

3 0.859 0.134 Valid

X1.3 1 0.892 0.134 Valid

2 0.920 0.134 Valid

3 0.929 0.134 Valid

X1.4 1 0.918 0.134 Valid

2 0.939 0.134 Valid

3 0.930 0.134 Valid

X2.1 1 0.757 0.134 Valid

3
R
0.902

0.882
0.134

0.134
Valid

Valid
P
4 0.891 0.134 Valid

5 0.682 0.134 Valid

S

X2.2 1 0.873 0.134 Valid

2 0.756 0.134 Valid

L

3 0.814 0.134 Valid

4 0.842 0.134 Valid

5 0.848 0.134 Valid

6 0.836 0.134 Valid

X2.3 1 0.831 0.134 Valid

2 0.890 0.134 Valid

3 0.792 0.134 Valid

4 0.934 0.134 Valid

 90

X2.4 1 0.863 0.134 Valid

2 0.852 0.134 Valid

3 0.859 0.134 Valid

4 0.744 0.134 Valid

Source: Data calculation SPSS 22

From the table above all variable indicators have result above 0.05 and

therefore can be categorized as valid.

Table 14
Validity Result R
P
Variable Questions Calculated r Tabulated r Note

Y 1 0.890 0.134 Valid

S

2 0.892 0.134 Valid

L

3 0.844 0.134 Valid

4 0.908 0.134 Valid

Source: data calculation SPSS 22

4.3.2 Reliability Result

The following tables illustrate the reliability test data on variable X1

(communicative leadership behaviors), variable X2 (behavioral working

environmenment) and Y (employee performance: service excellence).

 91

Reliability Test Result of Variable X1 (Communicative Leadership Behavior)

N = 215

Table 15
Reliability Test Result
Variable Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items Note

X1.1 .848 3 Reliable

X1.2 .858 3 Reliable

X1.3

X1.4
.901

.920
R 3

3
Reliable

Reliable
P
X2.1 .880 5 Reliable
S

X2.2 .908 6 Reliable

X2.3 .885 4 Reliable

L

X2.4 .885 5 Reliable

Y .904 4 Reliable

Source: data calculation SPSS 22

From the table above, it shows that the value of Cronbach alpha is

above 0.6 so it is categorized as reliable.

 92

4.4 Descriptive Test and Qualitative Results

4.4.1 Variable X1: Communicative Leadership (Communication

Behaviors)

One way communication was not much used in a modern leadership

communication anymore. Interaction that involves both leaders and

employees was the perfection of traditional leadership. Leaders who

“engange employees in dialogue, actively share and seek feedback,

practices participative decision making, and is perceive as open and

R
involved” (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011, p. 12) are called

communicative leaders.
P
Descriptive statistics analyisis of communicative leadership is as follows:

Table 16
S

Communicative Leadership Descriptive Statistics

L

Min Max Mean Std. Dev

Initiating structure 4.00 15.00 9.9495 2.61767

Facilitating work 4.00 15.00 10.7850 2.28237

Relational dynamic 3.00 15.00 8.6490 2.91511

Representing 3.00 15.00 9.7047 2.52938

employees & the unit

Communicative 18.00 60.00 39.0881 7.06263

leadership

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 93

Based on the table above, it reveals that on variable communicative

leadership, there were 4 items. The item with the highest mean was

facilitating work while the lowest mean was relational dynamic. The

respondents’ answers can be categorized various, but indicator facilitating

work was more clustered as it had the lowest standard deviation among all.

The average result of questionnaire survey on communicative leaders is

as follows:

Table 17
Communicative Leadership R
P
Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

(MDS response
S

Standard) scale
L

Strongly agree 106 13.8

Agree 220 28.5

Neutral 295 38.1

Disagree 115 14.9

Strongly disagree 36 4.7

TOTAL 772 100 66 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

 94

The over all communicative leadership index is 66 which is categorized as

poor according to MDS standard. The above table indicates that 38.1% of

772 respondents which is 295 people stated they were neutral. 28.5%

respondents or 220 people answered agree, 14.9% respondents or 115 front

liners said disagree, 106 employees or 13.8% voted strongly agree, and only

36 respondents said strongly disagree which is only 4.7%. It means the

majority of respondents were neutral or almost agreed that Matahari

Department Stores’ leaders have applied communicative leadership.

R
However, in term of respondents’ response scale, it is considered as

average.
P
According to Johansson, Miller, and Hamrin (2011) the effectiveness

of communicative leadership is judged by 4 leaders’ following behaviors,

S

which are initiating structure, facilitating work, relational dynamic,

performance feedback, and representing the unit.

L

The first behavior is as follows:

4.4.1.1 Initiating Structure

Initiating structure is important to maximize the efficiencies of

coordination in a team. Initiating structure consists of some indicators such

as goal and expectation setting, task planning allocation and sense making,

and company mission definition and sharing (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin,

2011).
 95

Table 18
Initiating Structure

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 108 14

Agree 205 27

Neutral 313
R 41
P
Disagree 115 15

Strongly disagree 30 4
S

TOTAL 772 100 66 3.3

L

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey results on initiating structure show index of 66 which

means poor. 41% of respondents or 313 people expressed they were

neutral, 205 employees or 27% said they agree, 115 front liners or 15%

stated they disagree, 108 people or 14% showed they strongly agree, and

only 4% of 772 respondents which is 30 employees were strongly disagree.

In other words the majority of 772 respondents which is 41% said they were
 96

neutral on MDS leaders’ initiating structure. The respondents’ response scale

is moderate (3.3)

Table 19
Initiating Structure Descriptive Statistics

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X1.1.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2682.00 3.4741 1.04781

Goal &

expectation
R
P
X1.1.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2468.00 3.1969 0.96372

Task planning &

S

allocation

X1.1.3 4.00 1.00 5.00 2531.00 3.2785 1.05191

L

Company

mission and

sharing

Initiating 11.00 4.00 15.00 7681.00 9.9495 2.61767

structure

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 97

The above table shows that on indicators of initiating structure had 3

items. The item with the highest mean was goal & expectation: 3.4741,

meaning most of respondents replied agree for this item. Whereas task

planning & allocation item had the lowest mean: 3.1969. It meant that most of

respondents answered neutral. The mean for company mission definition and

sharing indicator was 3.2785 meaning most of respondents chose neutral.

The spread of respondents’ answers can be categorized various, but

indicator task planning and allocation was more clustered as it had the lowest

R
standard deviation. Items in this indicator were lower than other items in

other indicators. It meant that the item scores of initiating structure were more
P
consistent than item scores in facilitating work, relational dynamic, or

representing employees and the unit.

S

The three indicators of initiating structure as mentioned above are:

a. Goal and Expectation Setting

L

Leader in the organization has the accountability in setting goal and

expectation for their team both individually and by the unit / team. Clarifying

goal and expectation means the leaders acknowledge the importance of

communication (Hamrin, 2016).

Table 20
Goal and Expectation Setting
 98

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 137 18

Agree 250 32

Neutral 250 32

Disagree 116 15

Strongly disagree 19 R 2
P
TOTAL 772 100 70 3.5

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

Out of 772 respondents, the number of employees who answered

agree and neutral was equal which is 250 or 32%. 18% of respondents or
L

137 front liners chose strongly agree, 117 people or 156% answered

disagree, and only 19 employees or 2% stated strongly disagree. Hence, the

writer may conclude that the majority of respondents which is 32% said they

agree and neutral on the statement that their leaders have set goal and

expectation to the employees and the unit. The index of goal and expectation

setting is 70 that is still considered as poor based on MDS standard, and the

scale of respondents’ response is 3.5 or moderate.

Leblebici (2012) said the purposes of goal setting are to guide

everybody in an organization on their behavior and to motivate them to

 99

perform better and effectively. It means in order to get a better and effective

performance company members have to understand what goal and

expectation of the company itself. One of company’s goals is usually stated

in its vision and mission.

To know how MDS set its goal and expectation, the researcher

conducted FGD and interview, and the results are shown in the table below:

Table 21

Goal & Expectation FGD result

R
P
Front liners level:
Goal:
- “Ngga tau bu…”
S

- “Hmm… ngga ngerti….”

Expectation:
- “Ngga ada penjelasan Bu. Dibebasin aja”
L

- “Dibebasin aja, jadi kalau mentok, salah baru kena”

- “Baru kena”
- “Mandiri bu”
(Santy, Rifkiana, Defitri, Arum, Dea, Choirunisyah, Mahdalia, Jafar,
Rosalia, Diba: FGD Front liner participants)

Supervisory level:
Goal:
- “Saya kurang paham”
- “Paham” (8 people answered)
- “Cukup”
- “Kalau secara strukturalnya sih saya ngga terlalu hafal, tetapi
secara garis besarnya kita kan memang seperti perusahaan
kekeluargaan ya, gitu kan.. jadi kita menjual banyak produk2 yang
 100

berhubungan dengan fashion sebanyak2 nya dan mengenalkan

Matahari ini dilingkungan sekitar biar dikenal lingkungan bawah,
menengah sampai atas”
- “Setuju bu sama, kurang paham darimana atau bagaimana itu
dirumuskan”
Expectaton:
- “Pertama kali masuk kerja di briefing sama store manager”
- “Pemaparan dari store manager misal mengambil keputusan saat
ada masalah spg bagaimana penyelesaiannya”
- “Store manager atau asisten menjelaskan yang tugas kita”
- “Kalau dari Store manager atau asisten belum dikasih pemahaman
jadi saya banyak sharing dengan teman saya”
- “Pertama kali masuk disuruh baca buku aturannya oleh store
manager”
-
R
“Waktu pertama kali kerja store manager dan asisten ngasih tau
yang standardnya aja, tidak diberitahukan secara detil jadi saya
banyak belajar dari rekan saya sebelumnya”
P
(Ahmad Parizal, Alex Widjaya, Gabby Elfanda, Ajat Muliana, Fakhri
Isnan, Rizky Marudur, Satriandi N, Gina F, Meidyna Silva, Letania
Simbolon: FGD Supervisor partcipants)
S

Managerial level:
Goal:
L

- “Tujuan perusahaan sendiri yang pasti punya target dimana kita

juga harus memberikan kontribusi untuk mencapai target, selain itu
perusahaan ingin growth dibanding tahun lalu targetnya 2 digit”
(Suhendar)
- “Kalo saya melihat dari visi-misi, visinya adalah memberikan fashion
yang terbaik berdasarkan kualitas dan meningkatkan taraf hidup
untuk customer. Di raker biasanya dibahas sekilas nanti dilanjutkan
meeting regional Bu. Biasanya dibahas lagi tentang goal perusahaan”
(Makky)
Expectation:
- “Langsung”
(Makky)
- “Iya, kita sebagai leader itu harus bisa mendelivery ekspektasi dari
perusahaan, iya, terutama kita meeting dengan para staff ya, kita
informasikan sejelas mungkin apa yang sudah kita dapatkan dari
 101

regional manager, dan juga kita tujuan perusahaan itu biasanya kan
setiap tahun rutin raker, Nah, itu semua kita deliver ke supervisor,
dan kita minta mereka commit untuk melaksanakannya. Jadi mereka
harus bisa mendelivery lagi untuk level dibawahnya”.
(Suhendar)
- “Terbuka lah ya bu”
(Budi)
- “Iya, supaya mereka sama dengan ekspektasi saya pastinya.
Misalkan ekspektasi saya untuk tim bisa achieve target di atas
manajemen 110 dan mereka gimana caranya ya kita harus beritahu,
kita harus lead juga ke mereka ya strateginya juga kita sharing, kalo
perlu ya mereka itu bener-bener paham seperti apa yang kita
pahami”.
(Dea)

R
(Makky, Hendar, Dea, Budi Suratno: FGD Manager Participants)
P
Senior Managerial / General Manager level:
- “Dari pusat di dalam raker dibahas dan waktu kembali ke toko
masing2 kepala toko harus sharing.Tapi Kalo sampe ke level staf
S

kemungkinan iya, tapi kalo ke bawah mungkin belum terlalu clear

tujuan perusahaan. Kalau ekpektasi kepala toko biasanya melalui
morning meeting”.
L

(Alex, Regional Manager: In-depth interview)

From the FGD and interview the writer can conclude that in setting the

goals, MDS senior leaders had involved the managerial level. Mostly the

managerial level understood company’s goal and expectation very well. The

information of company’s goal was descendent from their Regional Manager

to Store Managers, Store Managers to Supervisors and Supervisors to front

liners. Store managers claimed that they had socialized the goals to

supervisory level, and it was the supervisors’ accountability to do the same.

 102

In term of conveying the goals it stucked in the supervisory level, most

of them did not transfer to their subordinates as a result most of the front

liners do not know about the stores’ goals. Since the information was not

passed through there could have been a missing link somewhere in the

communication. The supervisors might not copy what their managers did, on

the other hand they just read it every day and had it hung on the madding

wall expecting every front liners to understand by themselves. This due to

either supervisors’ ignorance or their lack of knowledge in how to convey

R
appropriately. It is reflected from the supervisors’ answers that only 8 of them

knew about the goal.

P
Setting the expectation also underwent similar case. MDS senior

leader had already involved the managerial level in setting the expectation
S

through consession meeting and so did the managers to their supervisors.

And yet in the implementation, some store managers took it for granted that
L

their supervisor would understand their expectation or the way the managers

conveyed their expectations was not thorough enough and without checking

& rechecking system. It can be seen from the supervisors’ answers that they

were only given an SOP book to read in understanding the expectation. Even

worse, the managers did not explain their expections so their subordinates

had to dig out from their peers. This resulted there were some differences of

understandings about the company’s and leaders’ expectation across

position levels although the managers claimed they had conversed it openly

until their followers understood it. In fact in the front liner level their
 103

supervisors did not even state their expectations. Hence, the team were free

to do things their own and the objective of uniforming the perception of

everybody in the store could not be achieved.

b. Task Planning and Allocation

Leaders have to plan and allocate task for employees’ role clarity

result (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). When role clarity is at hand,

employees will not face misunderstanding nor assume certain tasks are not

their responsibility. Hence, each and every front liner does his / her task

without hesitation. R
P
Table 22
Task Planning and Allocation
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

L

response

scale

Strongly agree 71 9

Agree 202 26

Neutral 340 44

Disagree 130 17

Strongly disagree 29 4
 104

TOTAL 772 100 64 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The task planning and allocation index is 64 which can be called poor,

while respondents’ response scale is 3.2 which is still moderate. The majority

of respondents who chose neutral is 340 people or 44%, 26% of 772

respondents which is 202 front liners answered agree, 130 people or 17%

claimed disagree, 9% of front liners or 71 respondents said strongly agree,

and employees who claimed strongly disagree is 29 people or 4%. It means

R
44% respondents were neutral about leaders’ planning and allocating front

liners’ tasks in MDS.

P
As said above, misunderstanding will not happen among employees
S

nor avoiding certain task of responsibility when role clarity is at hand.

Moreover, employees will carry out their task with certainty or without
L

hesitation.

FGD and in-depht interview results about task and planning allocation

are shown in the following table:

Table 233

Task & Planning Allocation FDG Result

Front liner level

- “Ngga ada planning bu, saya nanya partner”
- “Saya nanya senior, ga pernah dikasih dari supervisor”.
 105

- “Otodidak”. (two people answered)

- “Istilahnya...Proses”.
- “Ngga dijelasin bu, kita bisa karena biasa”.
- “Ala bisa karena biasa”

Supervisory level:
- “Itu pernah di-sharing juga sama teman-teman yang lain, jobdesk dari
buka toko sampe dengan tutup toko. Jadi, mungkin detail per hari,
mungkin ada perbedaan pada saat weekday, weekend. Jadi, setiap
jamnya, jam sebelum buka toko, terus pada saat buka toko, setelah
tutup toko ada juga pekerjaan closing hariannya Kayak gitu sih”.
- “Terus, ada pekerjaan yang harian, mingguan, bulanan”
- “Jadi, mereka menjelaskan yang tugas kita, jobdesk kita, per hari, per

R
minggu, per bulan, seperti yang tadi disampaikan, juga kita tugasnya
kerja ngapain aja di toko. Untuk me-maintain pergerakan customer
dari segi pintu masuk, kita cek juga. Dan pastinya selalu tujuannya
untuk penjualan”.
“Sebagai supervisor seperti yang Bu Gina ceritakan. Tapi jobdesk-
P
-
nya HR memang tidak diberi tahu secara detail. Cuma dibilang
pokoknya kamu menangani sepertiga payroll, combine yang lain.
Cuma, seperti apa ya memang tidak diberi tahu”
S

- “Waktu itu kan toko baru juga, Bu. Semuanya masih baru, masih
fresh semua, supervisornya masih muda-muda, dan kita juga belum
tahu apa-apa. Habis itu, beruntungnya waktu itu ada Pak Anthony,
L

Pak Anthony ngajarinnya udah kayak guru aja gitu, Bu. Dia di papan
tulis, nulisnya gini, gini , dari sini, dari sini; oh, iya, kita ngerti.
Kemudian kita coba mulai dari nol sendiri”.

Managerial Level:
- “Ketika kita mendelivery suatu ekspektasi, tugas atau tanggung
jawab ke tim kita, kita pun sudah langsung on the spot Bu, kita
guidance mereka di area, kita lakukan eksekusi, tidak pakai
planning2 dulu langsung implementasi”.
(Budi)
- “Kami akan cek front liner-nya langsung dan melihat apakah mereka
sudah paham, pertama kita tanya karena biasanya pemahaman
mereka mungkin beda-beda. Dan juga mungkin pada saat mereka
meeting counter atau meeting umum, mungkin tidak semuanya
mereka bisa fokus, jadi kita harus check and recheck lagi supaya
memastikan bahwa memang mereka sudah paham akan tugas
 106

mereka maupun tujuan perusahaan. Nah kalau ada yang tidak

paham akan tugas, kita akan panggil supervisornya, kenapa mereka
ini kok belum tau apakah mereka pada saat penyampaian / briefing
tidak masuk atau memang mereka tidak paham, kita cross checknya
ke leader-nya”.
(Makky)

Senior Managerial / General Manager level:

- “Jujur tim toko sering terperangkap dengan pekerjaan rutinitas
sehingga yang penting missal nya planning tidak dilakukan atau
terabaikan dan melakukan alokasi waktu untuk action justru lebih
penting untuk dieksekusi”
(Alex)

R
P
From the interview and FGD the writer can wrap up that in general task

planning had not been applied in the stores. It was also admitted by the general
S

manager. Let alone having their tasks been planned, the front liners even had

not been informed about their tasks by their supervisors. Most of them found
L

out by themselves or asking their senior peers. In addition, most of the

supervisors claimed that their leaders had informed and planned their task

monthly, weekly, and even daily. It showed that the process of task planning

and allocation were not well implemented in stores as it stucked in the

supervisory level.

c. Company mission definition and sharing

 107

Davis (1989) said that mission statement becomes meaningless when

people within the organization do not act upon it. Therefore leaders have to

define the company mission and share it to their team. Besides having

unanimity of purpose, having mission clarity also guide every individual to

achieve the company’s goal (Davis).

Table 24
Company Mission Definition and Sharing

R
Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response
P
scale

Strongly agree 115 15

S

Agree 164 21
L

Neutral 350 45

Disagree 100 13

Strongly disagree 43 6

TOTAL 772 100 65 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

From the total 772 respondents, the number of employees who chose to

answer neutral was 45% or 350 people, and it is the majority. The frontliners

who agreed were 21% of respondents or 164 people, 15% or 115

 108

respondents said strongly agree, 100 respondents or 13% of front liners

chose disagree, and 43 people or 6% answered strongly disagree. In other

words the majority of respondents who claimed neutral on the statement that

their leaders had defined and shared company mission statement is 45% or

350 respondents, and that makes the the index 65 which is poor. The

respondents’ response scale is still moderate as it touches at 3.3 point.

When the researcher conducted FGD and interview to know how MDS

mission was defined and the results are as follow:

Table 25 R
P
Company Mission Defining FGD Result
S

Front liner level:

- “... kurang lebih”
- “Panjang…. kurang paham cuma ditempel aja visi misinya”
L

- “Cuma sekali doang dijelasinnya”.

- “Untuk memajukan fashion trendy Indonesia”
- “Iya tapi ngga dijelasin maksudnya apa”.
- “Waktu visi misi ganti, cuman sekali doang dikasih tahunya”.
- “Sekali tapi ngga dijelasin... “.
- “He-eh, tapi ... enggak ada lagi”.
- “He-eh, yang baru lupa”.
- “Kalau untuk pribadi mah enggak, tapi kalau tiap pagi mah informasi
dibacain. Cuma baca aja”.
- “Dibacain”.
- “Lima standard kan ada yang berbeda ya waktu itu diganti”.

Supervisory level:
- “Menjadi peritel no 1 di Indonesia, sebagai penyedia barang yang
dibutuhkan oleh masyarakat, selain itu memberikan kebutuhan juga
rasa nyaman kepada customer dan memberikan kualitas, dari sisi
 109

pendistribusian barang ingin merespon daerah2 pelosok supaya

kenal Matahari”
- “Saya sependapat”
- “Memberikan kualitas produk kepada customer juga memberikan
pengalaman berbelanja yang menyenangkan, memberikan produk
berkualitas juga tentunya juga dengan servicenya memberikan
pelayanan yang menyenangkan”
- “Matahari itu pengen menjadi pembeda dengan retail lainnya,
dengan department store lainnya, yaitu memberikan kenyamanan
kepada setiap pelanggan. Ya seperti tagline kita. Jadi, kita bisa
mengenalkan bahwa belanja itu menyenangkan di Matahari sendiri”

Managerial level:
- Misinya adalah memberikan experience kepada customer,

R
kemudian juga membuat harga terjangkau, kemudian misi yang
lainnya adalah memberikan panduan fashion sehingga Matahari
dijadikan barometer atau destinasi tren untuk fashion buat
customer.
P
(Makky)
S

Senior Managerial / General Manager level:

- Kalo sampe ke level staf kemungkinan iya sudah sampai, tapi kalo ke
bawah mungkin belum terlalu clear misi itu. Sebenarnya sosialisasi
L

visi misi itu kan ada di mading, di toko-toko itu ada semua. Maksud
saya mereka kalo melihat iya, tapi mungkin untuk paham secara detil,
nah itu saya bilang mungkin hanya sampe level staf / supervisor, tapi
untuk level bawah mungkin hanya sebatas membaca saja, ya. Jadi
puas sih belum, Bu. Seharusnya ini harusnya clear sampe ke bawah.
Nah harusnya ini disosialisasikan dengan cara bukan hanya
mengkampanyekan dengan menempel di mading misalnya, ya tapi
paling tidak ada mungkin video kah, atau mungkin dari supervisor
toko yang sudah pernah dibekalin untuk menyampaikan itu mungkin
bisa menyampaikan dengan detil ini ke meeting umum, nah mungkin
seperti itu jadi biar ke bawahnya itu clear.
(Alex)
 110

The above answers of informants tells that the company mission is just

“a nice to have” for the store team as none of them knew or remembered about

it. Therefore, it had not yet run in the team’s blood. This might because the

way of defining the company mission was just at glance and just like a store

decoration. It can be seen from the front liners’ replies such as it was conveyed

only once, it was put on the wall magazine, or read during the meeting. The

condition was admitted by Alex, the senior / general manager that defining

company mission was only conveyed up to supervisory level and had not

R
reached the lowest level of the store team yet. His expectation was the

supervisors should have shared in detail what the company’s mission to front
P
liners and should not have just treated the mission as one of wall magazine

item.
S

4.4.1.2 Facilitating Work

L

Facilitating work is essential for the success of the employees and

eventually leads to the company success. Leaders need to involve in

coaching and training, performance feedback, and problem solving decision

making (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011).

Table 26
Facilitating Work
 111

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 146 20

Agree 258 41

Neutral 291 30

Disagree 65 8

Strongly disagree 12 R 1
P
TOTAL 772 100 72 3.6

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The survey results on facilitating work show index of 72. 30% of

respondents which is 291 people expressed they were neutral, 258

L

employees or 41% said they agreed, 146 front liners or 20% stated they

strongly agreed, 65 people or 8% showed they disagree, and only 1% of 772

respondents which is 12 employees strongly disagreed. It means the majority

of 772 respondents which is 30% said they were neutral that their leaders

had facilitated their work. The scale of their response is 3.6 which is good.

Table 27
Facilitating Work Descriptive Statistics
 112

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X1.2.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2855.00 3.6982 .94373

Coaching &

training

X1.2.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2776.00 3.5959 .97165

Performance

feedback

X1.2.3

Problem
4.00 1.00
R 5.00 2695.00 3.4909 .93007
P
solving decision

making
S

Facilitating 11.00 4.00 15.00 8326.00 10.7850 2.28237

work
L

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

The above table shows that on indicators of facilitating work had 3 items

with coaching and training had the highest mean: 3.6982. It meant most of

respondents picked agree on the item. Whereas the lowest mean (3.4909)

was on problem solving and decision making item meaning most of

respondents also answered agree. The mean for performance feedback item

was 3.5959 meaning most of respondents chose agree. The range and
 113

spread of respondents’ answers can be categorized various enough, but

performance feedback score was wider as it had the highest standard

deviation.

The three involments of a leader in facilitating work as mentioned

above are:

a. Coaching and Training

Leaders in an organization need to spend enough time to coach and

R
train their team so the employees have enough knowledge and necessary

skills to succeed (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). Coaching and training
P
activities are important to guide employees especially new ones in doing their

daily task.
S

Table 28
Coaching and Training
L

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 153 20

Agree 319 41

Neutral 229 30
 114

Disagree 61 8

Strongly disagree 10 1

TOTAL 772 100 74 3.7

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of coaching and training is 74 means fair according to MDS

standard. Out of 772 respondents 41% or 319 people claimed agree, 30% or

229 employees chose neutral, 20% or 153 front liners stated strongly agree,

R
8% or 61 people said disagree, and 1% or 10 people were strongly disagree.

The writer may conclude that the majority of respondents which is 41% or
P
319 people agreed that MDS leaders had done enough coaching and

training. It made the scale of respondents’ response 3.7 which is good.

S

The researcher asked informants during FGDs and interview and the

result of their answers are as follow:

L

Table 29

Coaching and Training Execution FGD Result

Front liner level:

Coaching
- “yah… seminggu sekali”.
- “Bener seminggu sekali”.
- “Maunya langsung”.
- “Jarang sih, atasan ngga punya waktu bu sibuk mungkin”.
- “Kalau aku sih enggak di coaching waktu itu”.
- “Aku juga ngga ada coaching”.
 115

- “Ngga bu”.
- “Enggak ada bu, Cuek ngga peduli”.
- “Sibuk bu”.
- “Ngga ada waktu katanya suruh sendiri”.
- “Iya enggak ada waktu”.
- “Apa2 sendiri”.
Training
- “Kayak pas mau masuk ke MDS. Kita pernah di-training waktu pas
mau masuk. Pas pembukaan toko”.
- “Nisa kemarin, Bu Whiteberry”. Tapi topik lain belum pernah, Bu”.
- “Saya udah bu sama Ibu Friska. Whiteberry bu”.
- “Paling ditanya sama HRD doang sih. maksudnya pas baru mau
masuk.....ya paling cuman ... kayak kita dikasih tahu gitu kaya
briefing.Tapi kalau misalkan buat product knowledge itu enggak”.
-

-
-
aja” gitu”. R
“Aku belum...cuman disuruh: “Banyak-banyakin nonton film Disney

“Seingat saya belum bu…. Paling dikasih tau sama HR aja bu”.
“Oh, kalau di dalam kelas enggak. Belum pernah”.
P
- “Saya belum”.
- “Saya baru bu jadi belum pernah ditraining”.
S

Supervisory level:
Coaching
L

- “Lebih cenderung belajar sama teman sih, Bu. ... saya dulu kan
awalnya itu kan sama seperti Bu Medina, saya dulu masuk pas
season lebaran 2015 bulan Agustus di Gadjah Mada, pas saya
pertama masuk sih cuma keliling area sama Asisten Store manager
dan dijelasin tentang area langsung siangnya ketemu sama Store
Manager dan disuruh belajar perihal cara kasir. Karena di sini kan
peak season, semua harus serba cepat. Saya belajar sama rekan
supervisor. Memang awal-awal ngajarinnya ilmu-ilmu dasarnya aja.
Cuma, di bilang, kalau ada apa-apa, lo nanyanya sama gue”.
- “Coaching secara langsung sih kalau ke saya, Bu. Jadi, bagaimana
cara display, terus cara penataan barang. Pak Yandi, ambil yang itu.
Coba, menurut Pak Yandi gimana warnanya yang ini? Ya udah,
coba aja, Pak, kemudian saya coba. Gimana? Udah begitu bu”.
- “Leader Menurut saya masih kurang memberikan waktu yang cukup
untuk coaching”
Training
 116

- “Saya dipindahtugaskan di ekspedisi, itu tantangan baru buat saya.

Tapi mungkin untuk training sistem dari store manager, belum dikasih
pemahaman. Jadi, saya lebih banyak sharing, belajar dari anak buah
saya ekspeditor saya. Dan seiring berjalannya waktu, saya
mendapatkan training basic ekspedisi di HO. Di situ lebih banyak
yang saya mengerti”
- “Kurang sih, Bu”.
- “Iya kurang menurut saya”.
- “Saya juga kurang”.
- “Kalau saya cukup sih. Karena kan kita HR ya, Bu”.
- “Tapi saya HR belum mendapat training, nah, kita baru mau dapat sih
nanti. Itu biasanya kalau HR development itu setahun sekali sih, Bu.
Itu juga kalau kuotanya itu mencukupi secara nasional, kalau ngga
ya ngga jadi training, gitu sih biasanya.

Managerial Level:
Coaching
R
P
- “Cukup saya kira. Kalo saya mungkin dengan supervisor itu selalu
setiap hari ada, Bu dan terus saya akan selalu ingatkan ingatkan
tidak bosan bosan, bagaimana supervisor ke anak-anak, saya pun
menyampaikan ke mereka dan ini harus lakukan sama kepada anak
S

buah supaya mereka juga apa yang saya sampaikan kepada

temen-temen itu sama, jangan sampai nanti putus”.
(Maki)
L

- “Anytime kita lakukan”.

(Suhendar)
- “Mungkin kalo menurut saya gini, Bu, pemahaman dari bawahan
kita mungkin yang dimaksud adalah mengcoaching atau mentoring
itu yang dia harapkan adalah dia mendapat waktu khusus, ada
waktu tertentu, atau di ruang tertentu, atau berhadapan tertentu gitu
lho. Nah mungkin yang dia pikir seperti itu. Kalo kita memang dalam
hal melakukan coaching, dan mentoring seperti itu memang kita
kurang, tetapi kita selalu on the spot jadi gak selalu sifatnya formal
didalam ruangan atau di waktu-waktu tertentu yang memang kita
sengaja untuk melakukan itu, gitu”.
(Budi)
- “Ya pastinya kita akan sampaikan karena kita rutin weekly, ada
monthly ya, nah itu kan kegiatan untuk coaching dan mentoring
sebenarnya yang beda2 dan kita ingin staff / supervisor juga
 117

sampaikan kalo misalkan ada kendala atau masalah di konter ya.

Nah, jadi ya seorang leader harus terus coaching dan mentoring
sampai timnya bener-bener paham”
(Suhendar)
Training
- “Training sudah cukup, Bu. Manajemen atau perusahaan selalu
memberikan training-training, program-program training yang kita
bisa ikuti, Bu”.
(Budi)
- “Supervisor tertentu misalnya, mungkin seperti supervisor yang
menjadi PIC customer service itu ada Bu, mereka dibekali.
Kemudian supervisor yang menangani PIC marketing, itu juga ada,

R
mereka bisa paham bagaimana menyampaikan, terus juga
supervisor [HRS] untuk training-training tentang bagaimana
grooming, uniform. Nah tapi bagi beberapa supervisor yang lain itu
tidak semuanya sehingga kadang-kadang di operasional itu masih
P
banyak terkendala, ada gap …….”
(Makky)
S

Senior Managerial / General Managerial Level:

Coaching
L

- “Nah kalo coaching ya mungkin tergantung, tergantung casenya ya,

tetapi yang seperti ini saya kira bukan hal baru, ini tugas rutin
sebenarnya kita lakukan kalo untuk di MDS. Sangat sering
dilakukan. Karena kalo saya lihat temen-temen di toko selama ini ya
pasti menyempatkan waktu untuk itu, pasti menyempatkan waktu.
Sebenarnya Bu, kalo yang saya lihat teman-teman di toko selama
ini untuk tugas coaching itu ya sudah semacam tugas rutinlah bagi
mereka itu karena kan mereka melihat misalnya SA, atau SPG yang
di timnya mereka yang tidak sesuai dengan apa yang seharusnya
mereka lakukan, misalnya ada standar apa yang seharusnya
dilakukan tetapi tidak dilakukan, itu otomatis langsung mereka
lakukan coaching hal-hal seperti itu”.
(Alex)
Training
- “Trainingnya sudah cukup berjalan dengan bagus di tempat saya”
 118

(Alex)

Few of MDS front liners admitted that they received coaching once a

week, unfortunately most of them claimed not having been coached by their

leaders as they were too busy or indifferent. It was also experienced by MDS

supervisors. According to the informants very few store managers / store

leaders had coached them and they tent to learn form their peers. However,

R
their statements were contradictory with store managers’ and general

managers’. They claimed they did it on the spot, daily, weekly, and monthly

and it was also confirmed by general manager that store managers had
P
coached their team as coaching was supposed to be part of leaders’ job and
S

tasks.

It meant there was a gap or another missing link and misunderstanding

L

occured in the coaching process in MDS. It also indicated that coaching

perception was still unalike between store managers’, supervisors’ and front

liners’. In other words, ununiformity had occurred. Between Managers to

supervisors coaching process might have been done properly and regularly

although the supervisors did not notice it as the form of coaching was always

on the spot one. Between supervisors and front liners there might have been

problems in coaching process. As supervisors thought they did not receive any

coaching form, it resulted they did not coach their subordinates either.

Supervisors just did what their leaders did to them.

 119

In term of training only 30% of front liners informants had received

training eventhough not recently, while the rest had not received any yet. For

supervisory level, based on the informants’ answers the training programs

mostly conducted once a year and mostly for HR people specifically. In fact,

training program was very useful as a guidance for them to work especially for

new posts. Store Managers admitted that not every supervisors had received

training, only few and it depended on the post. Those who handled customer

service, HR, marketing had been trained, but supervisor who handled other

R
than the subjects above had not. This uneven condition had created some

gaps in the daily operation they added. However, training program for
P
managerial level sufficed enough according to store managers and their

general manager.
S

From the statements above the writer can conclude that there was a

problem in the store in term of coaching it was not done clearly enough and
L

stucked in the supervisory level. Training activities were not well spread or

done evenly and fairly either across levels in the stores. Managerial level had

received more training than supervisory level while front liner level received

the least. Front liners as the spear heads of the company who meet and

serve customers should have got enough and adequate training program.

This situation could hinder the front liners to develop due to their lack of

knowledge and skills.

When front liners were asked about their expectation towards training

frequency here are their asnwers:

 120

Table 30

Training Frequency FGD Result

“Sering bu seminggu sekali supaya ilmunya banyak”.

“Dua bulan”.
“Sebulan sekali.mungkin…”.
“Sebulan sekali”.
“ harusnya tiga bulan”.
(Santy, Rifkiana, Defitri, Arum, Dea, Choirunisyah, Mahdalia,
Jafar, Rosalia, Diba, FGD Front liner participants)

R
P
b. Timely & Relevant Performance Feedback

Performance feedback as one of indicators in facilitating works is

S

needed in the process of improvement employees’ performance. It is also by

Johansson, Miller, and Hamrin (2011) that performance feedback is very

L

essential in improving employees’ performance, modifying the team action if

necessary as well. Hence, leaders have to provide feedback timely and

relavantly, otherwise employees will not know which area they have done

well and which area they need to improve.

Timely feedback according to Modaff (2007) is feedback that is given

at the correct or right time; not too early, and not too late”.

Table 31
Performance Feedback
 121

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 148 19

Agree 270 35

Neutral 265 34

Disagree

Strongly disagree
72

17
R 9

2
P
TOTAL 772 100 72 3.6
S

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

L

The number of respondents who claimed neutral and agree was

similar or equal, 273 people or 35.4% were neutral and 272 people or 35.2%

were agree. 146 respondents or 18.9% chose strongly agree, 65 people or

8.4% stated disagree and 16 front liners or 2.1% claimed strongly disagree.

The majority of respondents who were neutral on the statement that MDS

leaders have conducted timely and effective performance feedback is 35.4%

which slightly different from respondents who claimed agree 35.2%. The

index of timely and effective performance feedback is 72.

 122

Following are informants’ answers when they were asked about how

performance feedback applied in MDS:

Table 32

Timely and Relevant Performance Feedback

Front liner level:

- “Belum. Kalau di sini kan Santi posisinya untuk di ladies baru. Baru
mau jalan lima bulan. Tapi belum ada pembicaraan kayak gitu”.
- “Sama aja sih, Bu, sebenarnya. Kayak tiap weekend gitu-gitu sih,

-
-
R
seminggu sekali untuk area-areanya”.
“Kalau supervisor agak jarang sih, jarang ngasih feedback”.
“Kadang juga justru feedback buruk partner saya ke saya gitu.
Maksudnya ngejelasinnya malah ke saya. Jadi ngga efektif saya
P
kan ga enak sama partner saya”.
- “Iya, bener, ngerti tapi nyasarnya beda”.
- “Kalau store manager aku sih jarang ya. Paling dari store manager
S

ke supervisor, nanti supervisor yang ngerembukin gitu. Harusnya

langsung aja, jadi, biar kita tahu dan biar langsung, soalnya kan dia
yang komplain gitu kan”
L

Supervisory Level:
- “Itu hampir tiap minggu, Bu”.
- “Tiap kita mau presentasi, pasti dia kasih feedback ke kita. Ditemukan
counter begini, begitu, nanti kasih masukan. Tiap Senin gitu.
Bentuknya tim gitu, evaluasi”.
- “Kita kalau di Kemang sendiri sih Pak Hendar itu selalu SMS saya,
selalu adain meeting staff setiap hari Senin. Jadi, biasanya sih apa
aja sih kendala-kendala selama di area, mungkin kalau misalnya Pak
SM atau ASM sendiri menemukan masih ada kurang bersih di area,
atau di kasir, mungkin biasanya dikasih anjuran seperti ini lah ke kita,
misalnya gitu. Biasanya kita tiap hari Senin itu biasanya selalu ngasih
masukan sih, intinya gitu, ke masing-masing stafnya. Apalagi kalau
di counter ini yang selalu tiap bulan ditemukan ada yang dugem, gitu
misalnya, Bu. Biasanya kita setiap hari Senin sih Bu, feedback dari
SM atau ASM nya”.
 123

- “Kalau feedback sih lebih sering ini, Bu per topic, kalau buat sama-
sama staf kita ada topik pagi atau topik siang. Itu biasanya kalau yang
sama-sama. Kalau yang untuk pribadi, misalnya kalau habis selesai
melakukan sesuatu gitu, Bu. Misalnya saya habis bikin laporan apa,
terus bapak kan pasti periksa ya. sebelum ditanda tangan, dia pasti
nanya ini apa, ini apa, ini apa. Dia nanya, terus saya jelasin dong. Oh,
iya, ini bagus. Cuma, kayaknya lebih bagus begini, bagusnya begini.
Biasanya sih lebih gitu, Bu. Tapi kalau yang buat sesama supervisor
biasanya kalau enggak di meeting umum, di topik pagi atau topic
siang”.
- “Kalau untuk performance feedack ya kita udah ada waktunya
seminggu sekali atau sebulan sekali sih seketemunya di area, ya
dipanggil. Mungkin karena seperti unit ekspedisi dan area, mungkin
saya juga kurang fokus di area. Tapi di situ saya dipanggil di area,
bagaimana di kosmetik atau di youth girl, area kamu nih, atau gimana

R
ini penjualan sales-nya kenapa masih minus? Merubah posisinya.
Gitu. Ya sepertinya sih feedback yang buat kamu udah bagus kalau
untuk mengelola data. Tapi yang lebih baik juga fokus di area. Gitu.
Itu sih performance feedbacknya enggak ada jangka waktunya.
P
Kadang seketemunya di area”.
- “Iya, sama sih, Bu. Memang kadang-kadang kita sih lebih
mengharapkan kalau performance feedback itu lebih sering ya, Bu.
S

Jadi, kita tahu kekurangan kita apa, yang udah bagus dari kita apa,
gitu kan? Cuma, sekarang sih kalau saya rasain masih belum sih”.
- “Untuk diri kita sendiri ya, Bu. Kalau untuk area sih ya itu mah wajar
ya. Misalkan kamu banyak atau kurang apa, kurang apa, misal kotor,
L

itu sih masih wajar. Tapi kalau untuk dari pribadi kita, bagaimana
kitanya, itu masih kurang sih, masih kurang sekali. Bahkan jarang deh
kayaknya. Mungkin setahun sekali kalau lagi PA aja. Tapi kalau lagi
enggak ada PA, ya sudah, enggak ada”.
- “Belum ada sih, Bu, kalau feedback ke saya”
- “Kalau untuk feedback ke ank2 hampir dilakukan setiap hari sih.
Karena kan saya hampir tiap hari juga di area dan untuk area saya
sendiri. Jadi, kadang kalau ada yang kurang, saya langsung feedback
ke anak-anak. Kalau yang dari atasan, setiap hari juga, sama sih,
setiap hari. Karena kan kalau atasan saya, dia hampir keliling setiap
hari. Dan dia pasti akan perhatikan untuk areanya masing-masing,
apa yang kurang, terus apa yang belum”
- “Kalau untuk atasan saya ya, Bu, kayaknya setahun sekali deh. Iya,
pada saat PA aja”.
- “Sama, Bu, setahun sekali aja, kalau saya dan atasan saya”
 124

Managerial Level:
- “Setahun sekali. Minimal setahun sekali, Bu”
(Budi).
- “Tapi kalo feedback secara operation itu bisa day to day, Bu. Tapi
kalo untuk feedback secara keseluruhan misal, itu dilakukan di
setiap setahun sekali”.
(Makky)

Senior Managerial / General Managerial Level:

- Ini kan lebih banyak evaluasi terhadap kinerja tentang areanya

R
masing-masing, tanggung jawab masing-masing, jadi kalo kita mau
evaluasi mereka ya yang kita evaluasi adalah areanya mereka
bagaimana hasil dari pencapaian kuotanya misalnya. Nah, itu yang
kita evaluasi, jadi performance secara keseluruhan bagian yang dia
P
bawahi. Kalo kita ke kepala toko ya sama, Bu, jadi tetap kita lihat
performance tokonya. Nah seperti apa pencapaiannya, mungkin dari
segi salesnya, dari customer service, nah mungkin kita lihat disitu.
Nah, mana-mana yang kita anggap kurang, misalnya dari sales, dari
S

sales kita lihat ‘oh ada yang bermasalah disitu’ apakah area beli
putusnya mungkin atau konsinyasinya, nah disitulah yang kita coba
sharing apa-apa yang toko sudah lakukan”.
L

(Alex)

The feedback given to front liners was not enough as some claimed they

never received or rarely received feedback from their supervisor. Many front

liners, claimed that the feedback itself was not done effectively. They

sometimes even got irrelevant feedback from their leader which was useless

according to them. Their hope was getting more frequent feedback and less

hierarchical feedback applied in the store. Unlike front liner level, MDS

supervisors claimed they had received enough operational feedback. Mostly

 125

they got weekly feedback and few daily one. However, personal feedback was

rarely given or it was given only once or twice a year during annual

performance appraisal. If they have had more timely personal feedback they

said they could have performed better. Their statements were confirmed by

the store managers and it also occurred in the managerial level. This

differences occurred among the store team due to there was a misperception

towards performance feedback itself. Some assumed that performance

feedback was done annualy, and some was daily.

R
The researcher may say that operational feedback had been applied from

supervisory to managerial levels timely and relevantly. The only feedback

P
that was lacking was personal one. Unfortunately, feedback for front liner

level was not given timely and relevanltly enough. Again the bottleneck
S

problem occurred in supervisory’s part which was very crucial as might cause

the employees would not know which area they had done well and which
L

area they needed to improve.

c. Employees engagement in problem solving and decision making

Effective leader engage employees in problem solving and ask them

to participate in making decision (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). When

leaders are enganging employees it means they also encourage their team to

be more independent and self-managed on certain matters (Johansson,

Miller, & Hamrin). Moreover, employees will feel more respected and

regarded their self-worth.

 126

Table 33
Employee engagement in problem solving and decision making

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 138 18

Agree 184 24

Neutral 380
R 49
P
Disagree 62 8

Strongly disagree 8 1
S

TOTAL 772 100 70 3.5

L

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of enganging employees in problem solving and decision

making is 60 which is poor. Out of 772 respondents 49% or 380 people

stated neutral, 24% or 184 respondents claimed agree, 18% or 138 front

liners chose strongly agree, 8% or 62 people said disagree, and 1% or 8

employees stated strongly disagree. To conclude, the majority of

respondents which is 380 people chose neutral to the statement that their

leaders had enganged them in problem solving and decision making. The

respondents’ response scale is 3.5 and considered as moderate.

 127

Running department stores in which there are many depatments such as

ladies, men, shoes, accessories, etc. is more complicated than running

fashion stores or specialty stores. Not only merchandise that can create

problems, physical property, the people within the store and customers can

as well. In coming up with solution of a problem leaders need to involve their

team to engage with problem solving and decision making as to establish

ownership. The FGD results are shown in the following table:

Table 34

R
Employee Engagement in Problem Solving and Decision Making FGD Result
P
Front liners level:
- “Kalau masalah toko hanya supervisor sendiri bu tapi kalau masalah
S

counter supervisor ngelibatin SA, contoh kalau penjualan salah satu

brand sedang turun supervisor minta solusi ke kita bagaimana
supaya brand tersebut naik penjualannya, apakah cara display
L

dirubah atau minta discount ke MD”

- “Saya sih jarang diajak rembukan, tau2 kita di tegur kalau ngga
nglaksanain. Atasan saya memang cuek kurang melibatkan trus
besokannya tiba2 udah berubah aja display nya. Pas saya tanya
kenapa udah ikutin aja”

Supervisor level:
- “Ya kalau dari saya sih ya mereka justru membiarkan kita
menyelesaikan dan membuat keputusan mungkin mau mengukur
apakah bisa selesai di level supervisor. Jadi, mereka tanya dulu.
Masalahnya apa? Ini-ini. Oh, bisa enggak, diselesaikan? Ya udah,
langsung kita involve di masalah tsb, kalau sudah baru nanti laporan
ya ke saya ya”.
- “Jadi, mungkin mereka mau ngelihat kemampuan kita dulu, Bu. Bisa
enggak sih, kita? Karena kan kita supervisor pun jadi leader gitu, jadi
perlu untuk bisa involve, bisa enggak sih kita menyelesaikan masalah
 128

tanpa harus diinstruksikan dulu sama mereka, jadi, mereka melihat

kemampuan kita juga, dengan cara ngelepas kita gitu aja. Biar kita
involve dalam membuat solusi dan keputusan”

Managerial level:

- “Biasanya dari pusat bu, kita tinggal jalanin. Meskipun sekarang agak
mending kadang2 kita diikutkan meeting untuk membuat keputusan
tapi jarang sih”
(Makky)

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

-
R
“Kalau sekarang saya rasa management sudah melibatkan kita
dalam pengambilan keputusan. Misalnya terdapat issue internal
yang kaitannya dengan operasional contoh kebijakan baru atau
program baru, biasanya kita diajak meeting dulu diminta masukan2
P
nya kemudian baru diputuskan, kalau dulu seringnya toko terima
jadi. Karena sekarang kita dilibatkan kalau program tidak jalan kan
kita sendiri yang malu kok bisa tidak jalan”.
(Alex)
S
L

Not every leaders in the stores had engaged employees in problem

solving and decision making. Despite the fact that a front liner claimed she

was involved in the problem solving only on a particular matter, some

claimed their leaders were not care enough to engage them. MDS front liners

felt that employee engagement in problem solving and decision making had

not been truly applied in the stores. The supervisors tent to be more telling

than involving. While in supervisory level, store managers had fully involved

them in problem solving and decision making. This because the habit in the

company had changed. Both store managers and general manager claimed
 129

unlike before that everything normally came from their leaders and it was

their obligation to obey, they were now involved in making decision of new

policies or problem solving.

4.4.1.3 Relational Dynamic

Leaders who apply relational dynamic behaviors such as being open

and supportive, also employ constructive approach on conflict-full issues are

judged as considerate (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). The individual

R
employees and the unit / team will respect and feel close with the leaders, as

a result commitment and cohesion of the team will also be increasingly built.
P
When each member of a unit contributes well the good performance result

will be gain for the company.

S

Table 35
L

Relational Dynamic

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 84 11

Agree 113 15

Neutral 301 39
 130

Disagree 180 23

Strongly disagree 95 12

TOTAL 772 100 58 2.9

Source: Researcher’s excel data analysis 2020

The index for relational dynamic is 58 meaning poor while

respondents’ response scale is 2.9 or moderate. 301 respondents or 39%

claimed neutral, 180 employees or 23% said disagree, 113 front liners or

R
15% stated they agreed, 95 people or 12% showed strongly disagree, and 84

respondents or 11% were strongly agree. To recap the majority of 772

P
respondents which is 39% said that they were neutral on the statement that

their leaders had applied relational dynamic.

S

Table 36
Relational Dynamic Descriptive Statistics
L

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X1.3.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2401.00 3.1101 1.09571

Opennes

X1.3.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2397.00 3.1049 1.03160

Supportive

X1.3.3 4.00 1.00 5.00 1879.00 2.4339 1.17454

 131

Constructive

approach

Relational 11.00 4.00 15.00 6677.00 8.6490 2.91511

dynamic

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

The table above reveals that there were 3 items in relational dynamic

R
indicator. The item with the highest mean was openness: 3.1101, meaning

most of respondents replied neutral for this item. Whereas constructive

P
approach on conflict-full issues item had the lowest mean: 2.4339. It meant

most of respondents answered disagree. The mean for supportive item was
S

3.1049 meaning most of respondents chose neutral. The spread of

respondents’ answers was various eventhough it was relatively close enough

L

among the 3 items.

The three behaviors that reflect relational dynamic of a leader as

mentioned before are:

a. Openess

Leaders’ open behavior can be perceived when they are approachable

when the team need to ask some questions, good listener when the team

wants to share problems or issues, and trustworthy (Johansson, Miller, &

Hamrin, 2011). Employees need to trust leaders in order to apply

 132

transparency. When leaders are not trusted by their team, everybody in the

team will walk in a different path not following the lead. Issues will not be

shared that could cause more severe damage for the company. Hence,

Leaders must gain trust from their team by being open. Once they are open,

the team to give respect and trust.

Table 37
Openess

Frequency
R Percent Index Respondents’

response
P
scale

Strongly agree 101 13

S

Agree 160 21
L

Neutral 287 37

Disagree 183 24

Strongly disagree 41 5

TOTAL 772 100 63 3.1

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of open behavior is 63 which is poor and scale of

respondents’ response is 3.1 that is moderate. Out of 772 respondents 37%

or 287 people claimed neutral, 24% or 183 employees chose disagree, 21%
 133

or 160 front liners stated agree, 13% or 101 people said strongly agree, and

5% or 41 people were strongly disagree. In other words, the majority of

respondents which is 37% or 287 people claimed neutral to the statement

that MDS leaders had shown open behavior.

When informants were asked about how MDS leaders applied

openness, their answers are as follow:

Table 38

Openness FGD Result

R
P
Front liners level:
- “Kalau saya kebetulan supervisor-nya agak sedikit lebih cuek ya,
Bu. Jadi, ya kurang support dan open. Agak kurang komunikasinya.
S

Enggak ada bantuannya”.

- “Biasanya habis cerita masalah kadang kita pesan, “Bu, jangan
dibilang siapa-siapa ya”. Karena kalau di MDS kan dari satu pasti
L

bisa nyebar. Eh taunya nyebar. Gampang banget nyebar, jadi

kurang bisa dipercaya”.
- “Tahunya sih dari situ. Kalau misalkan dia ngebocorin, pasti kita
dengar dari orang lain juga”.
- “Kurang bisa dipercaya”.

Supervisory level:
- “Atasan saya biasanya selalu ada pada saat saya butuh sih bu”.
- “Kalau atasan saya lebih santai kapan aja saya ketemu bisa”
- “Menurut saya store manager saya sudah menjadi pendengar yang
baik apalagi asistennya asik banget orangnya”
- “Kalau atasan saya ngga terlalu, dia juga kurang bisa dipercaya
menurut saya”
- “Kalau S02 di toko saya yang satu kan cewek. Jadi, kalau diajak
sharing tuh enak gitu ya, Bu. Dia merasakan hal yang sama yang
kayak saya rasakan misal ada internal problem. Jadi, kita sharing.
 134

Oh, begini, begini, begini. Sampai akhirnya dia bantu

menyelesaikan tapi dia fair-fair-an aja, ngga pilih kasih”.

Managerial level:
- “Tidak semua supervisor bisa dipercaya, approachable. Adil atau
tidak adil itu berhubungan dengan approachable, kalo misalnya
mereka yang bisa mendekati supervisornya itu pasti akan merasa
adil Bu, tapi kalo merekanya gak bisa deketin supervisor pasti udah
bilangnya tidak adil, gitu kan.
(Budi)
- “Memang saya akui ada Bu di beberapa staf kami khususnya tidak
semuanya mudah diapproach, pendengar yang baik, bisa dipercaya
dan bisa memahami atau juga memberikan empati. Tapi ada
beberapa supervisor yang memang dia bisa lakukan itu. Dan ini

R
memang saya alami Bu, dari kotak saran itu bisa dilihat supervisor
disampaikan disana juteklah, tidak bisa mengerti, maunya ngatur,
tdk bisa dipercaya, kemudian kalo ngasih instruksi tidak ada solusi
bilamana ada salah, terus maunya didengerin tidak pernah
P
mendengarkan”.
(Makky)
- “Untuk sharing masalah sebenarnya supaya atasan kita tahu bahwa
S

kita sedang ada musibah, kita tidak berharap mendapatkan solusi

tapi paling tidak meringankan beban kita sedikit”
(Dea)
L

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Tapi memang ya hal-hal kurang bagus bisa terjadi, misal anak
buah sudah tidak percaya lagi dengan atasan, atasan dianggap
terlalu cuek tidak mendengarkan anak buah, biasanya mereka
bawahan jalan sendiri karena ya mungkin salah satu case yang
seperti tadi Bu, ada masalah yang dibiarkan akhirnya tim ini jadi
tidak percaya lagi ke atas, dan itu kadang terjadi seperti itu di toko.
Sehingga saya istilahkan ke tim juga ke store manager yang saya
bawahi sekarang, saya ingatkan mereka bahwa kita itu butuh
membina hubungan emosional ke tim. Kenapa sekarang banyak
hal-hal yang ya boleh dibilang hal remeh temeh bisa sampai ke
komite, bisa bikin surat kaleng, bisa masuk ke suara Matahari, ini
karena cara store manager dalam membina hubungan salah.
Mereka belum membuka diri, kita harus siap melayani mereka,
menampung apa yang menjadi keluh kesah mereka. Ya ajaklah
 135

ngobrol, ajak sharing di area, tidak jaim sehingga anak buah bisa
approach pada saat mereka membutuhkan”.
(Alex)

Based on FGD, it revealed that MDS supervisors were not trustworthy

enough. This situation was supported by front liners’ claims that their leaders

were indifferent, unsupportive, unopen and lacking of communication. Trust

worthiness as one of open leader characteristics had not been displayed by

R
MDS supervisors based on front liners’ answers. In fact employees in an

organization need to trust leaders in order to apply transparency otherwise

P
everybody in the team will walk in a different path not following the lead of

their leaders. This condition was also confirmed by store managers’

S

statement about MDS supervisors. While store managers were perceived

open enough by MDS supervisor. Very few supervisors said that the store
L

managers were not open. However, the general manager considered that his

store managers still needed to improve their open behaviors as some of them

were not open and close enough to their team.

In general the writer think that the only problem occured was from MDS

supervisor’s side as their openness was very bad according to their team.

Fortunately, the leaders of the stores who are store managers or assistant

store managers were alleged as cool, open and trustworthy, meaning issues

in the company or supervisors’ problem can be shared so the damage for the

company can be avoided.

 136

b. Supportiveness

Podsakoff, Todor, and Sculer (1983) refer supportive behavior as

behavior of a leader that is approachable, friendly and considerate to his / her

followers’ need. In addition, leaders who employ supportive behavior will

positively affect employees’ satisfaction (Podsakoff et al.)

Table 39
Supportiveness

R
Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response
P
scale
S

Strongly agree 83 11

Agree 167 22
L

Neutral 308 40

Disagree 178 23

Strongly disagree 36 5

TOTAL 772 100 62 3.1

Source: Researcher’s excel data analysis 2020

The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 40% or 308

people, 178 respondents or 23% chose disagree, 167 people or 22% stated
 137

agree, 83 employees or 11% stated strongly agree, and 36 front liners or 5%

claimed strongly disagree. Hence, the majority of respondents who were

neutral on the statement that MDS leaders had displayed supportive behavior

is 40%. The index of supportive behavior display is 62 or poor and

respondents’ response scale is moderate or 3.1.

Table 40

Supportive FGD Result

Front liner level:

-
R
“Kalau saya sih lebih minta bantuannya kayak yang senior karena
P
supervisornya tuh kurang helpful, maksudnya dari segi nada
suaranya mungkin harusnya agak lebih merangkul gitu, jangan
benar-benar yang nge-judge. Karena suka nge-judge jadi, kita ngga
S

berani takut di judge bodo lah ngga bisa lah. Kalau open dan
supportive kan kitanya jadi enggak takut untuk ngomong”.
L

Supervisor level:
- “Kalau atasan saya sih kurang support, dia sebenarnya pinter,
kemampuannya bagus, tapi ngga punya kemauan buat bantu kita”
- “Kalau untuk saya, dari S01 atau S02 udah support. Karena kalau
kita enggak kerja disupport oleh atasan, kita enggak bisa jalan gitu,
Bu. Misalkan saya kemarin itu acara saya izin dulu. Bisa dibantu
atau enggak untuk area, itu di seputaran area eskalator. Jadi, saya
kosongin biar bisa kelihatan oleh customer, Itu diizinkan, disupport,
didukung, dan akhirnya bisa jalan”.

Managerial level:
- “Pada dasarnya sih kita siap support mereka, Bu, artinya tatkala
supervisor kita memang terbentur suatu kendala di operasional dan
mereka tidak bisa menyelesaikannya, pasti kita akan memberikan
suatu solusi dimana solusi tersebut mungkin bisa membantu
 138

mereka didalam menyelesaikan tugasnya sehari-hari ataupun

aktivitas pekerjaannya atau tanggung jawabnya sehari-hari gitu”.
(Budi)
- “Kalo saya melihat daripada kondisi permasalahan, kalau seandainya
kita bisa take care, ya kita bisa lakukan sendiri dengan tim. Tapi kalau
tidak bisa dan memang itu bukan kapasitas saya, maka saya akan
minta untuk disupport atau bantuan dari atasan. Contoh lain, kemarin
kami mendapatkan musibah yang waktu itu ada kebakaran di AHU
itu mau tidak mau harus bisa urgensi sekali datang ke toko, dan
begitupun juga saya, sama. Saat dimintain dan itu saya teralami,
saya harus balik. Setelah itu saya melaporkan ke Ibu Linda yang
dimana beliau merespon dan beliau datang jam 02 dini hari, Bu. Jadi
memberikan semangat kepada kami sehingga kami pun juga bisa
lebih tenang, tim juga bisa lebih tenang, begitu juga saya bisa lebih
tenang”.

-
(Makky)
R
“Kalo saya punya pengalaman, mungkin beda ya antara Jakarta dan
luar pulau. Ya luar pulau kan memang regional tidak bisa langsung
check on the spot, mungkin regional akan membantu pastinya atasan
P
kita akan bantu ya, untuk kejadian check on the spot seperti yang Pak
Maki sampaikan kebakaran saya juga pernah pengalaman, dan kita
harus take over, tentunya dengan minta petunjuk dari regional, dan
S

itu siap kapan pun, pasti disupport”.

(Suhendar)
L

Senior managerial / General managerial level:

- “Jadi ya untuk saat ini kalo kita lihat sistem yang ada itu sudah
sangat sangat clear, boleh dibilang management, kepala toko sudah
support untuk hal-hal seperti di operasional ya, dan mereka
harusnya sudah full lakukan itu”
(Alex)

Being supportive was not portrayed in MDS supervisors’ behavior as

the front liners said their leaders were not helpful, should have embraced

more, and been less judging. On the contrary, some supervisors mentioned
 139

their leaders were supportive enough eventhough some said the opposite.

Store managers also claimed that they were supported by their higher

leaders and they naturally supported their team. Their statements were also

confirmed by their general manager.

If we see the condition above the main problem happened in the

supervisory level as they have not applied supportive behavior as they

should have.

c. Conflict Management / Constructive Approach on Conflict-full Issue

R
An organization consists of many people with different background,
P
personality and capabilities. They may come from low income family to high

one, major religion family to minor one, fearless personality to weak one, and
S

skillful aptitude to incompetence one. Therefore, it is easy a conflict among

them breaks out. To prevent the conflict-full issue from vast outbreak and
L

severe leader has to employ constructive, respectful and even-handed

manner approach (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011).

Table 41
Conflict Management / Constructive Approach on Conflict-full Issue

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale
 140

Strongly agree 68 9

Agree 12 2

Neutral 307 40

Disagree 178 23

Strongly disagree 207 27

TOTAL 772 100 48 2.4

R
Source: Researchers’s excel data analysis 2020

The number of respondents who answered neutral was 307 people or

P
40%, 207 front liners or 27% said strongly disagree, 178 employees or 23%

claimed disagree, 68 people or 9% said strongly agree, and 12 employees or

S

2% claimed agree. This means the majority of 772 respondents which is 40%

or 307 front liners chose neutral on the statement that their leaders had
L

displayed constructive approach on conflict-full issues. The index of this

indicator is 48 means very poor and the scale of respondents’ response is

2.4 means bad.

The informants’ answers during FGDs and Interview are as follow:

Table 42

Constructive Approach on Conflict-full Issue FGD Result

Front liner level:

 141

- “Cuek banget. Kayak saya kan punya partner, kebetulan dia udah
karyawan tetap. Dia itu sering banget Sabtu atau Minggu pasti
mendadak enggak masuk. Kan kita udah nyoba ngomong bareng-
bareng berempat di shoes ladies: gimana sih kalau semisal hari
Sabtu atau Minggu enggak masuk, kasih kabar 1-2 jam sebelumnya
jadi kita nanti bisa yang shift middle. Eh tetep siang enggak masuk,
jadi mau enggak mau yang middle harus lembur kan. Tapi pas bolak
balik ngadu ke supervisor harusnya sih kita didengar, tapi kayak
enggak pernah didengar dan si senior ini pun enggak pernah ditegur
gitu. Jadi, kayak enggak ada menyelesaikan masalah”.
- “Kalau aku sih sama partner kan berdua, aku masih kontrak cuman
partner aku udah tetap. Cuman dia kalau masuk suka seenaknya
aja, misalnya masuk Sabtu, dia kan jam 2:45 ya tapi jam 3:00 baru
ada di area. Terus, kalau pas datang barang dia enggak ngecek
sama sekali pas sore, karena aku kan shift pagi. Jadi, dia tuh
seenaknya. Terus, udah ngomong sama leader. Tapi mereka juga

-
R
udah pada tahu, jadi bilangnya dia udah kayak gitu sih katanya dari
dulu. Jadi, ya udah, aku juga diem aja. kesel gitu”.
“Kalau saya sih lebih kayak diskusi tentang partner sih sama yang
lain, soalnya kalau langsung ke supervisor paling jawabnya cuma
P
iya-iya gitu doang ngga ada solusinya. Percuma juga”.
- “Udah sistemnya kayak gitu, kalau datang barang kan kadang kita2
aja Bu. Kalau yang senior-senior yang udah tetap suka nyuruh kita,
ga mau beresin sendiri. Atasan udah tahu tapi bilangnya udah
S

kayak gitu suruh nerima aja”.

- “Kadang kalau ada komplain enggak ada yang datang bantuin. Ya
paling kita kita aja yang handle. Soalnya kita panggil, enggak ada
yang datang. Kalau udah kelar, biasanya baru datang. Makanya kata
L

anak-anak: Ngapain sih? Kalau udah beres, ngapain datang? Dalam

hati kita”.
- “Iya sering begitu”.
- “Iya bener banget”.

Supervisory level
- “Saya suka kesel kalau dibilangnya, ya sudah, itu karakter dia begitu.
Gitu, dimaklumin sih. Selalu pake prinsip dimaklumin”.
- “Kalau saya malah suka bingung atasan saya yang minta tolong
selesaiin konflik padahal saya juga supervisor mana didengar,
akhirnya masalah ya tetap ada dan atasan saya pura2 tidak tau dan
menganggap masalah sudah selesai. Padahal temen saya yang
bermasalah dengan supervisor ini sudah beberapa kali ngomong ke
atasan jadinya ya frustasi sendiri”.

Managerial level
 142

- “Lebih banyak yang saya alami adalah supervisor menghindari

karena mungkin ketidakmampuan mereka dalam menangani
permasalahan yang disampaikan oleh bawahannya. Jadi memang
sangat jarang yang konstruktif”.
(Makky)

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level

- “Memang sering seperti itu. Kadang ada seorang leader memang
yang tidak tidak berani atau memang membiarkan hal-hal seperti itu
terjadi, dan tanpa dia sadari ya itu akan membuat timnya jadi tidak
solid lagi, ndak kompak, karena merasa bahwa ‘oh pimpinan saya
membeda-bedakan. Pimpinan saya membiarkan kesalahan itu
terjadi. Nah akhirnya yang muncul apa? Muncullah

R
ketidakpercayaan, akhirnya tim jadi seperti itu. Harusnya kalo
seorang leader tau bahwa anak buahnya melanggar dari ketentuan
perusahaan misalnya shiftnya tidak boleh satu shift terus, harus
bergantian tiap minggu misalnya, ya harusnya ini kan aturan yang
baku yang harus dilakukan seharusnya, tapi kalo dibiarkan ya itu
P
berarti leadernya membiarkan kekompakan di timnya itu jadi hancur
gitu, dan itu banyak yang seperti itu. Tetapi kalo itu menurut saya
S1 atau S2, ya harus intervensi untuk kasus yang seperti itu”.
(Alex)
S
L

In term of applying constructive approach on conflict-full issue, MDS

supervisors were way far from employing it and it was confessed by their

team, front liners. The supervisors were so ignorant / indifferent from conflict-

full issues that were happening in their lead and let their team solve it by

themselves instead. This made their team felt hopeless and unfairly treated.

The supervisors’ tendency to avoid problems / issues rather than facing them

forced the front liners either to handle their own way or just let the problem

unsolved. It could put the company in danger when the issues was related

with operational or customers as front liners who were not well trained and
 143

clueless of the company’s mission and goal might handle the issues the

opposite way from the company’s policy. The supervisors’ condition also

confirmed by store manager’s and general manager’s statements.

The habit of MDS supervisors was surprisingly inherited from store

managers’ habit of avoiding conflict-full issue and pretending the problems

did not exist. When leaders of organizations were afraid to face problems

even the internal one and let the problems exist, they would also jeopardize

the organization as the team would not work hand in hand in achieving the

R
company’s goal. This was also mentioned by MDS general manager, when

this kind of situation happened in the company the team work could not exist,
P
unfairness would be created and trustworthiness would vanish.

4.4.1.4 Representing Employees and The Unit

S

Representing employees and the unit or the organization is one one

abilities that a leader should have. Leaders have to be able to apply upward
L

influence and be seen as capable of attaining resources from upper

management (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). According to Johansson

et al. (2011) a leader should also actively monitor external opportunities &

threats and building good networking & manage boundaries.

Table 43
Representing Employees & the Unit
 144

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 87 11

Agree 304 39

Neutral 273 35

Disagree 100 13

Strongly disagree 8 R 1
P
TOTAL 772 100 69 3.47

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The index for representing is 69 meaning poor. 273 respondents or

35% claimed neutral, 304 employees or 39% said agree, 100 front liners or
L

13% stated disagree, 87 people or 11% showed they strongly agree, and 8

respondents or 1% were strongly agree. Hence, the researcher may recap

that the majority of 772 respondents which is 39% said they agreed with the

statement that MDS leaders had represented employees and the unit. The

respondents’ response scale is 3.47 which is good.

Indicators of representing dimension consists of upward influence,

active monitoring, and manage boundaries & provide resources.

 145

Table 44
Representing Employees & the Unit Descriptive Statistics

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X1.4.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2525.00 3.2707 1.02144

Upward

influence

X1.4.2

Active monitor
4.00 1.00
R 5.00 2360.00 3.0570 1.00161
P
X1.4.3 4.00 1.00 5.00 2607.00 3.3769 1.10846

Networking &
S

boundary

Representing 11.00 4.00 15.00 7492.00 9.7047 2.52938

L

employee & the

unit

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

The data resulted the best score of item in representing employees

indicator was the item with highest mean (3.6528) which was building

network and manage boundary, meaning most of respondents answered

agree. The lowest mean (3.2578) was from item active monitor, meaning
 146

most of respondents chose neutral. The standard deviation of the three items

was close to each other, and lower than all items in other indicators. It meant

that the item scores of representing employees and the unit were more

consistent than item scores in initiating structure, facilitating work or

realational dynamic.

a. Upward Influence

Employees often find obstacles in doing their daily tasks and when

they do they are required to self-manage. However, when the solution

R
required is beyond their authority the only hope comes from their leaders.

Then, employees need to believe that their leaders are willing and capable of
P
influencing someone higher in the organization to provide the solution

(Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). Johansson et al. (2011) also add that
S

leaders should also capable of getting resources from upper management

such as supplies, rewards, flexibility and many others.

L

Table 45
Upward Influence

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 84 11
 147

Agree 319 41

Neutral 269 35

Disagree 91 12

Strongly disagree 9 1

TOTAL 772 100 70 3.5

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

R
The index of upward influence is 70 which is poor according to MDS

standard. Out of 772 respondents 31% or 319 people claimed agree, 35% or
P
269 employees chose neutral, 12% or 91 front liners stated disagree, 11% or

11 people said strongly agree, and 1% or 9 people were strongly disagree. It

S

means, the majority of 319 respondents or 31% agreed that MDS leaders

had applied upward influence and gotten resources from upper management.
L

The scale of respondents’ response is considered moderate or 3.5.

Table 46

Upward Influence FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Tergantung sih. Kadang kadang usul kita nyampe kadang kadang
ngga”.
- “Mungkin kurang bisa mempengaruhi, jadi nungggu ditanya Store
Manager”.
- “Sering nya ngga nyampe entah supervisor takut sama atasannya
atau kurang ngeyakinin mungkin. Kayaknya gitu ya”.
- “Iya, suka ngga nyampe, mungkin karena supervisor ngga ngerti bu
 148

harus digimanain”

Supervisory level:
- “Biasanya bantu meyakinkan orang HO atau supplier”
- “Kalau ke HO seringnya lewat email katanya biar lebih didengar
kalau ke supplier atasan saya kadang-kadang ketemu langsung
atau lewat email ke suplier juga”
- “Kalau dari saya mentok biasanya atasan akan email ke MD, atau
misalnya email ke HO”

Managerial level:
- “Contoh mungkin kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan masalah sewa
bazaar, masalah permasalahan developer yang terutama under

R
LIPPO ini kan sulit nih, Bu, jadi mungkin kami kadang-kadang saya
meminta bantuan atasan, nah atasan akan langsung ke
management sampai ke direktur. Meskipun tidak semua bisa kita
dapatkan tapi beberapa kali atasan saya berhasil mengegolkan apa
P
yang dibutuhkan dan diharapkan toko.
(Makky)
S

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

L

- “Kalau saya biasanya akan bantu sampai batas wewenang saya

kalau diatas itu saya akan langsung bawa lagi ke management dan
memang kadang2 butuh waktu penyelesaiannya lama karena
menyangkut beberapa pihak di HO jadi harus rajin2 kita follow up”
(Alex)

Based on FGD conducted, frontliners claimed that their supervisors did

not do upward influence either due to their lack of ability in influencing or their

lack of confidence on the issue. Making it worse, some informants even had

skeptical view of their leaders and thought their leaders actually did not
 149

understand the business. According to MDS supervisors, their store

managers already applied upward influence in helping their daily job. Store

managers also claimed the same about their general manager.

From the statements above the writer may say that the practice of

upward influence had been done by both MDS managers and senior

manager. Unfortunately, MDS supervisor had not applied it due to their issue

incompetence or lack of ability in influencing. It might cause the front liners’

need and problem were not met and solved. When their need was not met

R
and their problem remained, it would lead to other problems such as

ignorance and unenthusiastic work ethic.

P
b. Active Monitor
S

Effective leaders do not only focus on internal issue but also be active

in monitoring external environment circumstances such as opportunities and

L

threats (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011). Information and sources that

leaders should seek should be apt to anticipate the steps organization should

take, otherwise the business will not move forward.

Table 47
Active Monitor
 150

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 66 9

Agree 224 29

Neutral 331 43

Disagree 145 19

Strongly disagree 6 R 1
P
TOTAL 772 100 65 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 43% or 331

people, 145 respondents or 19% chose disagree, 224 people or 29% stated
L

agree, 66 employees or 9% stated strongly agree, and 6 front liners or 1%

claimed strongly disagree. The highest number that reaches 331 or 43% was

neutral on the statement that MDS leaders had actively monitored

opportunities and threats. The index of active monite is 65 which is poor and

the respondents’ response scale is 3.3 that is moderate.

Based on FGD and in-depth interview conducted by the writer, here

are the results:

 151

Table 48

Active Monitor FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Belum ngasih tau gimana ancaman itu. Kita kan ngga tau bu di
luaran itu seperti apa, pengennya sih leader ngasih tau ini
competitor begini, jadi kan kita bisa siapin ancaman2 itu. Tapi
selama ini sih belum ada omongan, paling pas istirahat ada yang
bilang eh disitu ada buka transmart”.
- “Anak2 SPG suka cerita kalau di counter ato di dept store lain
barang2 nya suka beda lebih baru dari pada yang di MDS, harusnya

-
R
kan supervisor yang ngusahain bisa masuk ke kita”.
“Kalau saya pengennya supervisor ngasih tau barang yang sedang
trend apa karena banyak customer nyari tapi dikita belum ada. Jadi
kan sayang ngga ada penjualan. Tapi ngga pernah dikasih tau”.
“Saya justru yang suka minta, bukan leader yang ngeliat kalo ada
P
kesempatan: ikutan bazaar dong pak, nah nanti baru diikutin”.
- “Kalau leader belum pernah kasih tau ancaman2 dari kompeitor.
- “Biasanya kalau ada kesempatan ikut bazaar misalnya saya yang info
sih bu, atasan saya ngga pernah info gimana nih kecuali memang S1
S

yang suruh”.
- “Iya leader saya juga ngga pernah kasih tau ancaman itu gimana”
L

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau Manager saya kan setiap hari briefing staff, pada saat itu
suka diinfo competitor kita ada yang buka jadi kita harus waspada,
atau misal kalau kondisi di mall ada tenant yang tutup bisa
berdampak turunnya traffic kita harus ngapain”
- “Atasan saya suka info disana ada tempat kosong segera follow up
supaya opportunity tidak hilang”

Managerial level:
- “Tidak semua supervisor langsung respond and follow up untuk
inisiatif bila ada ancaman dari competitor terutama di dalam mall.
Mereka akan jalan bila saya instruksikan. Untuk opportunities
supervisor jarang melakukan visit toko competitor. Harus diingatkan,
mereka baru jalan”.
(Makky)
 152

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

- “Kalau di management kan seminggu sekali meeting pasti bahas
threat apa aja yang akan kita hadapi misal ada competitor mau buka
sehingga kita bisa antisipasi dengan program. Biasanya saya
langsung info ke store manager untuk mengecek kondisi lapangan.
Begitu juga ketika ada kesempatan kita mau ada bazaar atau
semacamnya biasanya kita langsung follow up”.
(Alex)

According to MDS front liners, the supervisors had not applied active

R
monitor as they had never updated them or on other words they felt their

leaders had not yet informed them with enough data or facts regarding threat
P
and opportunities. They even found out the opportunity themselves then

informed their supervisors or the store manager told them during morning
S

meetings. While MDS store managers and senior manager had regularly

updated the supervisors about opportunities and threats. The question is why
L

the information did not flow to the front liners, again the bottleneck syndrome

was happening here due to very bad communication system in supervisory

level.

c. Networking and Manage Boundaries

Networking is very essential as it enable leaders to develop the

business by cooperative link and ties (Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin, 2011).

However, in term of cooperating with other units leaders should manage

boundaries so as others respect his or her team, the unit mission also be
 153

protected, and the team work professionally as well (Johansson, Miller, &

Hamrin).

Table 49
Networking and Manage Boundaries

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 110 R 14

P
Agree 369 48

Neutral 218 28
S

Disagree 65 8
L

Strongly disagree 10 1

TOTAL 772 100 73 3.7

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The number of respondents who answered agree was 369 people or

48%, 218 front liners or 28% said neutral, 110 employees or 14% claimed

strongly agree, 65 people or 8% said disagree, and 10 employees or 1%

claimed strongly disagree. This recaps the majority of 772 respondents which

is 48% or 369 front liners agreed that their leaders had built good networking.
 154

The index of this indicator is 73 means fair based on MDS standard and

repondents’ response scale is 3.7 which is good.

FGDs and interview results are shown below:

Table 50

Networking & Manage Boundary FGD Result

Front liner level:

-
-
-
R
“Kalau hubungan dengan supplier kayaknya lumayan bu”.
“Iya tapi ngga semua leader gitu”.
“Ada yang deket sih bu”.
P
Supervisory level:
- “Kalau atasan biasanya sih deket sama supplier bahkan saking
deketnya kalau deal-deal-an sama supplier ngomongnya supplier
S

minta sekian table, padalah lokasi hanya cukup untuk sekian table
doang tapi diiya in aja jadinya kita yang bingung nyari tempat”
- “Kalo saya beda lagi, atasan saya minta supplier support sekian
L

table pas bazaar karena hubungan mereka baik supplier iya iya aja,
tapi kan pas ngomong ke saya nyanggupinnya cuma sekian table.
Jadi barang yang datang ngga sebanyak table yang sudah
disiapkan, kalau gitu biasanya nanti atasan akan approach lagi ke
supplier baru dikirim deh”
- “Kalau sama MD sih atasan saya sama dekatnya dengan kita sih.
Cuma kalau saya hubungannya bukan dengan DMM langsung tapi
anak buahnya”

Managerial level:
- “Saya rasa hubungan kami dengan MD, pihak mall maupun supplier
sudah bagus bu, terbukti ketika kita meminta bantuan mereka pasti
mereka support”
(Suhendar)
 155

- “Betul bu justru kita ini hubungan dalam pekerjaan dengan pihak2

tersebut sangat dekat bahkan ada yang sudah akrab. Begitu juga
atasan kami sangat dekat dengan mereka apalagi setahun sekali
kami ada vendor gathering, supplier gathering juga meeting regional
dengan para supplier, hal ini menambah erat hubungan kami”
(Makky)

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Kalau hubungan dengan pihak non SO saya rasa sudah bagus bu,
baik tim toko langsung dari level supervisor sampai manager
maupun level kami dan di HO. Secara formal kami sering
melakukan meeting synergi dengan para DMM dan GMM,
pertemuan rutin dengan para supplier. Sedangkan hubungan

R
informal tergantung dari masing2 personel ya, ada yang akrab
sekali ada yang biasa tapi semuanya merujuk pada hubungan yang
baik. Kalau dengan pihak mall saya selalu ingatkan agar teman2
punya hubungan yang baik sehingga ketika membutuhkan bantuan
P
tidak melulu melakukan pendekatan formal tapi bisa juga informal”.
(Alex)
S
L

Based on front liners’ statement, some of MDS supervisor have built

networking by having good relationship with suppliers. MDS Store managers,

according to supervisors have also built good networking. They had very

good relationship with both merchandiser and supplier. This was confirmed

by store managers and general manager who claimed having good

relationship not only with suppliers and merchandisers or non Store operation

but also mall management. They added that vendor / supplier gathering was

held once a year to maintain their good relationship. From the statements

above we can conclude that networking and manage boundries

 156

4.4.2 Variable X2: Working Environment (Behavioral / Non-Physical

Working Environment)

Non-physical or behavioral working environment refers to working

environment that relates to employees’ interaction with colleagues or other

members of the organization (Stallworth & Kleiner, 1996). According to

Leblebici (2012) this working environment factors encourage employees in

the organization to communicate that leads to engangement to the

organization. The behavioral working environment factors consist of goal

R
setting, performance feedback, supervisor support and mentoring / coaching

(Chandrasekar, 2011).
P
Table 51
Behavioral / Non-physical Working Environment Descriptive Statistics
S

Min Max Mean Std. Dev

L

Goal Setting 7.00 25.00 16.4780 3.31538

Performance feedback 8.00 30.00 19.8873 4.91526

Supervisor support 5.00 20.00 13.5855 3.66909

Mentoring / coaching 6.00 25.00 15.9909 4.56697

Non physical Working 29.00 100.00 65.9417 12.11512

environment

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

The above table shows that behavioral / non-physical working

environment variable had 4 items. The Indicator that had the highest score
 157

was performance feedback as it had the highest mean (19.8873 among 4

indicators. The lowest mean (13.5855) belonged to supervisor support

indicator. The data of respondents’ answers spread out relatively. The most

clustered or consistent data was from goal setting as it had the least standard

deviation among other indicators while performance feedback data had the

most spread score as it had the highest standard deviation.

Table 52
Behavioral Working Environment

R
Frequency Percent Index Respondents’
P
response

scale
S

Strongly agree 96 12
L

Agree 229 30

Neutral 296 38

Disagree 111 14

Strongly disagree 39 5

TOTAL 772 100 67 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The above table shows that 296 respondents or 38% answered

neutral, 229 frontliners or 30% chose agree, 111 people or 14% said
 158

disagree, 96 employees or 12 claimed strongly agree, and 39 people or 5%

stated strongly disagree. It is concluded that the majority of respondents

which was 38% or 296 respondents claimed neutral on the statement that

Matahari Department Store had practiced good behavioral working

environment, and the index was 67 that meant still poor. The scale of

respondents’ response was 3.2 which was moderate.

4.4.2.1 Goal Setting

R
Every company has goals to achieve. In general the goal will bring the

company to better purpose and condition. The purposes of goal setting

P
according to Leblebici (2012) are to guide each member of an organization

on their behavior and to motivate them to perform better and more effectively.
S

He also said goal setting is a vital tool to attrack employees’ motivation.

However, the above purposes will not be met unless members of the
L

organization understand and clear on the goals, and it is leaders’

accountability to make it happen. In his research Leblebici (2012) said that to

have effective goals organizations must set goals clearly, specifically, be

accepted by employees for commitment, difficult but attainable, and

frequently be reviewed and revised.

Table 53
Goal Setting
 159

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 50 6

Agree 264 34

Neutral 344 45

Disagree 91 12

Strongly disagree 23 R 3
P
TOTAL 772 100 68 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The survey index results on goal setting show index 68 that was

considered poor according MDS standard. 45% of respondents or 344

L

people expressed that they were neutral, 264 employees or 34% said they

agreed, 91 front liners or 12% stated they disagreed, 50 people or 6%

showed they strongly agreed, and 3% of 772 respondents which was 23

employees strongly disagreed. In other words the majority of 772

respondents which is 45% said that they were neutral on the statement that

MDS leaders had set the goal for the team based on the company’s goals /

objectives. The respondents’response scale was 3.3 meaning moderate.

Table 54
Goal Setting Descriptive Statistics
 160

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X2.1.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2479.00 3.2111 .87521

Clearly

described goal

X2.1.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2373.00 3.0738 .89876

Specific Goal

X2.1.3

Difficult but
4.00 1.00
R
5.00 2559.00 3.3148 .84038
P
attainable goal

X2.1.4 4.00 1.00 5.00 2711.00 3.5117 .74236

S

Goal

acceptance
L

X2.1.5 4.00 1.00 5.00 2599.00 3.3666 .91483

Frequently

reviewed &

revised

Goal Setting 18.00 7.00 25.00 12721.00 16.4780 3.31538

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 161

The above table shows that Goal setting indicator had 5 items. The item

with the highest mean was goal acceptance: 3.5117, meaning most of

respondents replied agree for this item. Whereas specific goal item had the

lowest mean: 3.0738. It meant that most of respondents answered neutral.

Item with the most consistent respondents’ answers was goal acceptance

as its standard deviation was the smallest among all (.74236). The mean

items of clearly described goal, specific, difficult but attainable, and frequently

reviewed and revised were relatively similar and ranged into neutral zone,

R
whereas goal acceptance mean was in agree zone (3.5117). The spread of

respondents’ answers for goal setting indicator can be categorized various

P
and item of frequently reviewed and revised goal spread the most or was the

widest as it had the highest standard deviation.

S

The five categories of effective goal setting as mentioned above are:

L

a. Clearly described goal

Indoctrination of goals is one of communication form from superior to

subordinate and framed as information sharing (Modaff et al., 2007). It

means its leaders’ job to make their team understand the company’s goals /

objectives clearly. Leblebici (2012) also mentioned that members of

organization who have clear goals were likely to have open communication.

Modaff et al. (2007) add lacking of information is one of possible causes of

misunderstanding in an organization. Hence, leaders have to ensure

employees’ tasks are clearly desbribed and no details are left out.
 162

Table 55
Clearly Described Goal

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 54 7

Agree 199 26

Neutral 407
R 53
P
Disagree 81 10

Strongly disagree 31 4
S

TOTAL 772 100 64 3.2

L

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

Out of 772 respondents, the number of employees who answered

neutral was 407 or 53%, 199 respondents or 26% stated they agreed. 10% of

respondents or 81 front liners chose disagree, 54 people or 7% answered

strongly agree, and 31 employees or 4% stated strongly disagree. Hence, the

writer may conclude that the majority of respondents which 53% or 407

people said they neutral on the statement that the goals in the company were

clearly described. The index then was 65 meaning still poor and the

respondents’ response scale was moderate.

 163

When the informants were asked about whether Matahari Department Stores

have already had clear goals, their answers during FGD session are as

follow:

Table 56

Clearly Described Goals FGD Result

Front liner level:

“Enggak ngerti bu ngga dikasih tau dengan jelas paling cuma meeting
-

-
R
umum aja tapi karena waktu terbatas suka kita masih ngga ngerti”.
“Kalau saya Senior biasanya yang ngasih tau. Misal tujuan visi misi
sekarang udah beda loh tapi detilnya ngga dijelasin”
“Baca di mading bu tapi sekilas jadi ngga ngerti juga”.
P
- “Mungkin secara arti tujuan perusahaan jelas tapi kalau suruh
menjelaskan saya kurang tau bu karena cuma sekali aja dijelasin pas
meeting umum”.
S

Supervisory level:
“Mungkin ada yang sudah jelas tapi ada yang kurang jelas juga jadi
L

-
saya kurang paham”
- “Saya paham sih bu tapi mungkin kalau diminta menjelaskan masih
kurang fasih”
- “Cukup mengerti bu, tapi susah jelasinnya”
- “Kalau menurut saya sudah sangat jelas bu, tinggal bagaimana kita
menyampaikan ke tim. Kadang2 kita pikir kita sudah sampaikan
pasti mereka paham, tapi ketika dicek oleh atasan saya masih
belum paham juga. Mungkin kita kurang dengan sosialisasinya”

Managerial level:
- “Sejauh ini sih kalo tim di store saya pikir sih tujuan perusahaan
sudah clear Bu. Kita ke tim kita masing-masing sudah sosialisasi
sehingga tujuan daripada manajemen pun juga sampe ke level
paling bawah, seharusnya sudah sampai. Jadi intinya mereka pun
 164

juga pasti ke arah yang sama dengan kita. Tentunya dengan arahan
kita dan manajemen Bu”.
(Budi)

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

- “Menurut saya tujuan perusahaan, visi misi sudah clear tapi
mungkin belum clear sampe ke bawah. Seharusnya disampaikan
dengan detil supaya dimenegrti”
(Alex)

R
The front liners doubted whether the company’s goals were clear or

not as they had never been explained in details. Some MDS supervisors
P
were also not sure whether the goal was clear enough but some said it was

clear and they also admitted that their team might not know the goal as they
S

had not explained it in details. The opposite opinion came from the store

managers as they claimed the goals of the company were clear enough and
L

all their team had understood it. However, the general manager

acknowledged that the goal itself was clear but the stores had not penetrated

down to the front liners level in explaining it. He also added that company’s

goal should have been communicated better.

We can conclude that MDS might already have a clear goal but

unfortunately it was unknown or unfamiliar to front liners who actually the

spear head of the company. The knowledge of company goals through vision

and mission was not much as the means of communicating goal, vision and

mission were only by poster that was just hung on the Mading wall and by
 165

reading it every morning. To make it worse their leaders did not explain its

meaning to their front liners. In short, having unclear goal is similar with not

having one at all as the store member did not have motivation, clear

guidance of what they were doing.

b. Specific Goals

Another characteristic of effective company’s goals is specific. Specific

goal is more effective than general one (Leblebici, 2012). Specific makes

easier to understand because employee can picture how the goal should be

R
achieved. Specific goal setting is targeted goal setting which involves specific

aspects of employees’ work that need to be achieved / improved and need

P
employees and management’s special attention (Pritchard et al., 1988).

When an organization applies specific goals, it is easier for the organization

S

to find out what problems occur / goes wrong with the goals when the goals

are not achieved. It then can focus only on the problem occurs. Moreover,
L

the management could also find faster and precise solution to the problem

occuring.

Table 57
Specific Goals

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale
 166

Strongly agree 25 3

Agree 219 28

Neutral 358 46

Disagree 126 16

Strongly disagree 44 6

TOTAL 772 100 61 3.1

R
Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey on specific goals was resulting index 61 meaning poor

P
based on MDS standard whereas the scale of respondents’ response was

3.1 and considered moderate. The majority of respondents who chose

S

neutral was 358 people or 46%, 28% of 772 respondents which was 219

front liners answered agree, 126 people or 16% claimed disagree, 6% of

L

front liners or 44 respondents said strongly disagree, and employees who

claimed strongly agree was 25 people or 3%. It meant the majority of 46%

respondents were neutral that MDS goals had been set specifically.

Bellow are the results of FGD and interview conducted by the researcher:

Table 58

Specific Goals FGD Result

Front liners level:

 167

- “Kalau tujuan perusahaan seperti target sudah detil saya harus

mencapai berapa”
- “Kalau saya ngga paham bu tujuan perusahaan, tapi target saya
harus capai berapa sudah detil sih”
- “Saya juga kurang paham tujuannya tapi argetnya seperti apa saya
harus capai sudah detil bu”
- “Mungkin tujuan perusahaan salah satunya melayani customer, trus
sama atasan saya dikasih tau harus nilainya sekian”

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau menurut saya company goal sudah spesifik sih bu, karena
atasan saya waktu sharing ke saya sudah detil saya harus
mencapai berapa, nilai customer service berapa”
-
R
“Kalau dari atasan sudah detil tapi ketika kita sampaikan ke bawah
ada yang peduli ada yang tidak kalau SPG cenderung lebih peduli
dibanding SA”
P
Managerial level:
- “Kalo menurut saya tujuan perusahaan ato goal tadi sudah sangat
spesifik bu karena kami langsung dari manajemen, apa saja yang
S

harus dicapai dalam tahun ini sudah disampaikan. Karena biasanya

Melalui sosialisasi tahapan kepada struktur pimpinan, pertama
mungkin dari BOD, kemudian disampaikan ke Regional Manajer
L

angka-angka sudah ada semua, kemudian disampaikan ke

Manager. Nah, dari situ kami langsung menyampaikan kepada tim
staff / supervisor dengan angka2 kami jadi sudah spesifik sekali
menurut saya”.
(Makky)
- “Biasanya kita juga taro di madding bu jadi sewaktu2 anak2 bisa
melihat tujuan perusahaan seperti apa detilnya bagaimana”.
(Suhendar)

General manager level:

- “Saya rasa company goal kita sudah sangat spesifik, untuk yang
non angka tinggal kita jelaskan ke bawah. Untuk yang angka karena
 168

pasti dari management atau direktur sudah fixed dan biasanya kita
breakdown per toko sehingga angka2 sudah sangat spesifik”.

Most of MDS front liners did not know about the over all company’s

goals, what they did know it was mostly their target or the number they

should achieve. While the supervisors stated that MDS’s goals were specific

enough and the reasons why their team did not know the goals was front

liners were too ignorant to know in detail. In MDS managers & general

R
manager’s opinions, the company goals were very specific so it was clear to

achieve.
P
The conclusion is the numerical company goal was specific enough that

almost everybody in the company was aware of it. However, non numerical
S

ones were still unclear to particular level which was front liners. MDS should

be in alert as its supervisors did not admit it was their fault not being able to
L

convey down to his team, they blamed his team instead.

c. Difficult but Attainable Goals

The main purpose of setting goals in an organization is

employees can help the organization to achieve common / organization

goals. Chandrasekar (2012) said that difficult goals will lead to better

performance than easy ones. However, it should be attainable or acceptably

difficult (Pritchard et al., 1988). Approach in goal setting system should be

 169

determined in the beginning whether as a motivator or as minimum standard

performance then its difficulty becomes a matter of judgment (Pritchard et

al.). Accountability is designed to shape employees behavior in maximizing

the company’s goal accomplishement (Hall, Zinko, Perryman, & Ferris,

2009). Then employees’ task, job and accountability have to be defined

clearly as well. When leaders fail to define job and accountability of his

subordinates he / she might refuse the job given or think that he / she is not

accountable for doing it. Hall et al. (2009) add that without accountabilities

every member of
R
an organization is able to do whatever he / she wants

which resulting a breakdown of the organization. Employees especially new

P
comer need to receive enough specific defined information about their task

such as how to accomplish the task (Modaff et al., 2007).

S

Table 59
Difficult but Attainable Goals
L

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 43 6

Agree 290 38

Neutral 321 42
 170

Disagree 105 14

Strongly disagree 13 2

TOTAL 772 100 66 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

From the total 772 respondents, the number of employees who chose

to answer neutral was 42% or 321 people, and it was the majority on the

statement that the goals in MDS were difficult but attainable and that made

R
the index 66 which was poor. The frontliners who agreed were 38% of

respondents or 290 people, 14% or 105 respondents said disagree, 43

P
respondents or 6% front liners chose strongly agree, and 13 people or 2%

answered strongly disagree. The scale of respondents’ response was 3.3

S

meaning moderate.

Table 60
L

Difficult but Attainable Goal

Front liner level:

- “Saya tau sih bu target berapa, target shrinkage berapa, target
customer service berapa tapi memang yang paling susah tuh capai
sales bu”
- “Iya penjualan susah, waktu saya masih baru saya ngga ngerti
gimana capai target soalnya ngga dikasih tau sama atasan. Trus
sama senior diajarin”
- “Kalau saya waktu itu target CS world nya ngga capai karena kena
MS trus yang divisit nilainya jelek jadi memang susah susah
gampang sih target itu”
 171

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau menurut saya sih target sudah cukup sulit dan tergantung
anak tersebut bisa mencapai atau tidak. Untuk anak SA agak kurang
ya, Bu. Jadi, ya itu tadi. Sebenarnya bedanya SA sama SPG gitu, Bu.
SPG itu kerjanya di counter-nya bisa dijangkau. Target mereka besar
kan jadi kalau SPG tuh tiap ada customer tuh kayak wih, kayaknya
duit nih. Harus gue layanin. Tapi kalau teman-teman SA, kita agak-
agak kurang. Jadi, mereka seringnya tidak capai target. Nanti
alasannya targetnya ketinggian”.
- “Target sudah cukup sulit untuk dicapai tapi menurut saya
seharusnya bisa dicapai. Tapi sama semua tergantung orangnya, SA
sama SPG ya, Bu. SPG biasanya semangatnya tinggi unuk
mencapai, misalnya brand pareto dia pasti langsung kejar terus kan,

-
R
untuk dapat insentifnya. Sedangkan SA karena tidak ada target
individu sepertinya mereka jadi menggantungkan satu sama lain”.
“Menurut saya target sudah bagus bisa dicapai bahkan anak2 bisa
melihat record pencapaian mereka tiap hari bahkan tapi tidak semua
P
memang peduli juga antusias, jadi ya tetap enggak capai”.
- “Walaupun tidak secara detail dijelaskan untuk bagaimana mencapai
targetnya, kita dikasih gambaran bagaimana untuk bisa
S

menghasilkan sales supaya sesuai dengan target. Sesuai dengan

man power-nya, kalau ada man power dua, jadi targetnya lebih besar,
berdasarkan selling area-nya atau space-nya. Terus juga
berdasarkan brand-nya. Kalau misalnya sudah brand-brand pareto
L

besar, pastinya lebih bisa menghasilkan sales yang lebih besar, dan
targetnya tentunya lebih besar dari brand yang biasa. Jadi, memang
tidak dijelaskan bagaimana membreak down-nya. Pastinya kita udah
sharing sesama supervisor atau senior yang sebelumnya. Untuk
pertimbangan sebuah brand dikasih target berapa, supaya mereka
tetap bisa mencapai
- “Kalau saya sih mungkin awal-awal dulu dikasih tahu detil. Kalau
sekarang paling cuma ini ya, target udah ada ya, di email udah
dikirim, silakan break down. Kayak gitu aja. Tinggal saya yang
breakdown menurut saya aja yang jelas saya buat supaya anak2
tidak merasa terlalu berat sulit tapi masih bisa capainya, tapi tetep
berdasarkan target glondongan”
- “Sama, cuma ceritanya beda. Awal-awal kita diberi tahu break down
target seperti apa, terus rumusnya apa, dan teorinya seperti apa. Tapi
di sisi lain kan dari target kan ada gimana sih ningkatin. caranya
 172

nyampein target itu seperti apa gitu. Jadi semua diharapkan bisa
capai target meskipun cukup sulit”

Managerial level:
- “Menurut saya saat ini target yang diberikan cukup sulit dan
cenderung sulit untuk dicapai. Padahal ini sangat mempengaruhi
semangat anak2 karena ujung2 nya adalah insentives”
(Makky)
- “Sebenarnya company goal yang ada sudah jelas dan baik
sehingga tim kita juga bisa terarah, mereka juga bisa fokus, dan kita
juga bisa lebih detil memberikan kuasa kepada mereka supaya
mereka tidak terlalu jauh menyimpang dan sesuai dengan harapan
yang kita sampaikan. Tapi saat ini sepertinya terlalu susah untuk

-
mencapainya”
(Suhendar) R
“Untuk goal tersebut menurut saya sudah cukup sulit. Ada beberapa
yang bisa mencapainya tapi ada beberapa yang tidak tidak bisa”
P
(Dea)
S

Senior managerial / General managerial level:

- “Menurut saya goal yang kita punya memang ada yang sulit dicapai
L

untuk sebagian toko tapi untuk toko yang lain mungkin lebih mudah
mencapainya. Misal ketika pencapaian toko sudah tinggi pada tahun
berikutnya kan harus ada growth nah ini yang sulit karena
mendapatkan target lebih tinggi lagi sementara banyak factor yang
mempengaruhi tidak tercapainya target.”

According to MDS front liners, company’s goals were difficult enough

to attain especially for those who had not trained or taught by their

supervisors. After sometimes or after being taught by their senior peers they

would eventually be able to attain the goals. MDS supervisors also agreed
 173

that the goals were difficult enough to achieve, but they criticized some of

their team for not being enthusiastic enough to achieve it. Supervisors

unfortunately, although had been trained in how to achieve the target, did not

share it with their team and that might be the reason why their team were not

enthusiastic enough.

Managers on the other hand thought that the goal was difficult enough

or even too difficult to attain and that influenced their team’s enthusiasm, as

not achieving the goal meant not having extra money or incentives.

R
Seeing the conditions above the supervisors were the one to be

responsible most for not being able to attain the goal, as they did not share
P
the ‘know how’ of achieving target to their team. If only they had shared,

MDS frontliners would have known how to achieve target and the chance of
S

attaing the goal was high.

L

d. Goal Acceptance

Another characteristic of effective company’s goals is accepted

by the employees (Leblebici, 2012). Every member of organization has his /

her own values, beliefs, characterictics, and goals. Even so, they have to

own one unity of company’s goal meaning, and it is the leaders’ task to unite

and blend them into direction of company’s goal. The similarity of meaning

will only accomplished when the employees accept the goal. Goal

acceptance will generate employees’ commitment which results they are

 174

willing to do more than they are required (Leblebici). To gain and increase

employees’ acceptance they need to be involved in setting the goals as both

employees and leaders know their unique work condition and obstacles they

face everyday (Pritchard et al., 1988).

Table 61
Goal Acceptance

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

R response

scale
P
Strongly agree 41 5
S

Agree 375 49

Neutral 303 39
L

Disagree 44 6

Strongly disagree 9 1

TOTAL 772 100 70 3.5

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The table above shows that goal acceptance index is 70 meaning still

poor. Out of 772 respondents 375 people or 49% claimed agree, 303 front

liners or 39% said neutral, 41 sales associates or 5% chose strongly agree,

44 people or 6% answered disagree, and 9 people or 1% stated strongly

 175

disagree. In conclusion, the majority of 49% respondents stated agree with

the statement that they accepted MDS’s goal. Th respondent’s response

scale was 3.5 meaning moderate.

Below are the results of FGD & in-depht interview that were conducted by

the writer:

Table 62

Goal Acceptance and Commitment FGD Result

Front liners level:

R
P
- “Saya sih nerima…Sebenarnya saya komit, Bu. Tapi atasan saya
begini, ini kadang-kadang yang membuat saya enggak komit”.
- “Iya sama kadang2 kita tergantung atasan kita”
S

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau kita sih terima2 aja”.
L

- “Ya kalau udh dikasih ini yang harus dicapai kita komit sih bu untuk
mencapainya”
- “Iya, yang agak susah justru anak2 ada yang komit ada yang tidak.
Misalnya waktu, Bu. Kalau di toko kan jam 8.45 itu sudah harus di
area ya. Jadi, beberapa dari mereka tuh harus diteriak-teriakin dulu
gitu. Baru mereka mau turun. Kalau ngga ya ngga turun2. Nah
bagaimana bisa komit mencapai tujuan perusahaan kalau begitu.
Pernah securitynya santai mereka juga santai jam 8.50 pernah baru
turun. Akhirnya sekuritinya saya omelin. Harus lebih tegas lagi,
ngomel-ngomelin lagi, cerewet lagi. Terus, grooming-nya pun kalau
yang jaga sekuriti cowok itu, Bu, ya gitu, mereka seenak-enaknya.
Pakai lipstik warna pink, terus pakai blush on. Banyak sih, Bu. Jadi,
masih apa ya? Rasa tanggung jawabnya dan komitmennya tuh masih
kurang gitu, Bu”.
- “Kalau saya ngerasa emang masih kurang, kelihatan untuk SA sudah
ada target per orang. Nah, kita meminta fokuskan customer atau
customer focus, bukan job focus. Ya prakteknya mereka lebih ke job
 176

focus bukan customer focus ya. Apalagi tidak ada target individu
sekarang per world semakin di situ komitmennya agak kurang. Jadi,
intinya masih tetap, kalau udah ada barang ngedisplay barang, udah
asyik aja. Kadang saya kalau lewat, ada customer, saya tegur. Itu
ada customer. Gitu aja sih”.

Managerial level:
- “Pasti diantara karyawan yang komit ada yang tidak, tapi tidak
semua”
(Makky)
- “Tujuan perusahaan biasanya kami terima sudah given tidak bisa
diganggu gugat harus menerima dan kami juga harus komit, tapi
biasanya kalau yang berhubungan dengan angka kalau terjadi hal2
diluar kehendak misal musibah biasanya kami mengajukan revisi.

R
Atasan kami biasanya memperjuangkan supaya ada koreksi. Jadi
sekarang lebih akomodatif daripada dulu. Untuk komitment ada
anak2 yang tidak komit, tapi kecil lah, Bu. Paling ya 5%-10%.”
(Budi)
P
- “Betul, untuk company goal kita tidak bisa merubahnya kita terima
kita telan bulat2 tapi jika ditengah jalan ada apa2 kami mengajukan
revisi biasanya. Jika disetujui pasti kami akan lebih komit karena
S

kan ngga enak udah direvisi masih ngga capai juga”.

(Suhendar)
L

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Karena company goal itu langsung dari management biasanya tim

toko menerima apa adanya dan mereka pasti akan berkomitment
melaksanakannya. Namun sekarang ini management sangat
berbaik hati, kadang2 usulan revisi untuk yang berhubungan
dengan angka karena sesuatu hal masih dipertimbangkan dan
dikabulkan”.
(Alex)
 177

From the FGD it shows that MDS front liners mostly accepted

company’s goals, unfortunately they did not commit in applying the goals.

They blamed their supervisors for doing so. On the other hand, supervisors

accepted and committed to the goals but they claimed what was lacking from

their team was maturity as they did not commit to it. In store managers’ point

a view everybody in the company accepted the goal and committed to it, but

they admitted few of them around 10-15% of the team did not commit. The

general manager also claimed the store team accepted the goal and

commited to it.
R
If we analyze the situation above it is clear that the problem in being
P
committed came from the supervisors. Somehow their deeds made their

team reluctant to commit.

S
L

e. Frequently Reviewed and Revised Goal

Company’s goal should be reviewed in every completion of its period,

this to evaluate the reasons it was not achieved and its level of difficulties,

then employees and leader could discuss some potential changes to improve

their performance (Pritchard et al., 1988). Leblebici (2012) also mentioned

that providing frequent feedback on the goal is important to result effectivess

in the goal itself. Involving the employees in the process of review and

revision is important as employees will feel that the goal setting system

belongs to them and attractive to them, this will also awaken the feeling of
 178

accountability for their performance (Pritchard et al.). However, the changes /

revisions of goals made should gain employees acceptance first before

implementing them as increased goals without employees’ support will cause

low acceptance and dropped morale (Pritchard et al.).

Table 63
Frequently Reviewed and Revised Goal

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

R response

scale
P
Strongly agree 87 11
S

Agree 239 31

Neutral 333 43
L

Disagree 97 13

Strongly disagree 16 2

TOTAL 772 100 67 3.4

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The table above shows that frequently reviewed and revised Goal

index is 68 meaning still poor. Out of 772 respondents 333 people or 43%

claimed neutral, 239 front liners or 31% said agree, 87 sales associates or

11% chose strongly agree, 97 people or 13% answered disagree, and 17

 179

people or 2% stated strongly disagree. In conclusion, the majority of 43%

respondents stated neutral with the statement that MDS’s goal was

frequently reviewed and revised, whereas the respondents’ response was 3.4

which was considered moderate.

FGDs and interview resulting some evidences as follow:

Table 64

Frequently Reviewed and Revised Goals FGD Result

Front liners level:

R
P
- “Suka dirubah sih, selama saya kerja di MDS tiap tahun pasti ada
perubahan”
- “Saya kurang paham”
S

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau saya sih seneng banget sekarang ada revisi target kalau
L

dulu susah sekali revisi”

- “Biasanya sih perubahan setahun sekali”

Managerial level:
- “Setahu saya sekarang lebih flexible jadi review dan revisi bisa
terjadi dalam kurun waktu kurang dari satu tahun”
(Makky)
- “Betul bu, perubahannya biasanya setahun sekali tapi kadang2 ada
revisi di tengah jalan”
(Dea)

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

- “Seperti yang saya informasikan sebelumnya management kali ini
sudah sering melakukan review bahkan merevise target yang telah
 180

diberlakukan untuk toko. Untuk secara global company goal setiap

tahunnya pasti akan ada perubahan tergantung dari management
mana yang akan difokuskan”
(Alex)

Most of key informants stated that MDS goals were frequently

reviewed and revised. The global goals were revised annually while numeric

goal could be revised less than a year. It means MDS has applied frequently

reviewed and revised goals.

R
P
4.4.2.2 Performance Feedback

Performance feedback according to Modaff et al. (2007) is a

S

communication form between members of an organization that involves task

guidance, personal evaluation, and any other form of guidance. Feedback

L

can be done formally and informally. Perfomance appraisal is a formal

mechanism that usually conducted in organizations while informal candid and

time-specific feedback is also needed (Modaff et al.). Feedback in this case

is measured by the frequency, Formal and informal way (candid and time

specific), mentioning things done right and areas to improve, task guidance

and personal evaluation content, Deliverance that results good

consequencies, and acceptance of feedback itself.

Table 65
Performance Feedback
 181

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 91 12

Agree 246 32

Neutral 290 37

Disagree

Strongly disagree
105

40
R 14

5
P
TOTAL 772 100 68 3.3
S

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey results on performance feedback show index of 68, it

L

meant performance feedback was still poor based on MDS standard. 37% of

respondents which was 290 people expressed they were neutral, 246

employees or 32% said they agreed, 91 front liners or 12% stated they

strongly agreed, 105 people or 14% showed they disagreed, and 5% of 772

respondents which was 40 employees were strongly disagree. It meant the

majority of 772 respondents which was 38% said that they were neutral that

their leaders had conducted performance feedback. The front liners’

response scale was 3.3 meaning it was moderate.

 182

Table 66
Performance Feedback Descriptive Statistics

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X2.2.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2524.00 3.2707 1.08904

Regularly

conducted

X2.2.2

Mentioning
4.00 1.00
R
5.00 2448.00 3.1723 .97311
P
things done

right & areas to

S

improve

X2.2.3 4.00 1.00 5.00 2553.00 3.3070 .96920

L

Formal &

informal way

X2.2.4 4.00 1.00 5.00 2630.00 3.4067 1.00858

Deliverance

results good

consequencies

X2.2.5 4.00 1.00 5.00 2561.00 3.3174 1.03958

Task guidance

& personal
 183

development

content

X2.2.6 4.00 1.00 5.00 2635.00 3.4132 1.02699

Acceptance

Performance 22.00 8.00 30.00 15353.00 19.8873 4.91526

feedback

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

R
The descriptive statistics of performance feedback showed that the
P
indicator had 6 items. The item with the highest mean was acceptance:

3.4132, meaning most of respondents replied neutral for this item.

S

Eventhough all item had means ranging in neutral zone, mentioning things

done right & areas to improve had the smallest one which was 3.1723. The
L

item of regularly conducted spread out the most as its standard deviation was

the highest among 6 items, whereas formal and informal way of feedback

was more clustered as it had the lowest standard deviation.

The measurements of good feedback as mentioned above are as

follow:

a. Frequency: Regularly Conducted Feedback

According to Chandrasekar (2011) performance feedback should be

done regularly. In Alvero, Bucklin & Austin (2011)’s study it shows that
 184

feedback that was conducted “daily, monthly, and combination of daily and

weekly resulted in higher levels of cosnsitency effects”. Hence, feedback

should not be given rarely or occasionaly but frequently.

Table 67
Frequency: Regularly Conducted Feedback

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

Strongly agree 92
R 12
scale
P
Agree 255 33
S

Neutral 248 32

Disagree 123 16
L

Strongly disagree 54 7

TOTAL 772 100 65 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of frequent feedback was 65 meaning poor. Out of 772

respondents 33% or 255 people claimed agree, 32% or 248 employees

chose neutral, 16% or 123 front liners stated disagree, 12% or 92 people said

strongly agree, and 7% or 54 people were strongly disagree. The writer may

conclude that the majority of respondents which was 33% or 255 people
 185

agreed that MDS leaders had conducted frequent feedback at least monthly.

The respondents’ response scale was 3.3. meaning moderate.

Table 68

Frequently / Regularly Done FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Setahun sekali pas PA”
- “Iya pas PA
“Biasanya yang pake kertas setahun sekali tapi kalau langsung ngga
-

-
- “Iya saya juga jarang”
“Kalo saya sering”.
R
pakai penilaian lumayan sering”
“Kalau saya yang ngga pake kertas jarang”
P
-
- “Saya malah belum. Baru mau jalan lima bulan. Tapi belum ada
pembicaraan kayak gitu”.
Supervisory level:
S

- “Kalau feedback yang kayak evaluasi itu hampir tiap minggu, Bu. Pas
ke counter pasti dia kasih feedback ke kita begini, begitu, nanti kasih
L

masukan”.
- “Kalau di Kemang selalu SMS saya kalau mau kasih feedback,
selalu Itu ada meeting staff setiap hari Senin semua dievaluasi
dikasih feedback”.
- “Kalau untuk performance feedback ya kita udah ada, waktunya
seminggu sekali atau sebulan sekali sih seketemunya di area, ya
kita dipanggil”
- “Iya, ada sih Bu. Tapi memang kadang-kadang aja, kita sih lebih
mengharapkan kalau performance feedback itu lebih sering ya, Bu.
Jadi, kita tahu kekurangan kita apa, yang udah bagus dari kita apa,
gitu kan? Cuma, sekarang sih kalau saya rasain masih belum sih.
Terutama untuk dari pribadi kita, bagaimana kitanya, itu masih kurang
sih, masih kurang sekali. Bahkan jarang deh. Mungkin setahun sekali
kalau lagi PA aja. Tapi kalau lagi enggak ada PA, ya sudah, enggak
ada”.
- “Kalau saya belum ada sih, belum pernah”.
 186

- “Kalau untuk feedback hampir saya lakukan setiap hari sih. Karena
kan saya hampir tiap hari juga di area, untuk area saya sendiri sih.
Jadi, kadang kalau ada yang kurang, saya langsung feedback ke
anak-anak. Kalau yang dari atasan, setiap hari juga, sama sih.
Karena kan kalau atasan saya, dia hampir keliling setiap hari”.
- “Kalau dari atasan yang dipanggil khusus, kayaknya setahun sekali
deh”.
Managerial level:
- “Kalo untuk feedback secara keseluruhan misal cakupan sales,
customer service, shrinkage dll itu dilakukan di setiap setahun sekali.
Tapi kalo feedback secara operation itu bisa day to day, Bu, bisa
mungkin melalui Whatsap atau email, atau saat atasan visit ya. Jadi
intinya feedback performance sih sebenarnya itu bisa anytime, bisa
kapan aja, dan untuk yang yang satu tahun itu sebenarnya adalah

-
(Makky)
R
performance untuk annual itu yang tercatat di HRD kalau yang harian
sih tidak perlu dikirim karena tidak perlu mencatat”.

“Minimal setahun sekali, Bu ada performance appraisal, disitu

P
feedback diberikan. Nanti dikumpulkan di HRD”.
(Budi)
- “Kita juga lakukan ke supervisor kita dengan harapan jika kita
S

melakukan kepada supervisor, mereka melakukan hal yang sama ke

timnya. Jadi tidak perlu menunggu setahun, tidak perlu catat
mencatat langsung saja ketika ada yg perlu difeedback kita langsung
feedback”
L

(Suhendar)

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Untuk feedback kalo selama ini yang saya lakukan malah day to day
malahan.. karena kan kita terima.. data sales harian by store mana
yang growth mana yang minus, nah itu. Nah dari situ biasa, ya kayak
kemarin saya ke Kalibata, salah satunya untuk evaluasi itu karena
Kalibata salah satu toko yang datanya dia masuk posisinya sudah
ungrowth….Jadi tergantung situasi. Tidak harus setahun sekali.
Hanya PA yang kita lakukan setahun sekali dimana ada langkah2
dalam pengisiannya karena kita harus mendokumentasikan PA
tersebut, jadi sedikit berbeda dengan feedback yang harian ato
sesuai kebutuhan. Kita lakukan langsung tidak perlu kita isi form dsb”.
(Alex)
 187

MDS front liners claimed that some of them were regularly given

feedback but some rarely or even had neven been given feedback since she

moved to that particular department. However, the formal feedback from HR

was given once a year. For supervisory level most of them claimed their store

managers had given regular feedback to them at least once a week. Few of

them received feedback daily but there were few who had not received any.

R
Similar with what front liner said, the formal feedback received by supervisors

was once a year.

P
From store managers’ side some claimed they gave operational

feedback daily and weekly while few gave only annually. When they gave
S

feedback they never did in written, they just did orally. Only formal feedback

that went to HR was done in written. Senior manager also claimed same as
L

store managers did.

The researcher may conclude that regular feedback had not been

applied evenly in the stores especially for front liners. In fact feedback that is

not given regularly will not result good impact.

b. Mentioning Things Done Right and Areas to Improve

Feedback content can be positive or negative depending on

employees’ performance. Positive feedback might result negative outcome

especially when it is unmerited (Modaff et al., 2007). However, conveying

 188

negative feedback is more complicated than conveying positive one.

Negative feedback case is usually related to bad / poor performance, denied

requests and broken rules (Modaff et al.). Hence, negative feedback should

be delivered in such a way that areas employees need to improve are clearly

understood. In short, the way feedback is conveyed by the leaders is very

important.

Feedback will be successful when areas need to improve and things done

right are also mentioned. Leaders should mentions what things their

R
subordinates have done right and areas to improve based on facts. It can be

done verbally, written, or using graph to show information of performance or

P
facts both independently or combination (Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin, 2011).

The purpose of mentioning things done right is first to recognize employees

S

for their achievement as it will make them more enthusiastic about their work,

and second to improve employees’ performance so they do not swirl in a

L

same hole.

When leaders see their subordinates do something good or bad it is

better to give feedback right away rather than waiting for formal performance

feedback session time. This to point their good deeds and motivate them to

do more good deeds, as well as to avoid negligence or denial from

subordinates when they have done something that is not in company’s favor

Table 69
Mentioning Things Done Right and Areas to Improve
 189

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 71 9

Agree 180 23

Neutral 376 49

Disagree

Strongly disagree
100

45
R 13

6
P
TOTAL 772 100 63 3.2
S

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 376 people or

L

49%, 180 people or 23% were agree, 100 respondents or 13% chose

disagree, 71 people or 9% stated strongly agree, and 45 front liners or 6%

claimed strongly disagree. The majority of respondents who were neutral on

the statement that MDS leaders had conveyed what the frontliners had done

right and things they had to improve was 49%. The index of positive and

negative feedback was 63 which was poor whereas frontliners’ response was

3.2 or moderate.
 190

The results of FGDs and interview about how MDS leaders’ conduct

performance feedback are shown in the following table:

Table 70

Mentioning Things Done Right and Areas to Improve FGD Result

Front liners level:

- “Sering nya sih bahas hal2 yang saya kurang, jarang bahas yang
saya udah bagus. Misalnya: kamu tuh harus gini, gini, gini. Kayak

R
misalkan masalah barang gitu kan, buat area ini kurang rapi, ini
harga belom. Ini nanti juga dicek ya, kata dia gitu. Terus, masalah
kebersihan itu kan utama, katanya kamu kurang gini gini harus
dijaga, kayak gitu-gitu deh”.
P
- “Kalau saya juga ga pernah dikomen yang bagusnya saya sih
seringnya itu di-comment untuk back wall, Bu. Jadi kurang rapi,
harus rapi, selalu rapi”.
- “Kalau saya misalnya ada kesalahan tetap aja semuanya dipanggil,
S

kadang kadang bingung kenapa kok saya dipanggil padahal saya

kan ngga salah. Iya, dua-duanya. Misalnya partner saya salah nih
saya juga dipanggil, sebenernya ngga fair partner saya kan mikirnya
L

elo juga salah elo kan juga dipanggil.”

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau di Kemang sendiri sih SM selalu SMS saya, selalu adain
meeting staff setiap hari Senin. Jadi, mungkin kalau misalnya SM
atau ASM sendiri menemukan masih ada kurang bersih di area apa
gitu, Bu, atau di kasir, mungkin biasanya dikasih anjuran seperti ini
lah ke kita, misalnya gitu. Biasanya kita tiap hari Senin itu biasanya
selalu ngasih masukan sih, intinya gitu, ke masing-masing stafnya.
Mohon setiap counter perhatikan service nya, apalagi ini di counter
ini yang selalu tiap bulan ditemukan ada yang dugem, gitu misalnya,
Bu”.
- “Seketemunya di area, ya dipanggil. Mungkin karena seperti unit
ekspedisi dan area, mungkin saya juga kurang fokus di area. Tapi di
situ saya dipanggil di area, bagaimana di kosmetik atau di youth girl,
area kamu nih penjualan sales-nya kenapa masih minus? Kenapa
 191

berubah posisinya. Trus suka kasih feedback bagus juga misalnya

kamu udah bagus dalam mengelola datanya. Tapi yang juga harus
fokus di area ini masih kotor, display belum sesuai standard. Gitu. Itu
sih performance feedback-nya enggak ada jangka waktunya. Kadang
seketemunya di area”.
- “Kalau untuk area misalkan kamu banyak dugem, atau kurang apa,
kurang apa, kotor; itu sih masih wajar”.
- “Karena kan kalau atasan saya, dia hampir keliling setiap hari. Dan
dia pasti akan perhatikan untuk area masing-masing, apa yang
kurang, terus apa yang belum. Yang saya bagus jarang sih”
- “Kalau sejauh ini sih baru yang negatif aja, Bu. Dan itu random.
Contohnya, kemarin ada SPG baru screening. Terus, enggak
sengaja saya masukin yang gemuk. Terus, ya bapak komplain.
Langsung komplain ke saya. Terus, ada perbantuan SA juga yang
bapak kurang suka mungkin mukanya. Terus langsung komplain.

-
R
Jadi, sejauh ini sih masih yang negaif-negatif, belum yang hal-hal
positif, dia kasih apresiasi gitu belum sih”.
“Kadang masih sering yang negative. Misalnya kadang sering
berubah. Karena itu kan ketika datang barang, pasti kan barang
P
digeser. Pasti untuk alamatnya pun pasti berubah. Dan itu yang
kadang sering dipertanyakan seperti itu. Kenapa sih, Pak, alamatnya
selalu enggak pernah konsisten, enggak pernah bisa untuk terus
S

dijaga untuk alamat gudangnya? Tapi untuk gudangnya sih dibilang

udah rapi, udah bersih, tetap konsisten dijaga kebersihannya, hanya
tinggal alamat-alamatnya aja biar konsisten. Kalau kata kita, harus
gercep, gitu kan. Harus gerak cepat. Barang masuk, bongkar, pasang
L

alamat, alamat lama, cabut. Gitu sih”.

- “Saya hampir sama sih, Bu. Lebih banyak yang ke arah negatifnya”
- “Di ladies itu kan memang saya sih bukan sombong ya Bu, area
memang menjadi rapi kan, nah, si S01 saya enggak bilang langsung
ke saya. Oh, area kamu bagus; enggak. Tapi saya dengar itu dari
ASM. Oh, areanya Bu ini udah bagus ya, kata S01. Kayak gitu. Tapi
dianya enggak bilang ke saya. Kayak gitu. Jadi, untuk positifnya itu
masih belum. Tapi kalau negatif, misalkan kotor ini langsung ke
saya”.
Manager level:
- “Biasanya pada saat anak2 meeting counter atau meeting umum,
mungkin tidak semuanya mereka bisa fokus, jadi kita harus check
and recheck lagi tentang apa yang sudah dijelaskan yang menjadi
tolak ukur performance mereka”…. Jika ada front liner yang masih
belum paham kita akan panggil supervisornya, kenapa mereka ini kok
belum tau apakah mereka pada saat penyampaian tidak masuk atau
 192

memang mereka tidak paham, kita cross checknya ke leader-nya.

Jadi ini bisa menjadi feedback untuk performa leader yang masih
kurang bagus”.
(Makky)
- “Kalau di saya misal management mnt kita fokus di hal A karena
misal sedang bermasalah sedikit, kita sebagai pimpinan
mengingatkan, terus menanyakan bagaimana antisipasi. Kalo ada
berkaitan dengan case tersebut masih belum bagus itu menjadi
perfomance feedback yang harus diperbaiki lagi untuk tim kita.
Begitu, Bu”.
(Suhendar)

- R
Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:
“Kalo kita ke kepala toko ya tetap kita lihat performance tokonya. Nah
seperti apa pencapaiannya, mungkin dari segi salesnya, termasuk
customer service, nah mungkin kita lihat disitu. Nah, mana-mana
P
yang kita anggap kurang, misalnya dari sales, dari sales kita lihat ‘oh
ada yang bermasalah disitu’ apakah area beli putusnya mungkin atau
konsinyasinya. Nah kita infokan ha-hal yang masih kurang bagus
S

atau yang perlu diperbaiki”

(Alex)
L

From the confession of front liners above, MDS supervisors had never

mentioned things their team had done right. Mostly the feedback was about

their areas to improve. In fact when things were not done as they should

have, supervisors did not provide direct feedback. It was group feedback

instead. It created confussion among front liners as they blamed each other

over the stuff.

This condition was similar with what happened in the supervisory

level. They were rarely told what they had done right. Only few store
 193

managers already did mentioning things done right to supervisors. The store

managers’ statement also confirmed that they had not mentioned their

supervisors’ positive things. This seemed to be happening from top down as

the general manager’s statement also showed that he only mentioned areas

to improve and not things his store managers’ had done right at all.

c. Formal and Informal Way / Candid & Time Specific

R
Eventhough most of organization apply feedback as a mechanism of

performance appraisal and is done formally, candid and time specific is also
P
important (Modaff et al., 2007). Chandrasekar (2011), also said that besides

conducted feedback formally, leaders in organizations could also did it

S

informally by gaining closer relationship for both parties / sides. When

leaders see their subordinates do something good or bad it is better to give

L

feedback right away rather than waiting for until formal performance feedback

session. This to point their good deeds and motivate them to do more good

deeds, as well as to avoid negligence or denial from subordinates when they

have done something that is not in company’s favor.

Table 71
Formal and Informal Way / Candid & Time Specific
 194

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 67 9

Agree 275 36

Neutral 297 38

Disagree 95 12

Strongly disagree 38 R 5
P
TOTAL 772 100 66 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The survey on whether feedback had done formally and informally

showed opinion of agree and neutral almost had the same number of voters
L

which was 297 or 38% for neutral and 275 or 36% for agree. The number of

respondents who claimed disagree was 95 people or 12%, 67 people or 9%

chose strongly agree, and 38 front liners or 5% answered strongly disagree.

The writer may conclude that the majority or 297 respondents were neutral

on the statement that MDS leaders had delivered feedback formally and

informally. The index for this feedback was 67 meaning poor whereas the

scale of frontliners’ response was 3.3 or moderate.

When informants were asked about how formal and informall feedback

delivered in MDS, the results are as follow:

 195

Table 72

Done Formally and Informally (Candid & Time Specific) FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Biasanya yang pake kertas setahun sekali tapi kalau langsung ngga
pakai penilaian lumayan sering”
- “Kalau saya yang ngga pake kertas jarang”
- “Iya saya juga jarang”
- “Kalo saya sering”.
- “Kalau saya yang resmi pake kertas pas PA tahunan tapi kalo yang
sekedar pas di counter lumayan ada sih”

Supervisory level:
-
R
“..misalnya SM atau ASM sendiri menemukan masih ada kurang
P
bersih di area apa gitu, Bu, atau di kasir, mungkin biasanya dikasih
anjuran seperti ini lah ke kita…”
- “Seketemunya di area, ya dipanggil”.
S

- “Mungkin setahun sekali kalau lagi PA aja. Tapi kalau lagi enggak
ada PA, ya sudah, enggak ada”.
- Yg ke HRD setahun sekali”
L

Managerial level:
- “Biasanya yang formal itu pas meeting staff dan yang tahunan,
kalau yang informal pas saya keliling counter biasanya langsung”.
(Dea)
- “Iya sama”.
(Budi)

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

- “Kalau yang informal biasanya saya evaluasi dengan sharing kira-kira
kenapa bisa seperti ini. Nah ternyata banyak hal-hal yang seharusnya
toko bisa lakukan, tetapi tidak dieksekusi, mereka tau masalahnya
tetapi mereka tidak eksekusi masalah itu. Kalau yang formal itu
annually”
 196

(Alex)

Eventhough not every front liners knew the difference between formal

and informal feedback, (they differenciated feedback by using paper and

without paper) they claimed there were two kinds of feedback they had.

Supervisors also claimed they had formal feedback called PA that went to

HRD and conducted annualy and informal one. Store Managers and general

R
manager also mentioned similar that formal feedback was done during

meeting and annual performance appraisal while informal one was done
P
anytime during counter visit.

From the statements above the writer can conclude that MDS had
S

already applied informal and formal feedback for the store team.
L

d. Deliverance that Results Good Consequencies

Delivering feedback can be done privately, publicly or combination of

individual and public (Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin, 2011). The ways feedback

process delivered depend on the situation that leaders have to be able to

choose. Combination deliverance of public and private feedback was more

consistently effective than either independently individual or public one

(Alvero, Bucklin, & Austin). Whilst leaders find out things at the work spot that

need to be evaluated it could be done personally and combined with

 197

coaching, but when it needs team attention they can do public feedback.

When feedback is more on coaching in the workplace, personal feedback is

expected to be done (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler, 2007). However, all

feedbacks need to be accepted by employees, otherwise negative

consequencies such as demoralized, unperformed can emerge. Modaff et al.

(2011) also mentioned that good feedback would impact on employees’

motivation, satisfaction, commitment and also their performance. On the

other hand when feedback was not well accepted by employees, it would

R
have negative consequencies such as demoralized, unperformed (Modaff et

al.).
P
Table 73
Deliverance that Results Good Consequencies
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

L

response

scale

Strongly agree 107 14

Agree 257 33

Neutral 280 36

Disagree 97 13

Strongly disagree 31 4
 198

TOTAL 772 100 68 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of deliverance feedback was 68. It meant poor, whereas the

respondents’ response rate was moderate (3.3). Out of 772 respondents, 280

front liners or 36% claimed neutral, 257 people or 33% agreed, 107

employees or 14 strongly agreed, 97 sales associates or 13% disagreed, and

31 people or 4% stated strongly disagree. In other words, the majority of

respondents: 36% or 280 people answered neutral on the statement that

R
their leaders had conveyed feedback good enough that had positive

consequencies. The index of feedback deliverance was 68 meaning still poor

P
according to MDS standard and the respondents’ response rate was 3.4 or

moderate.
S

Below are the statements of FGD and interview informants:

L

Table 74

Deliverance that Results Good Consequencies FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Sebenarnya kalau pas evaluasi trus kita dikasih contoh langsung
sih kita ngerti pasti kita ikutin, tapi seringnya Cuma diomongin tapi
caranya yang benar gimana ngga dikasih tau”.
- “Ya kalo kita dikasih tau yang bener sih pasti kita jadi lebih baik,
masalahnya kita seringnya belajar sendiri misal kalau untuk barang
mah ya belajar sendiri, jadi kalo salah pas difeedback Cuma dibilang
salah yang bener gimana kita ngga dikasih tau”.
- “Iya, benar. Otodidak. Jadi leader ngga ngasih tau yang seharusnya
 199

itu gimana. Kalo kita dikasih contoh pasti kita akan ada perubahan
yang lebih baik”.
- “Iya malah seringnya nanya ke kita jadi kita mau lebih baik yang
gimana juga bingung”.

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau hasil dari feedback sebenarnya tergantung anaknya sih bu. Ini
ada salah satu contoh SA saya itu, misal dia ganti POP gitu ya, Bu.
Karena saya udah kasih tahu dan saya udah kasih pembelajaran, a3,
a4, a5, itu yang seperti apa. Kalo anak-anak SA lain pas salah saya
kasih feedback langsung besok-besoknya ada perubahan, tapi kalo
yang ini ngga. Ketika ngambil, ngambilnya udah lama, habis itu yang
diambil bukan a4, yang diambil adalah a5. Saya kasih feedback lain
kali kalo POP harus yang a4 bukan yang lain. Dia datang ke saya,

R
Pak, ini udah saya ambil. Itu a berapa? Ini a4, Pak. Ah, yang benar?
Iya, a4, Pak. Saya jelasin lagi itu a5. A4 itu yang agak gedean dikit
tuh. Pertama sekali, dua kali, saya kasih pembelajaran tiga kali,
empat kali, terbukti dia emang salah rekrut. Jadi memang ada
P
perbaikan ato tidak tergantung juga anaknya”.
- “Betul bu tergantung anaknya. Misal anak baru, kayak ada customer
nih, malah pura-pura enggak lihat. Jadi kita feedback nih, kamu
S

kenapa gini, gini, gini, gini, harusnya gini gini gini. Biasanya sih
besokannya mereka udah ada perbaikan tapi ada juga yang cuma
jawab “Iya, Bu.” Jadi, saya coba dengan ikutan terjun. Jadi, pas ada
customer, mereka sibuk dengan kerjaan yang bukan ke customer,
L

trus saya yang handle customernya iya, Ibu, cari apa? Ini saya
ambilin juga supaya anak-anak ngelihat itu. Kalau besoknya masih
belum ada perubahan berarti anak ini jiwa service nya kurang kita
tandain tuh. Tapi kebanyakan sih kalo difeedback trus ada
perubahan sih”.

Managerial level:
- “Biasanya apa yang kita catat dalam PA itu untuk catatan apakah
ada perubahan. Dulu kan kita setahun dua kali jadi PA semester 1
kan kita sampaikan ke staff nah di semester 2 mereka harus sudah
harus lebih baik”
(Makky)
- “Iya bu, dulu kita ada PA semesteran, itu untuk menilai apa ada
improvement dari semester 1 ke semester 2 baik dari sisi sales
maupun personal. Tapi sekarang setahun hanya sekali”
 200

(Suhendar)

Senior managerial / General managerial level:

- “Jadi Bu, menurut saya bukan mereka tidak mau melakukan tapi
mereka masih apa ya, masih perlu didorong kayaknya. Nah,
pertanyaannya ‘kenapa tidak dilakukan hal yang sama?’ kan
minimal harus sama, justru harus lebih dari yang lalu. Nah itu saat
yang kita tanya begitu, mereka juga kayak kaget ‘Oh, iya ya,
ternyata harus diini lagi.’ Biasanya kalau udh di feedback begitu
performance nya akan lebih baik lagi”.
(Alex)

R
Based on front liners answers, MDS supervisors had not delivered
P
feedback well enough as they only mentioned the negative things or areas to

improve without mentioning how to improve them. Mostly front liners figured
S

out by themselves how to fix their areas to improve. If only the leaders had

delivered correctly, front liners claimed they could have improved a lot better
L

or resulted better consequences. Instead of admitting that they had not

delivered feedback correctly, MDS supervisors blamed their team of being

not significantly improved. They felt that after being given feedback their

team should change automatically. Hence, their team who had not changed

after feedback were claimed as misrecruited. From store managers’ sides

they stated that MDS previous system of feedback was better as they could

monitor the improvement of their team. While from senior manager’s point of

view the deliverance was good enough only his team needed more

motivation to result good consequencies.

 201

The writer may summarize that feedback deliverance was good enough

from managers, and yet supervisors had not delivered feedback correctly

resulting their front liners have improved significantly.

e. Feedback Content: Task Guidance & Personal Evaluation

According to Modaff et al. (2011) Feedback is a form of

communication between members of an organization that covers task

guidance, personal guidance and other guidance if any both implicitly and

explicitly. It means leaders have to provide their followers with task elements

R
such as things need to be done and how employees should do them

especially for new comers or when the task needed is improved. Moreover,
P
employees’ personal elements such as their social and psychological

elements should be paid attention. When employees cannot get along with
S

their working environment leaders should notice and evaluate, also when

employees are lesser work-oriented or too work-oriented leaders have to

L

provide them feedback to bring them back on the right track.

Table 75
Feedback Content: Task Guidance & Personal Evaluation

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale
 202

Strongly agree 94 12

Agree 253 33

Neutral 269 35

Disagree 116 15

Strongly disagree 40 5

TOTAL 772 100 66 3.3

R
Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey resulted 35% of 772 respondents or 253 people claimed

P
neutral, 35% or 269 sales associates chose agree, 15% or 116 employees

stated disagree, 12% or 94 millenial front liners answered strongly agree, and
S

5% or 40 sales staff claimed strongly disagree. The writer can conclude that

the majority of 772 which was 253 respondents or 35% answered neutral that
L

MDS leaders’ feedback contained task guidance and personal evaluation.

The index of feedback was 66 or poor whereas frontliners’ response rate was

3.3 and considered as moderate.

When MDS front liners, supervisors, Store Managers and General

Manager were asked about how performance feedback that consists of task

guidance and personal evaluation applied in the organization, here are their

answers:
 203

Table 76

Consist of Task Guidance and Personal Evaluation FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Cuma, sekarang sih kalau saya rasain masih belum sih. Terutama
untuk dari pribadi kita, bagaimana kitanya, itu masih kurang sih,
masih kurang sekali. Bahkan jarang deh. Mungkin setahun sekali
kalau lagi PA aja”.
- “Kalau store manager saya baru kemarin sih ngerombak semuanya,
supaya display-display-nya itu lebih bagus jadi ngajarin harusnya
gini. Kayak denim, itu kan denim banyak banget, cuma kan di display-

R
nya sedikit. Karena tempatnya juga minim kan? Jadi, akhirnya denim
banyak udah keekspos semua. Jadi, di feedback nya lebih gimana
ke produk ke barang sama counter-nya supaya lebih fresh aja biar
kelihatan”.
P
- “Kalau aku sih paling kayak kemarin Bu supervisor kasih feedback
sambil ngasih tau cara counter nya biar keliatan lega. Trus counter-
nya baru dirombak lagi tuh, jadi biarnya customer-nya lega gitu ya.
S

Jadi kan fixture-fixture nya tadinya menghadapnya beda-beda tuh,

sekarang udah disatuin; jadinya counter-nya lebih lega gitu sih. Untuk
yang ke personal masih kurang”
- “Iya di saya juga kurang kalo untuk evaluasi personal”
L

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau berkaitan dengan pekerjaan sih udah ok bu. Tapi kalau
berkaitan dengan evaluasi pribadi atasan enggak bisa ngomong
langsung. Misalnya saya terlambat hari itu. Tapi saya bicaranya
dengan ASM, pas briefing pagi diabsen sama SM. Kok kurang satu?
Nanti tolong sampaikan ke dia ya, lain kali kalau izin ke saya, jangan
ke Ibu atau ke ASM kan saya store managernya, gitu. Tapi pas
ketemu saya, enggak negur ngga ngebahas. Jadi, menurut saya
kalau untuk pekerjaan, langsung bret, bret, bret, bret, bret. Tapi kalau
pribadi saya misalnya terlambat gitu, terus enggak ngasih kabar atau
enggak fast respons di grup, malah ditegurnya ke ASM. Jadi, nanti
saya dipanggilnya sama ASM”.
- “Kalau yang untuk pribadi belum tapi yang berhubungan dengan
kerjaan misalnya kalau habis selesai bikin laporan apa, terus bapak
kan pasti periksa ya. sebelum ditanda tangan, dia pasti nanya ini apa,
 204

ini apa, ini apa. Dia nanya, terus saya jelasin dong. Oh, iya, ini bagus.
Cuma, kayaknya lebih bagus begini, bagusnya begini. Biasanya sih
lebih gitu”

Managerial level:
- “Kita bisa liat disitu, apa yang mereka lakukan, karena tidak semua
supervisor itu sama, jadi ini memang kita harus bisa memberikan
guidance ke mereka bagaimana melakukan tugasnya dengan baik
dan tetep kita harus memberikan semangat, dan ini yang kadang-
kadang terkendala, mungkin tidak semuanya bisa lancar, bisa
diterapkan oleh mereka maka butuh kesabaran, nah kita diuji
leadershipnya disitu, Bu, dan tim”.
(Makky)
- “Kami disini harus memahami jobnya mereka supaya kami juga bisa

R
menjelaskan ke mereka ketika mereka tidak sesuai dengan
standard yang ada misal tidak boleh jutek pas kita lihat mereka jutek
ke customer berarti personality nya harus dirubah supaya lebih
ramah. Nah itu kita infokan baik ke supervisor atopun ke anak-
P
anaknya”.
(Dea)
S

Senior Managerial / General managerial level:

- “Nah, jadi mereka kadang, ya kalo saya bilang sih Bu harus
L

diingatkan harus di guide lagi tentang tugas-tugas mereka yang ada

di action plan-nya seperti apa begitu, dan secara pribadi evaluasi
saya lebih ke semangat mereka karena ada yang sudah merasa
tidak mungkin capai jadi tidak maximal. Banyak hal-hal yang
seharusnya toko bisa lakukan, tetapi tidak dieksekusi, mereka tau
masalahnya tetapi mereka tidak eksekusi masalah itu”.
(Alex)

Most MDS front liners claimed the feedback given to them already had

task guidance, unfortunately personal evaluation was rarely given to them

except during annual PA. Similar case happened in the supervisory level.
 205

Their store managers had given task guidance but they rarely gave personal

evaluation. One of them even claimed that a store manager did not mention

personal evaluation to him/ her directly but through someone else. These

statements however, was contradictory from what store manager said. One

of them claimed that she already gave both task guidance and personal

evaluation to her superisors. Senior manager also claimed that he had

provided his team with both personal evaluation and task guidance.

In term of task guidance and personal evaluation feedback the writer

R
may conclude that MDS had not applied them evenly. From senior level both

feedback task guidance and personal evaluation were already given to his
P
team but from managerial to supervisory level, those feedback had not been

applied yet.
S

f. Acceptance
L

Feedback from leaders have positive impact such as motivation,

satisfaction if it is accepted by the employees (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler,

2007). Therefore, feedback should show fairness otherwise employees will

reject it and resulting vertical conflict.

Table 77
Acceptance
 206

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 113 15

Agree 257 33

Neutral 269 35

Disagree 101 13

Strongly disagree 32 R 4
P
TOTAL 772 100 68 3.4

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The index for feedback acceptance was 68 meaning poor and

frontliners’ response rate was 3.4 or moderate. Out of 772 respondents, 269
L

people or 35% said neutral, 257 sales staff or 33% claimed agree, 113

employees or 15% chose strongly agree, 101 front liners or 13% stated

disagree, and 32 people or 4% said strongly disagree. It means 35 of

respondents or 269 majority millenials front liners answered neutral on the

statement that they accepted feedback from their leaders.

When informants were asked how their acceptance of feedback, their

answers are as follow:

 207

Table 78

Accepted Feedback FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Kita sih nerima kok asal cara feedbacknya bener”.
- “Iya betul”.
- “Kadang-kadang kalo feedbacknya sambil ngomel-ngomel kita juga
ga enak nerimanya, padahal sebenarnya lebih ngertian kita”.
- “Kalau saya sih malah yang suka ngejar leader nanyain follow up
nya gimana karena leader saya cuek banget”.

Supervisory level:
-
-
R
“Rata-rata anak-anak menerima sih bu kalau dikasih feedback”
“Iya bener, Cuma kadang-kadang lupa aja mereka ngga follow up
P
mungkin lupa kali”
- “Selama ini sih belum ada yang protes kalo dikasih feedback”
S

Managerial level:
- “Kalau menerima feedback tergantung anaknya mungkin bu, kalau
yang kritis ya pasti akan minta penjelasan lebih”.
L

(Budi)
- “Iya betul bu”
(Dea)
- “Kalau atasan kita jelas dan sangat efisien dalam memberikan
feedback menurut saya tinggal bagaimana kita follow up nya”.
(Makky)

Senior managerial / General managerial level:

- “Menurut saya, tim menerima kok feedback yang diberikan”.
 208

MDS front liners mostly accepted feedback when it was delivered in a

nice and correct way, but when it was delivered improperly they would ignore

it. These statements also confirmed by their supervisors, managers and

general manager that their team accepted feedback they gave.

From the statements above the writer can summarize that feedback

process in MDS has been accepted by all store team when it was done

properly.

4.4.2.3 Supervisor Support

R
P
According to Leblebici (2012), supervisor support is very important for
S

empoyees to finish their job. Without support, employees will not be able to

perform to their fullness. Besides giving positive encouragement, supervisor

L

or leaders should act as employees’ advocate, gather and distribute the

necessary resources for them in order to perform well (Chandrasekar, 2011).

Leaders’ relation with employees also takes important part in enabling their

confidence (Leblebici). Supervisor support characteristics are shown by

leaders’ willingness to help, availability of leaders’ help, care about

employees’ well being, leaders’ recognition and value of contribution as

explained by Eisenberger et al. (2002).

Table 79
Supervisor Support
 209

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 150 19

Agree 179 23

Neutral 303 39

Disagree

Strongly disagree
106

35
R 14

5
P
TOTAL 772 100 68 3.4
S

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey on supervisor support resulted index of 68 which meant poor.

L

39% of respondents which is 303 people expressed they were neutral, 179

employees or 23% said they agreed, 150 front liners or 19% stated they

strongly agreed, 106 people or 14% showed they disagreed, and 5% of 772

respondents or 35 employees were strongly disagree. In short, the 39%

majority of 772 respondents which was 303 employees said they were

neutral that their leaders had shown supportive behaviors. Their response

rate was 3.4 meaning moderate.

Table 80
Supervisor Support Descriptive Statistics
 210

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X2.3.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2609.00 3.3795 1.00955

Willingness to

help

X2.3.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2606.00 3.3756 1.08106

Availability to

help

X2.3.3 4.00 1.00

R
5.00 2762.00 3.5777 1.05019
P
Caring about

employee’s
S

wellbeing

X2.3.4 4.00 1.00 5.00 2511.00 3.2526 1.17129

L

Value

contribution /

recognition

Supervisor 15.00 8.00 20.00 10488.00 13.5855 3.66909

Support

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 211

The table above reveals that among 4 items on supervisor support

indicator, value contribution / recognition item had the lowest mean which

was 3.2526 meaning most of respondents replied neutral. The item with the

highest mean was caring about employees’ well being: 3.5777, meaning

most of respondents replied agree for this item. Whereas the other two items:

willingness to help and availability to help had means in the range of neutral

zone. The standard deviation score among items was relatively close and not

far from each other. However, value contribution / recognition item had the

R
widest range of score as its standard deviation was the highest (1.17129).

Item with most cluster spread was willingness to help as it had the lowest
P
standard deviation score (1.05019).

The four characteristics of supervisor support as mentioned before /

S

above are:

a. Willingness to help
L

Although employees know their job well sometimes they need special

favor from their leaders (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). To prove his / her

support, a leader must be willing to help his / her team especially when they

need his or her favor.

Table 81
Willingness to help
 212

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 129 17

Agree 184 24

Neutral 329 43

Disagree 109 14

Strongly disagree 21 R 3
P
TOTAL 772 100 68 3.4

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The index of wiliness to help was 68 meaning poor according to MDS

standard. Out of 772 respondents 43% or 329 people claimed neutral, 24%
L

or 184 employees chose agree, 17% or 129 front liners stated strongly agree,

14% or 109 people said disagree, and 3% or 21 people were strongly

disagree. The writer may conclude that the majority or 43% respondents

which was 329 people were neutral on the statement of MDS leaders had

been willing to help. The front liners’ response rate was 3.4 meaning

moderate.

The results of FGD and interview conducted by the writer are as follow:
 213

Table 82

Willingness to Help FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Karena waktu leader kurang di area ya sama aja mereka-mereka
kurang mau membantu kita”
- “He eh. Jadi lebih semangat aja sih kalau misalkan ada supervisor.
Kalau enggak ada kan kadang kita malah ngapain gitu ngga fokus.
Kalau ada supervisor kan kita jadi semangat”.
- “Iya supervisorku juga jarang ke area. Padalah kita jadi lebih tahu aja
gitu, “Gue harus kayak gini, harus kayak gini.” Begitu”.
-

-
R
“Sama, Bu, leader saya juga kayak gitu, jarang. Kalau bisa dia lebih
ada di area aja, supaya nanti kalau kita mau minta saran atau apa
“Ini benar enggak, Pak? Kalau ini salah, diperiksa.” Misalnya gitu”.
“Sama kaya yang laen, paling cuman ngomong doang gitu kan? Kita
P
terakhirnya ditinggal. Paling yang lebih support itu sih paling partner
kita”.
- “Cuman kan kadang-kadang mereka datang nih, tapi itu sama ya
S

kurang bantu gitu”.

Supervisory level:
L

- “Kalau yang saya lihat, Bu, dari S01 sampe S02 saya yang sekarang,
sebenarnya mereka punya kemampuan, mereka tahu. Tapi mereka
enggak punya kemauan untuk ngajarin. Jadi, mereka prefer, coba
tanya ke yang lain”.
- “Kalau untuk saya itu, lebih rasanya di-support, oleh S01 atau S02.
Misalkan saya kemarin itu ada mau buat acara saya izin dulu. Bisa
dibantu atau enggak untuk areanya, nah itu diizinkan dan dibantu,
atasan saya mau ngebantuin misalnya lokasi di seputaran escalator
dikosongin biar keliatan oleh customer”.
- “Ya hampir sama sih. Karena segala pekerjaan tuh kalau dibantu
memang jadi gampang. Salah satunya waktu itu saya ngerjain pajak
reklame ya, untuk bulan Januari dan Februari. Kalau mau ngerjain
yang Februari kan yang Januari harus kelar dulu ya, Bu. Nah, saya
udah ngerjain itu dari pertengahan November. Cuma, memang lama
di HO. Dan ini udah bulan Desember. Takutnya HO udah mulai cuti.
Jadi, minta tolong sama S01 sama S02, bantu untuk ngepush bagian
 214

legal sama bujet. Bapak langsung hubungin orang legal dan

alhamdulillah, selesai jadinya”.

Manager level:
- “Pada dasarnya sih kita siap dan mau support mereka, Bu, artinya
tatkala mereka memang terbentur suatu kendala di operasional dan
mereka tidak bisa menyelesaikannya, pasti kita akan memberikan
suatu solusi dimana solusi tersebut mungkin bisa membantu
mereka didalam menyelesaikan tugasnya sehari-hari ataupun
aktivitas pekerjaannya atau tanggung jawabnya sehari-hari gitu”.
(Budi)
- “Biasanya kita lihat kondisi daripada permasalahannya bu. Jika
memang perlu kita pasti kita mau membantu. Misalkan kemarin kami
mendapatkan musibah yang waktu itu ada kebakaran di AHU, itu mau

R
tidak mau harus bisa urgensi sekali datang ke toko, dan begitupun
juga saya, sama. Saat dimintain saya sudah pulang dan itu saya
alami, saya harus balik”.
(Makky)
P
- “Iya betul Bu”.
(Dea)
S

Senior / General Manager level:

- “Kalo supportnya seorang manager kepada timnya di toko, nah itu
L

sebenarnya mereka sudah jelas semua …. kalo sistem kita di

Matahari tuh jadi kepala toko itu, sudah pasti setiap hari itu selalu
berbicara dengan tim, komunikasi dengan tim, bagaimana caranya
supaya apa yang jadi target, apa yang jadi goalnya mereka itu bisa
tercapai. Nah rata-rata mereka juga kalo di toko untuk seorang
manajer itu di saat melihat kondisi toko, apa yang mungkin sudah
tidak standar, tidak sesuai dengan standar operasional, nah mereka
biasanya langsung evaluasi dan saat itu juga seorang kepala toko
biasanya langsung membantu mengeksekusi itu sampai pada saat
pekerjaan itu harus selesai betul-betul. Jadi ya boleh dibilang support
untuk hal-hal seperti ini di operasional ya mereka harusnya full
lakukan itu”
(Alex)
 215

MDS front liners felt that their leaders did not help them much as they

were rarely at the selling area. Once they were, supervisors’ willingness to

help was very rare and more on giving instruction. Front liners expected their

leaders to be more frequent at the selling area and more in giving them a

hand and guidance. For supervisory level, some claimed that their store

managers or assistant store managers were willing to help, and few said their

leaders had capability but only willingness they did not have. These

statements were the opposite from what both store managers and senior

R
manager said that they were willing to help their team anytime they needed.

As a conclusion, the writer may say that willingness to help of leaders

P
had not been applied in the supervisory level while in managerial level it was

applied unevenly: not all store managers had willingness to help, some did
S

have some did not.

L

b. Availability to Help

Leaders’ willingness to help is not enough to smooth employees’ job.

Even though leaders are willing to help but they are not available when their

subordinates need them especially when the employees have problems, it is

in vain. Hence, leaders’ availability becomes crucial (Kottke & Sharafinski,

1988).

Table 83
Availability to Help
 216

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 151 20

Agree 160 21

Neutral 317 41

Disagree

Strongly disagree
113

31
R 15

4
P
TOTAL 772 100 67 3.4
S

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 317 people or

L

41%. 160 respondents or 21% chose agree, 151 employees or 20% stated

strongly agree, 113 people or 15% stated disagree and 31 front liners or 34%

claimed strongly disagree. The writer may conclude that majority of

respondents or was neutral on the statement that MDS leaders had been

available to help whenever front liners faced problems 41% or 317

respondents. The index of Leaders’ availability to help was 67 meaning poor

and respondents’ response rate was 3.4 meaning moderate.

In term of availability to help, here are the result of FGDs and interview

conducted by the writer:

 217

Table 84

Availibility to Help

Front liner level:

- “Suka susah dicari kalo pas kita butuh”
- “Lama bu kadang2 nyarinya”
- “Iya tergantung sih. Tapi kalau kita udah tahu tempat-tempatnya mah
langsung, dia di sini nih gitu. Jadi, mungkin ada beberapa supervisor
itu, Bu, yang ada kegiatannya sendiri. Jadi, di saat kita nyari terus
udah tahu titiknya di sini pas besok kita nyari lagi di sini ada di situ.
Jadi, dia punya kegiatan sendiri”
-

-
-
tempat, susah nyarinya”.
“Kadang di informasi gitu”.
R
“He he he semua tau bu kalau leader yang ini suka ngga ada di

“Iya itu tadi bu, kadang kalau ada komplain customer enggak ada
P
yang datang. Kita panggil, enggak ada yang datang. Kalau udah
kelar, biasanya baru datang. Tapi ngapain juga dating kalo udah kelar
ya”
S

- “Iya betul, seringnya begitu. Enggak ada yang datang ya kalo ada
komplain. Dihitung sama leader mungkin: Dikit lagi kelar nih, gue
datang.”
- “Iya masih kurang di area nya. Kalau satu sampai lima, saya nilai di
L

angka dua”.
- Kalau saya satu setengah

Supervisory level:
- “Store manager sih jarang untuk turun langsung ke area”.
- “Kalau di saya kan lebih dominan S02-nya ya, Bu. Jadi dia ada terus
ngebantu, ngepush kerjaan, ngecek gitu”
- “Kalo SM saya selalu ada”
- “Iya selalu ada”.
- “Iya cukup ada di area sih dan saya bisa ketemu kapan aja sih”.
- “Iya cukup”
- “Cukup sih bu”

“Manager level”:
 218

- “Kalau atasan, seperti yang tadi sudah saya jelaskan sebelumnya

beliau selalu ada untuk membantu kita saya rasa”.
(Makky)
- “Betul bu, contoh saja pada saat saya di luar kota saya bisa
menelpon setiap saat pada saat saya membutuhkan bantuan
atasan. Jadi memang atasan kita itu selalu ada dan siap
membantu”.
(Suhendar)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Sesuai standard kita leader harusnya setiap saat harus ada. Tapi
kalau tidak ada di area baik kepala toko ato staff ya sebenarnya itu
sudah pasti dari tim toko khususnya manajernya itu berarti sudah
tidak melakukan standar yang sebenarnya. Karena antara store

R
manager dengan asisten, ini kan mereka lakukan shift. Supervisor
pun begitu. Karena mereka harus ada tidak hanya secara operational
membantu customer tetapi juga mensupport anak-anaknya misal
kalau butuh bantuan apa, contoh item correct untuk staff atau
P
masalah lain yang membutuhkan wewenang kepala toko”.
(Alex)
S
L

Availability of supervisors to help based on MDS front liners’ statement

was not as expected by their team, as most of front liners said that

supervisors were difficult to find or supervisors’ presence was rare especially

when the team were in need of help or when they were in a critical situation

such as handling customer’s complaints. They even rated their leaders’

presence 1.5 and 2 out of 5. When the supervisors were at the selling area

front liners also claimed that it was not much a help as the supervisors did

nothing, they just gave instructions unlike frontliners’ peers who were always

there to help.
 219

Apart from what most of supervisors said that their store managers

were mostly available when they needed their leaders’ help, some

supervisors claimed store managers were rarely at the area. The managers’

assistants were most of the times available to help them instead. According

to the general manager, MDS had an SOP that whenever store managers

failed to be at the selling area, their assistants should replace them. It means

the supervisors’ confession on store managers was still on track or followed

the company procedures. According to store managers, their senior manager

R
was also there whenever he was needed by the store team.
P
c. Caring about Employees’ Well-being
S

One of characteristic of Supervisor support that is perceived by

employees is leaders’ care about employees’s well-being (Eisenberger et al

L

2002). It means when Supervisors care about their subordinates’well-being,

employees will feel the company also care about their well-being. As

according to Eisenberger et al. (2002) supervisor is the agents of company.

Table 85
Caring about Employees’ Well-being
 220

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 167 22

Agree 243 31

Neutral 262 34

Disagree 69 9

Strongly disagree 31 R 4
P
TOTAL 772 100 72 3.6

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The majority of respondents which was 262 people or 34% claimed

neutral, 243 people or 31% said agree, 167 employees or 22% chose
L

strongly agree, 69 front liners or 9% claimed disagree, and 31 sales

associates or 4% stated strongly disagree. In other words, out of 772

respondents the majority of 34% answered neutral that their leaders had

cared about their well-being. The index for this item was 72 meaning fair and

the front liners’ response rate was 3.6 meaning good.

Below are the statements of informants on their leaders’ characteristics:

Table 86

Care about Well-Being FGD Result

 221

Front liner level:

- “Kalau supervisor saya lebih suka ngejudge jadi kita juga ngga bisa
dekat”.
- “…kita kurang bisa open ke dia karena takut ngomong. Dia juga
karena ngga dekat ke kita ngga open juga bu”.
- “Kalau saya kebetulan supervisor nya agak sedikit cuek jadi kurang
deket”.
- “Kalau saya jarang ngobrol dengan supervisor karena ngga dekat
juga lebih dekatnya ke partner. Jadi ngga mungkin kita bisa saling
sharing orang masalah pekerjaan aja cuek gimana masalah
pribadi”.
- “Kalau supervisor aku beda bu, dia selalu perhatian. Merhatiin kaya
sales, display dll. Koordinator aku apalagi baik banget”.

Supervisor level:
R
“Cukup dekat, suka bercanda sih bu”
P
-
- “Kalau saya lebih dekatnya ke S02 bu daripada s01”.
- “Sama bu saya juga lebih dekat dengan S02, tapi yang satunya ya
yang cewek. Soalnya kalau diajak sharing tuh enak gitu”
S

- “Kalau leader saya kan cowok jadi kurang perhatian sih bu, ya
namanya mungkin cowok jadi ya udahlah begitu”.
- “Iya Store manager saya cowok simple aja cuek”.
- “Kalau S01 saya lumayan terbuka sih dengan saya, kita suka
L

sharing juga tapi karena saya kan masih jauh umurnya dibawah ya
saya ngga bisa ngasih solusi”.
- “Kalau S01 saya agak keras semua masalah pribadi katanya kalau
dikerjaan jangan dibawa2, disuruh tinggalin di rumah. Jadi ya ngga
pernah ngobrol dalam”.

Managerial level:
- “Kalau atasan saya yang sebelumnya perhatian dan peduli menurut
saya. Waktu itu saya pernah dibantu tentang kebijakan perusahaan
kontrak rumah. Alhamdulilalh saya saya terbantu bu”.
(Makky)
- “Kalau saya curhat lebih pada untuk meringankan beban pikiran
bukan berharap untuk solusi. Paling tidak kita dapat spirit dan juga
masukan dari atasan. Jadi lumayan pedulilah atasan saya”.
(Dea)
 222

Senior Managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Tergantung tipe store manager mungkin bu, kalau mereka jaim
biasanya mereka tidak dekat dengan timnya, sehingga terkesan
tidak peduli dan terbuka sehingga timnya pasti juga menjaga jarak.
Ada beberapa store manager seperti itu”.
(Alex)

Most of MDS supervisors were not close to their team, as claimed by

their front liners. Some said their leaders’ personality was more judging than

R
helping, ignorant, and some said they just did not care. Only few said their

leader was caring. For managers, supervisors said their female managers
P
were more caring than male managers and that was the reasons why they

were closer to assistant managers than to store managers as most of

S

assistants were female. Male store managers tended to be ignorant and stiff.
L

According to store managers their leader, the general manager was

caring enough and helped them in their personal issues regarding their

professionalism.

The researcher may recap that MDS leaders were not caring enough.

It depended on the gender of the leaders. Female managers were more

caring about their team well being than male ones. However, for supervisory

level, MDS needs to pay more attention as more supervisors did not care

about their team compared to the ones who did.

 223

d. Value Contribution / Recognition

Another characteristic of Supervisor support that is perceived by

employees is value contribution / recognition. Employees feel they are being

respected when their supervisors value their contribution or they are

recognized when they contribute well (Eisenberger et al., 2002). As the agent

of the company a leader must value what his / her subordinates contribute

and give recognition to those who well contribute.

Table 87
Value Contribution / Recognition R
P
Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response
S

scale
L

Strongly agree 154 20

Agree 129 17

Neutral 302 39

Disagree 131 17

Strongly disagree 56 7

TOTAL 772 100 65 3.3

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

 224

Out of 772 respondents, 39% or 302 people were neutral, 20% of

respondents which was 154 people said strongly agree, the percentage of

employees who claimed agree and disagree was similar 17% eventhough the

exact number was slightly different: 131 for disagree and 129 for agree. 7%

or 56 people chose strongly disagree. It could be said that the majority of

respondents which was 302 front liners or 39% answered neutral on the

statement that MDS leaders had valued their contribution and given

recognition. The index of value contribution and recognition was 65 meaning

R
poor and front liners’ response scale was 3.3 meaning moderate.

The responses of key informants about value contribution applied in

P
MDS are as follow:

Table 88
S

Value Contribution / Recognition FGD Result

L

Front liner level:

- “Kalau mendapatkan penghargaan dari atasan enggak sih bu”.
- “Ada bilang terima kasih”.
- “Iya Cuma bilang terima kasih”.
- “Kalau saya sering. Maksudnya setiap habis selesai, “terima kasih ya”
gitu-gitu basa basi aja”.

Supervisory level:
- “Karena setiap bulan, setiap saya ngasih target saya kasih ke anak-
anak, saya cari tiga brand achievement tertinggi. Saya bilang gitu.
Bukan pencapaian ya. Kalau pencapaian kan pasti lah, brand-brand
pareto yang lain. Cuma, saya ngelihat dari achieve-nya sih. Dan itu
juga saya kasih reward untuk tiga bulan tertinggi achievement-nya”
 225

- “Kalo recognition, pujian sih jarang”.

- “Sama, jarang”
- “Kalo saya malah tahunya dari orang lain, ngga langsung kasih
pujiannya”.
- “Di ladies itu kan memang saya sih bukan sombong ya Bu, area
memang menjadi rapi kan, nah, si S01 saya enggak bilang langsung
ke saya. Oh, area kamu bagus; enggak. Tapi saya dengar itu dari
ASM. Oh, areanya Bu ini udah bagus ya, kata S01. Kayak gitu. Tapi
dianya enggak bilang ke saya”.

Managerial level:
- “Recognition itu kalau perusahaan sendiri sih memang ada program
reward seperti itu, Bu. Ya contoh kayak misalnya kita kalo achieve
target, kita pun juga ada reward dari manajemen suatu insentif, gitu.

R
Nah kalo misalnya atasan sendiri, kadang-kadang tuh juga kita
contoh misalnya reward itu kan gak berupa materi juga Bu, kadang
dia memberikan applause ya, kalo kita sudah melakukan sesuatu hal
yang memang menurut dia itu udah sesuai dengan harapan dia gitu,
P
kayak misalnya kita udah melakukan—tadi saya bilang achievement
target dengan harapan dia juga mereka pun pasti ngasih ucapan
“congrats!” misalnya, itu udah cukup suatu penghargaan buat saya
S

sih, gitu Bu”.

(Budi)
- “Kalo secara rewardnya dengan mungkin materi gitu jarang Bu, ya,
tapi rewardnya adalah lebih banyak kepada memberikan pujian
L

‘terima kasih sudah disupport’ itu saya sangat senang sekali,

tokonya clear tidak pernah dikomplain, tidak pernah tuh Bu selama
saya disini sampe sekarang saya pindah, tidak pernah ada
complain”.
(Makky)
- “Iya sama sih, Bu, intinya yang penting kita tuh sebagai bawahan
diperhatikan sama atasan itu ya itu luar biasa banget bagi kami, itu
udah reward yang luar biasa, kan reward tidak harus berbentuk
materi. Itu aja sih, Bu”.
(Suhendar)
- “Iya sama Bu, dan untuk ke tim sejauh ini sih sudah, Bu, maksudnya
kita memberikan penghargaan kepada rekan kita yang di area, itu
sudah kita lakukan, karena kita sebagai leader pun harus bisa
kembali membangkitkan semangat, karena kalo tim kita melemah
pasti ibarat roda pasti gak lancar, jadi reward atau kita memberikan
pujian akan membuat mereka terus semangat”.
 226

(Dea)

Senior managerial / General manager level:

- “Ya biasanya di saat-saat meeting umum ya kita pake momen itu
untuk memberikan apresiasi ke anak-anak misalnya dia melakukan
apa, atau mungkin dia membuat suatu prestasi yang membawa
nama toko, ya atau mungkin dari perusahaan ada kompetisi apa.
Jadi ya kita lakukan di meeting umum, kita memberikan reward, ya
sebenarnya kan mereka juga butuh pengakuan di depan teman-
temannya, di depan orang banyak, ya intinya sih disitu Bu”.
(Alex)

R
Front liners confessed that they recei ved recognition from their

supervisors just in a form of ‘thank you’ statement, and this was opposite
P
from what a supervisor said that he / she has given reward monthly as a

recognition for the highest achiever. Most supervisors themselves had never
S

received any direct recognition from their store managers. When they gave

recognition, it was said through his / her assistance. While at managers’ side,
L

the company had already applied recognition program both financially and

non-financially. Non-financially recognition was valued usually during

morning meeting or appraisal word to the particular team member while

financially recognition was given depended on their achievement.

In short, researcher may conclude that MDS had valued employees

contribution although it was not done perfectly. Store managers should have

said it directly to their team when they gave recognition instead of asking

their assistants. Supervisors should have valued more by tapping on the

back or sometimes gave special reward to their team as between leaders

 227

and followers have different perception towards recognition. Leaders thought

saying thank you was enough to express their recognition while front liners

wanted something more so leaders should provide recognition as expected

by the front liners.

4.4.2.4 Mentoring and Coaching

Chandrasekar (2011) defined mentoring and coaching as “skilled and

respected people are available to employees to help them to perform better

R
in their current role and to assist them develop further into a future role” (p.

6). To make coaching and mentoring session to be usefull there are things
P
that need to follow: simplify coach-mentor’s role, agree on series of

conversations, commit with time, have a basic process (brief, productive and
S

one to one session), and discuss personal development and implement

learning habit (Parsloe & Leedham, 2009).

L

Employees especially new comers need to receive enough specific

defined information about their task such as how to accomplish the task

(Modaff et al., 2007). Then mentoring / coaching is the best way in making

employees knowledgable besides training

Table 89
Mentoring and Coaching
 228

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 93 12

Agree 228 30

Neutral 246 32

Disagree 144 19

Strongly disagree 60 R 8
P
TOTAL 772 100 64 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The survey resulted index of 64 which meant poor, whereas the scale

of front liners response was 3.2 meaning moderate. The number of

L

respondents who was neutral was 246 people or 32%, 228 employees or

30% said they agreed, 144 front liners or 19% stated they disagreed, 93

people or 12% chose strongly agree, and 8% of 772 respondents which was

60 employees strongly disagreed. Lastly the writer concludes the majority or

32% of 772 respondents (246) answered neutral on the statement that their

leaders had conducted good mentoring / coaching.

Table 90
Mentoring / Coaching Descriptive Statistics
 229

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

X2.4.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2450.00 3.1736 1.13701

Series of

conversation

X2.4.2 4.00 1.00 5.00 2462.00 3.1891 1.11259

Time

commitment

X2.4.3 4.00 1.00

R
5.00 2506.00 3.2461 1.17211
P
Simplifying role

X2.4.4 4.00 1.00 5.00 2345.00 3.0376 .96227

S

Brief,

productive &
L

one to one

X2.4.5 4.00 1.00 5.00 2582.00 3.3446 1.16385

Learning habit

implementation

Mentoring / 19.00 6.00 25.00 12345.00 15.9909 4.56697

Coaching

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 230

The result of descriptive statistics for mentoring / coaching was shown in

above table. Among 5 items of mentoring / coaching indicators learning habit

implementation & personal development item had the highest mean. It was

3.3446, meaning most of respondents replied neutral for this item. Whereas

brief, productive and one to one session item had the lowest mean: 3.0376. It

meant that most of respondents also answered neutral. The rest of items had

mean scores in neutral zone as well. The standard deviation scores for five

items were relatively close to each other and the highest one belonged to

R
simplifying coach-mentor’s role item which was 1.17211, meaning the data

spread out the most. The lowest standard deviation was .96226 belonged to
P
brief, productive and one to one session item which meant its data was the

most consitent.
S

The five keys in making mentoring / coaching successful as mentioned

above are:
L

a. Series of Conversations

Effective mentoring / coaching conversation can occur spontaneously

and informally, but to have a long lasting effect of change, series of

conversation over a long timeframe should be done (Parsloe & Leedham,

2009). In other words, leaders need to have regular session of mentoring /

coaching and encourage their team and theirselves to stick to sessions

agreed.
 231

Table 91
Series of Conversations

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 79 10

Agree 266 34

Neutral 206
R 27
P
Disagree 150 19

Strongly disagree 71 9
S

TOTAL 772 100 63 3.2

L

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of series of conversations agreement was 63 meaning poor

while front liners’ response rate was moderate (3.2). Out of 772 respondents

34% or 266 people claimed agree, 27% or 206 employees chose neutral,

19% or 150 front liners stated disagree, 10% or 79 people said strongly

agree, and 9% or 71 people were strongly disagree. The writer may conclude

that 34% or majority of respondents (323) agreed with statement that MDS

leaders had regular session or series of conversations for coaching /

mentoring.
 232

Following are the results of FGDs and interview on how mentoring /

coaching was applied in MDS:

Table 92

Series of Agreed Conversation FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Maunya seminggu sekali.Tapi ngga ada”.
- “Bener ngga ada. Maunya sama seminggu sekali”.
- “Jarang sih, atasan ngga punya waktu bu sibuk mungkin”.
-
-
-
-
“Ngga bu”.
R
“Kalau aku sih enggak di coaching waktu itu”.
“Aku juga ngga ada coaching”.

“Enggak ada bu, Cuek ngga peduli”.

P
- “Sibuk bu”.
- “Ngga ada waktu katanya suruh sendiri”.
- “Iya enggak ada waktu”.
S

- “Apa2 sendiri”.

Supervisory level:
L

- “Kalau Store manager saya sih bu ngga ada janjian kapan mau
ngecoach atau mentor. Sesukanya beliau saja”.
- “Coaching secara langsung sih kalau ke saya, Bu. Jadi, bagaimana
cara display, terus cara penataan barang. Pak Yandi, ambil yang itu.
Coba, menurut Pak Yandi gimana warnanya yang ini? Ya udah,
coba aja, Pak, kemudian saya coba. Gimana? Udah begitu bu”.
- “Kalau saya S02 bu yang suka coachingin. Kalau ngomong ke saya
itu ya planning nya trus ngasih paper nya ke saya bener-bener
mentorin”.
- “Kalau leader saya ngga ngasih coaching sih apalagi mentoring”
- “Iya kalau S01 dan S02 saya coaching mentoring nya juga kurang
apalagi pake janjian kapan ya saya coaching. Ngga ada seperti itu”.

Managerial Level:
- “Kalau saya mungkin dengan supervisor itu selalu setiap hari ada
Bu terutama untuk yang memang secara perform baik sales
 233

kemudian baik secara penampilan counter, itu selalu saya

memberikan coaching….. bagaimana supervisor ke anak2, sayapun
menyampaikan ke mereka: dan ini harus dilakukan sama kepada
anak buah supaya mereka juga apa yang saya sampaikan kepada
temen2 itu sama, jangan sampai nanti putus….Dan bahkan saya
membuat ada semacam logbook Bu, berapa orang yang harus
ditarget minimal saya minta 3 orang, dan harus ada tanda tangan
dan brandnya siapa, nah sehingga ini membuat counter apa betul2
bahwa mereka melakukan coaching gitu Bu”.
(Maki)
- “Mungkin kalo menurut saya gini, Bu, pemahaman dari bawahan
kita mungkin yang dimaksud adalah mengcoaching atau mentoring
itu yang dia harapkan adalah dia mendapat waktu khusus, ada
waktu tertentu, atau di ruang tertentu, atau berhadapan tertentu gitu
lho. Nah mungkin yang dia pikir seperti itu. Kalo kita memang dalam

R
hal melakukan coaching, dan mentoring seperti itu memang kita
kurang, tetapi kita selalu on the spot jadi gak selalu sifatnya formal
didalam ruangan atau di waktu-waktu tertentu yang memang kita
sengaja untuk melakukan itu, gitu”.
P
(Budi)
- “Anytime kita lakukan. Jadi tidak pakai janjian. Ya pastinya kita akan
S

sampaikan karena kita rutin weekly, ada monthly ya, nah itu kan
kegiatan untuk coaching dan mentoring sebenarnya yang beda2
dan kita ingin staff / supervisor juga sampaikan kalo misalkan ada
kendala atau masalah di konter ya. Nah, jadi ya seorang leader
L

harus terus coaching dan mentoring sampai timnya bener-bener

paham”
(Suhendar)
- “Kalau saya coaching sama tidak pake janjian”.
(Dea)

Senior managerial / General Managerial Level:

- “Nah kalo coaching ya mungkin tergantung, tergantung casenya ya,
tetapi yang seperti ini saya kira bukan hal baru, ini tugas rutin
sebenarnya kita lakukan kalo untuk di MDS. Sangat sering
dilakukan. Karena kalo saya lihat temen-temen di toko selama ini ya
pasti menyempatkan waktu untuk itu, pasti menyempatkan waktu.
Sebenarnya Bu, kalo yang saya lihat teman-teman di toko selama
ini untuk tugas coaching itu ya sudah semacam tugas rutinlah bagi
 234

mereka itu karena kan mereka melihat misalnya SA, atau SPG yang
di timnya mereka yang tidak sesuai dengan apa yang seharusnya
mereka lakukan, misalnya ada standar apa yang seharusnya
dilakukan tetapi tidak dilakukan, itu otomatis langsung mereka
lakukan coaching hal-hal seperti itu”.
(Alex)

Most of front liners claimed that MDS supervisors had never coached

them if they did they coached rarely. This because the leaders were too

R
busy, had no time for coaching or simply did not care. The front liners

expected they were coached once a week at least. In supervisory level,

P
scheduled mentoring / coaching was not received by supervisors. Their

managers mostly coached them on the spot without time agreement. Some
S

MDS supevisors even claimed they had never been coached or rarely

received coaching / mentoring from the managers.

L

If we see the store managers statements on coaching mentoring, we

can conclude that store managers themselves did not know that coaching /

mentoring should have some agreed sessions also and not only on the spot.

One store manager did a litte bit better than others that he had a logbook of

coaching, it meant he could trace and made schedule of coaching mentoring.

Although coaching and mentoring was part of the daily routine job of leaders

in MDS as claimed by the senior manager, it still needed to be improved by

having a scheduled conversation for coaching / mentoring. Especially for the

 235

front liners who received it rarely. Coaching / mentoring for their level needs

to be more intensified.

b. Time Commitment

Most common failure in coaching / mentoring is leaders do not have

time to do the session for their subordinates (Parsloe & Leedham, 2009). To

make coaching / mentoring activities succesfull leaders-employees have to

R
commit each other to meet at particular time once a month (Parsloe &

Leedham). Adequate time for the activities is the key.

P
Table 93
Time Commitment
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

L

response

scale

Strongly agree 78 10

Agree 265 34

Neutral 214 28

Disagree 153 20

Strongly disagree 62 8
 236

TOTAL 772 100 64 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The number of respondents who claimed agree was 265 people or

34% , 214 respondents or 28% chose neutral, 153 people or 20% stated

disagree, 78 sales associates or 10% claimed strongly agree, and 62 front

liners or 8% claimed strongly disagree. The majority or 34% respondents

(275) answered agree on the statement that MDS leaders had committed

their time or provided adequate time to do mentoring / coaching. The index of

R
time commitment was 64. It meant poor whereas the sales staff’s response

rate was 3.2 meaning moderate.

P
Table 94
S

Time Commitment FGD Result

L

Front liner level:

- “Jarang sih, atasan ngga punya waktu bu sibuk mungkin”.
- “Sibuk bu”.
- “Ngga ada waktu katanya suruh sendiri”.
- “Iya enggak ada waktu”.

Supervisory level:
- “Leader Menurut saya masih kurang memberikan waktu yang cukup
untuk coaching”.
- “Kadang2 tidak komit bu mungkin kesibukan beliau”

Managerial level:
- “Cukup saya kira. Kalo saya mungkin dengan supervisor itu selalu
setiap hari ada Bu”.
(Maki)
 237

- “Kalo kita memang dalam hal melakukan coaching, dan mentoring

seperti itu memang kita kurang.
(Budi)
- “Anytime kita lakukan. Ya pastinya kita akan sampaikan karena kita
rutin weekly, ada monthly ya..”
(Suhendar)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- Kalau saya lihat temen2 di toko selama ini menyempatkan waktu
untuk itu, pasti menyempatkan waktu
(Alex)

R
MDS front liners claimed that their leaders did not have time to coach

them and they were even asked to self learn. Supervisors also claimed that
P
their store managers did not commit and did not have time to coach them

either. This was contradictory from what some store managers said. They
S

claimed to have time commitment for coaching, either daily, weekly or

monthly. However, there was a store manager who admitted that he rarely
L

committed his time to coach / mentor his team eventhough as instructed by

the senior manager that they had to spend time for coaching and mentoring.

The above statements shows that in general time commitment had not

been applied in MDS both by supervisors and store managers.

c. Simplifying Coach-Mentor’s Role

A key success of mentoring / coaching activities is not to over

complicate the role of mentor or coach, simplicity of the session is not to set
 238

unrealistic expectation and build unnecessary barrier between mentor and

mantee (Parsloe & Leedham, 2009). In other words, even though leaders as

the respected people in the company either because of their seniority or their

expertise when they become mentors or coachs, does not mean they have to

overact to their mantees. The exaggerating actions such as building gaps

between mentor and mantees, creating too many rules to show mentors are

powerful, or even expressing threats to employees are not helpful for

mantees and leads to a broken relationship. Simple relationship with

R
employees during mentoring and coaching will loosen up the session and

lead to successful result.

P
Table 95
Simplifying Coach-Mentor’s Role
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

L

response

scale

Strongly agree 114 15

Agree 240 31

Neutral 201 26

Disagree 154 20

Strongly disagree 63 8
 239

TOTAL 772 100 65 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

Out of 772 respondents, 240 people or 31% chose agree, 201

employees or 26% claimed agree, 154 sales assistants or 20% said

disagree, 114 front liners or 15% stated strongly agree, and 63 sales

associates or 8% chose strongly disagree. Hence, the writer can say that the

majority of 32.8% respondents or 253 employees answered agree that MDS

leaders had made mentoring / coaching sessions simple. The index of

R
simplifying coach / mentor’s role was 65 meaning poor. The scale of front

liners’ response was 3.2 or moderate.

P
The results of FGDs and interview about how coaching and mentoring
S

was simpliefied in MDS are as follow:

Table 96
L

Coach-Mentor Role Simplification FGD Result

Front liners level:

- “Karena disaya ngga ada jadi saya susah cerita prosesnya seperti
apa
- “Mentoring itu sperti apa saya juga belum pernah dapat bu, jadi ga
bisa jelasin”

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau menurut saya proses nya terlalu simple bahkan cenderung
tidak ada karena pas saya pertama masuk sih cuma keliling area
sama pak xxx. Ini pak.. dijelasin tentang area, seperti itu kan.
Langsung siangnya ketemu sengan asisten Store manager: Pak
tolong belajar perihal cara kasir. Karena disini kan peak season
 240

semau harus serba cepat”.

- “Lebih ke sesama supervisor, bukan sama store manager atau
asisten. Mereka tidak mentoring”.
- “Kalau saya proses nya simple coaching secara langsung sih kalau
ke saya Bu”.

Managerial level:
- “Kadang2 tidak formal. Kita melaksanakan mentoring coaching on
the spot di area, gak pake buku catatan. Kita kadang2 langsung
saja, simple”.
(Suhendar)
- “Kalo saya memang pada saat on the spot kita temukan hal, kita
harus lakukan coaching kita lakukan mentoring saat itu ya kita
lakukan Bu”.
(Budi)

R
Senior managerial / General Managerial level:
“Kalo selama ini saya lihat itu sudah otomatis, tidak ribet otomatis
P
-
berjalanlah. Karena kan kadang dari training itu ada tugas2 khusus
yang harusnya mereka langsung lakukan di toko dan harusnya
otomatis store manager mementori itu dan mengevaluasi dari situ.
S

Biasanya seperti itu”.

(Alex)
L

For coach-mentor role simplification, MDS front liner could not explain

the process as they claimed they had never received any mentoring process

from their leaders. Eventhough few supervisors did not get mentoring from

store managers, some who did get claimed the process was simple enough

or even too simple. This also confirmed by store managers and senior

manager who said that the way they did mentoring / coaching was very

simple and not complicated at all. This means MDS had applied a simple

coach-mentor way.
 241

d. Basic Progress Implementation (Brief, Productive and One to one

Session)

To make mentoring / coaching session productive, it should be

conducted briefly between 30 and 75 minutes long (Parsloe & Leedham,

2009). Since it includes a lot of conversation where learners talk the coach

listens, learners ask the coach answers, and the coach asks learners

answers the session should be one to one meeting (Parsloe & Leedham).

Table 97
R
Brief, Productive and One to one Session
P
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response
L

scale

Strongly agree 55 7

Agree 154 20

Neutral 374 48

Disagree 141 18

Strongly disagree 48 6

TOTAL 772 100 61 3

 242

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The index of brief, productive, and one to one session was 61

meaning poor whereas the respondents’ response rate was 3 meaning

moderate. Out of 772 respondents, 48% or 374 people claimed neutral, 20%

or 154 employees said agree, 18% or 141 employees chose disagree, 55

sales associates or 7% stated strongly agree, and 48 people or 6% said

strongly disagree. In other words, 48% of MDS respondents who answered

neutral that their leaders had conducted brief, productive and on to one

R
mentoring / coaching sessions was the majority.

Front liners’, supervisors’, Managers’, and General Manager’s

P
answers during the FGDs and interview are as follow:
S

Table 98

Basic Progress Implementation FGD Result

L

Front liner level:

- “Kalau mentoring itu sepertinya blm pernah bu saya”
- “Mentoring seperti apa saya kurang paham adanya briefing counter
bu jadi rame-rame pas pagi sebelum buka toko”.

Supervisory level:
- “Seperti tadi saya bilang bu, jarang bu, tapi kalau ada ya biasanya
pas di counter langsung ke saya”
- “Kalau coaching kadang2 tapi kalau ibu sebut mentoring tadi belum
sih”
- “Iya sepertinya ngga pernah yang ada progess sampai disini karena
biasanya hanya coaching di tempat saja”
 243

Managerial level:
- “Untuk mentoring biasanya kita lakukan untuk mereka yang akan
kita promosikan, biasanya kita mentor lebih detil di ruangan dan
praktek langsung”
(Makky)
- “Untuk coaching saya biasanya on the spot jadi bisa beberapa
orang yang ada di area langsung tidak harus satu persatu ato one to
one gitu”
(Budi)

Senior managerial / general managerial level:

- “Biasanya tergantung case nya bu, untuk yang intens mentoring
bisa kita lakukan one to one tapi kalau coaching secara umum itu
biasa saja di area bisa dilakukan”.
(Alex)

R
P
Mentoring and basic implementation of one to one session had never

received by MDS front liners. However, one to many sessions had done so
S

far as claimed by them. Supervisors also claimed they had never received

mentoring from store managers, only regular coaching in the selling area.
L

The coaching sessions were one to one or one to many session. On the

contrary, store managers claimed they had done both one to one and one to

many sessions. The one to one session was given only to those who were

about to be promoted so store managers had to mentor them.

The writer can conclude that mentoring activities were still rarely done

in MDS especially for front liner who had received none. However, regular

coaching either one to one or one to many sessions were more conducted in

the stores.
 244

e. Learning Habit Implementation & Personal development

It is management’s responsilbility to develop employees’ skills and

knowledge (Parsloe & Leedham, 2009). Therefore, leaders as the

management representatives have to be able to implement it. Mentoring /

coaching activities on monthly basis discussing employees’ personal

development will make a significant result and financial cost effectiveness

compared to sending employees to attend courses away from workplace

(Parsloe & Leedham). In other words, when leaders and employees work

R
hand in hand to implement a learning culture or habits by performing

mentoring / coaching sessions it will save a lot of time and money.

P
Table 99
Learning Habit Implementation & Personal Development
S

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

L

response

scale

Strongly agree 141 18

Agree 216 28

Neutral 237 31

Disagree 122 16
 245

Strongly disagree 56 7

TOTAL 772 100 67 3.2

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey index result on learning habit and personal development

was 67 meaning poor. Out of 772 respondents 31% or 237 employees

answered neutral, 216 sales staff or 28 said agree, 141 people or 18%

claimed strongly agree, 16% or 122 sales assistants chose disagree, and 56

R
employees or 7% were strongly disagree. It resulted the majority of

respondents which was 237 people or 31% claimed neutral on the statement
P
that leaders in MDS had implemented learning habit and personal

development discussion during coaching / mentoring sessions. The response

S

of respondent showed 3.2 scale meant moderate.

When asked about how learning habit and personal development

L

implementation, the informants’ responses are as follow:

Table 100

Learning Habit and Personal Development Implementation FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Kalau pengembangan diri untuk kita sih ngga ada bu”.
- “Iya dari dulu sampai sekarang ya kita tetep seperti ini ngga
berkembang”.
- “Kan kalo temen saya cerita dibantu dalam waktu dua tahun
misalnya kita sudah harus jadi apa gitu biar berkembang tapi kalau
di tempat saya ngga begitu ngga di ajarin didampingi gitu atau kalau
istilah ibu tadi di mentor”.
 246

Supervisory level:
- “Iya S02 saya sering bantuin mentorin kedepan saya harus
berkembang bagaimana supaya tidak stuck, maksudnya mandang
kedepan”.
- “Kalau personal development ngga sih dari atasan”.

Managerial level:
- “Kalau kita berusaha untuk bisa mendevelop anak2 bu tapi mungkin
di level supervisor ke bawah memang mereka masih kurang dari sisi
cara mengcoachingnya Bu, ya memang, ya walaupun memang dari
program SDM pun juga ada kita pelatihan2 atau training2 tapi
memang tidak mengkhususkan bagaimana tim supervisor untuk
mengcoach mementor dan mendevelop bawahannya”.

-
(Budi)
R
“Ya kalau kita pasti bu menerapkan personal development ke tim,
selama ini sudah banyak tim saya yang sudah naik. Tapi untul level
supervisor ke bawahannya, supervisor tertentu misalnya mungkin
P
tau bagaimana cara mengecoach dan mementor anak buahnya tapi
bagi beberapa supervisor yang lain itu tidak semuanya memahami
tentang bagaimana caranya, jadi lebih banyak adalah peranan
daripada supervisor2 yang tadi saya sampaikan. Sehingga
S

dioperasional itu masih banyak terkendala, ada gap. Mereka

kadang2 sudah tau tapi menyampaikannnya atau
mempraktekkannya mungkin kurang sehingga yang terserap oleh
mereka hanya 40% 50% tidak 100% atau 99% Bu. Sehingga
L

bawahannya jadi sedikit atau kurang berkembang”.

(Maki)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Iya itu kembali kembali kepada manager masing2 Bu. Jadi
sebenarnya gini kalo seorang supervisor misalnya diberangkatkan
untuk ikut training yang tujuannya untuk pengembangan diri
mereka, nah seharusnya saat kembali dari sana seharusnya ini
tugas manager untuk bagaimana caranya supervisor ini bisa share,
merapkan ilmu yang dia dapatkan sehingga dia skill akan lebih. Nah
harusnya itu tugas dari manager yang bersangkutan untuk
mengingatkan untuk menerapkan apa yang dia sudah dapatkan dari
training kemudian membantu dengan mementor sehingga menjadi
lebih matang lagi untuk berkembang”.
(Alex)
 247

Personal development as stated by MDS front liners had not been

applied in the stores. This might be related to mentoring that had not been

applied either. On the other hand, according to supervisors, some store

managers had provided their team with personal development for future

career and some had not. Store managers claimed that they already had

developed their team as some of the team were promoted to the next

position. However, they also admitted that not all of their supervisors were

R
capable enough to develop the team. While the general manager said the

development of supervisors depended on the store managers as it was their

P
job to mentor and develop the team.

The researcher can conclude that learning habit had already applied in
S

MDS for all level especially front liners as they had to self learn in order to

survive in their job. Unfortunately, personal development only applied for

L

supervisory level and had not touched the front liners.

4.4.3 Variable Y: Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior

Performance - Service Excellence)

As mentioned by Podsakoff et al. (2000) that extra role behavior

performance is helping behavior of employees which refers to assisting

customers voluntarily. When employees are willing to go above and beyond

or extra mile in assisting customers it is called good or excellent service

 248

(Brady & Cronin, 2001). According to Asif (2014) there are two key elements

in the concept of service excellence which are delighting customers and

providing systematic approach which Johnston (2004) wrapped it in the first

dimension of service excellence: delivering the promise.

Employees daily activities that includes interacting with customers are

building customers’ perception towards the service provided. When

customers feel the service provided meet their expectation they will feel

satisfied. Unfortunately, Rust and Oliver (2000) said service excellence is not

R
just customer satisfaction but customer should be extraordinary satisfied.

Hense, Johnston (2004) explained the feeling of having beyond expected

P
service is counted from customers’ perspective not organization’s one.

However, providing easy business for customers is required, for example

S

customers should have hassle free or no difficulities in assessing the

business the company deals (Johnston).

L

There are many models of service excellence and this research is using

Johnston model of service excellence. There are four categories that an

organization should have relating to service excellence are: delivering the

promise, providing personal touch, going the extra mile, and dealing well with

problems and quiries (Johnston, 2004). However, in the survey researcher

added another variable of service excellence which was providing service in

general or researcher claimed as good service. This to bridge respondents in

understanding service excellence variable questions.

 249

Table 101
Behavior Performance: Providing Service Excellence

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 78 10

Agree 123 16

Neutral 344
R 51
P
Disagree 144 15

Strongly disagree 63 8
S

TOTAL 772 100 61 3.1

L

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The above table shows that 344 respondents or 51% answered

neutral, 123 frontliners or 16% chose agree, 144 people or 15% said

disagree, 78 employees or 10 claimed strongly agree, and 63 people or 8%

stated strongly disagree. It was concluded that the majority of respondents

which was 51% or 344 respondents claimed neutral on the statement that

they as the service provider / sales staff of MDS had provided service

excellence to customers, and the index was 61 meaning still poor. Whereas

the respondents’ response rate was 3.1 meaning moderate.

 250

Table 102
Employee Performance: Providing Service Excellence Descriptive Statistics

Range Min Max Sum Mean Std

Deviation

Y1.1 4.00 1.00 5.00 2772.00 3.5907 .88117

Delivering the

promise

Y1.2

Personal touch
4.00 1.00
R5.00 1791.00 2.3199 .79392
P
Y1.3 4.00 1.00 5.00 1902.00 2.4637 .87328

Going extra
S

mile

Y1.4 4.00 1.00 5.00 2781.00 3.6023 .88136

L

Dealing with

problem and

queries

Employee 14.00 5.00 19.00 9246.00 11.9767 3.07949

Performance:

providing SE

Valid N 772

(listwise)

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 251

The above table shows that on the dependant variable had 4 dimensions.

Dimension with the highest mean was dealing with problem and queries:

3.6023, meaning most of respondents replied agree for this dimension.

Whereas personal touch dimension had the lowest mean: 2.3199. It meant

that most of respondents answered disagree. The dimension that also had

mean score in disagree range was going the extra mile (2.4637), while

delivering the promise and dealing well with problem and quiries dimensions

R
had scores in agree zone (3.5907 & 3.6023). Standard deviation scores of

dimension in Service excellence variable were relatively close to each other.

P
However, there was the highest and lowest score. The highest standard

deviation score was .88136 meaning the data of dealing with problem and
S

queries variable spread out the most. Whereas the lowest score belonged to

personal touch dimension (.79392), meaning its data was the most
L

consistent.

4.4.3.1 Delivering the Promise

Eventhough many organizations assume service excellence is difficult

to be understood and applied, customers think the opposite: when there is no

hassle or quick and easy deliverance, it is service excellence (Johnston,

2007). The first and easy main key of service excellence is delivering the

promise and yet it is sometimes disregarded by many organizations. In fact,

in customers’ perspective what organizations should do is just do whatever

they would do or deliver what is explained to the customers as it is just not

 252

words but how employees in the organization behave towards customers

(Johnston). Johnston also adds that smile without action is useless,

consequently the first step to providing service excellence is do what they

promise (2007).

Table 103
Delivering the Promise

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

R response

scale
P
Strongly agree 156 20
S

Agree 188 24

Neutral 390 51
L

Disagree 32 4

Strongly disagree 6 1

TOTAL 772 100 72 3.6

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The survey index results on delivering the promise showed index 72

which meant fair whereas the respondents’ response scale was 3.6 meaning

good. 51% of respondents or 390 people expressed they were neutral, 188

employees or 24% said they agreed, 156 front liners or 20% stated they
 253

strongly agreed, 32 people or 4% showed they disagreed, and 1% of 772

respondents which was 6 employees were strongly disagree. In other words,

the majority of 772 respondents which was 51% said that they were neutral

on the statement that they had delivered the promise.

When asked about how delivering the promised was applied in MDS,

here are informants’ answers:

Table 104

Delivering the Promise FGD Result

Front liner level:

R
P
- “Kalau itu iya sudah bu dua menit dua pasang”
- “Yang delivering itu kita sudah memberikan apa yang dijanjikan”
- “Kita selalu memberikan sesuai dengan apa yang kita janjikan.
Contohnya pun ada waktu itu masih ada kartu Star Wars yang dapat
S

reward iya kan. Nah selain itu ada customer bule. Bule itu dia beliin
buat anaknya banyak bangetsupaya dapat reward yang Star Wars
yang gold itu Bu, iya kan. Nah tapi karena kita udah pasang ternyata
L

waktu dia mau klaim barangnya sudah habis dan engga ada lagi,
tapi kita tetap akan berikan. Karena sesuai dengan janji, kalau dia
sudah kumpulkan kita akan kasih sesuai dengan klaimnya itu. Kita
berikan replikanya. Setelah replikanya dia ngga mau kita berikan
yang pertanyakan ke HO. Setelah ke HO tenyata masih ada satu
sisa punyanya MD. Nah dari MD itu dikasih ke customer.
- “Iya kita sudah jalankan”

Supervisory level:
- “Kalau delivering the promise menurut kami kami sudah jalan ya Bu.
Pastinya barang tentunya di kosmetik”
- “Ya di toko kita sudah jalankan”.
- “Untuk yang menepati janji sama kaya yang lain ya Bu. Kalau untuk
POP apa diskon kan sesuai tapi tidak selalu. Nah pernah suatu kali
customer bawa Koran ke toko. Mba saya mau yang ini. Ada
enggak? Kebetulan di toko enggak ada. Mungkin barang itu engga
terkirim ke toko atau belum ada, kaya gitu paling”.

Managerial level:
 254

- “Sudah melakukan bu, tapi tidak semuanya”

(Makky)
- “Iya”
(Suhendar)
- “Iya sudah”
(Dea)
- “Sudah commit”
(Budi)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Harusnya sudah ada. Kan salah satu yang informasi marketing
external internal itu kan harus clear. Mengenai acara2 yang
disampaikan di iklan, ya harusnya sesuai dengan apa yang kita
lakukan di dalam. Harusnya nya sih itu sudah terpenuhi. Sayangnya
ada barang yang diiklan di toko ndak ada begitu customer nanya
ndak ada berarti itu tidak sesuai janji. Jadi tugas toko di saat ada

R
acara seperti itu memastikan bahwa di toko itu harus jalan. Nah
kalau dia sudah tahu barangnya ndak ada, harusnya ada tindakan
antisipasi sebelum itu. Kalau memang barangnya ndak ada ya cari
barang apa yang bisa memenuhi itu”.
P
(Alex)
S

MDS front liners claimed they already applied delivering the promise

as what the company promise they already tried to fulfill it. However, MDS
L

supervisors admitted that not every aspects of promises had been applied in

the stores. Marketing program was one of promises that sometimes MDS

missed especially products that was on promotion. It often promoted

products could not be found in the stores. Store managers also said that

mostly they had delivered the promise to their customers eventhough not all

aspects were delivered. The General manager also confessed that promoted

products became a hold back of delivering the promise to the custoemers

although it could be anticipated by the store team.

 255

In general MDS has applied one of service excellence element which

is delivering the promise. However, promotion program seems to be the

problem as sometimes promoted products were not available in the stores.

This could create customers’ disappointment and hinder MDS team from

providing service excellence.

4.4.3.2 Providing A Personal Touch

Johnston (2007) described providing personal touch as a service that

R
provides individual, caring and personal treatment as well as providing time

for customers and having knowledge about customers, inshort customers

P
should feel priviledged. Asif (2014) also adds when front liners provide few

extra touches during their service to customers, it contributes to service

S

excellence process in the area of personal touch. Mayo clinic claimes they

have provided personal service as they pay attention to individuals, diversity,

L

and special condition of their patients (Frey, Leighton, & Cecala, 2005).

Table 105
Providing Personal Touch

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale
 256

Strongly agree 3 0.4

Agree 0 0

Neutral 388 50.3

Disagree 231 29.9

Strongly disagree 150 19.4

TOTAL 772 100 46 2.3

R
Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020
P
The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 388 people or

50.3%, 231 people or 29.9% were disagree, 150 employees or 19.4% said
S

they strongly disagreed, 3 respondents or 0.4% chose strongly disagree. .

An interesting point of this indicator was none of respondents said agree with
L

the statement that they (MDS front liners) had provided personal touch to

their customers and it concluded that the majority of respondents which was

388 people or 50.3% claimed neutral. The index of personal touch received

the lowest result which was 46 meaning very poor while the frontlines’

response rate was 2.3 meaning bad.

Below are the results of FGDs and interview about how personal

touched applied in MDS:

 257

Table 106

Personal Touch FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Kalau di toko saya kurang personal touch nya”
- “Kalau personal touch belum sih”
- “Belum”
- “Untuk sentuhan individu belum konsisten kadang iya kadang ngga”

Supervisory level:
- “Personal touch itu udah jalan”
- “Personal touch nya sih kayak misalnya saya sih lihatnya di

R
kosmetik sih Bu yang memang mereka tuh beda sama SPG. Tapi
secara keseluruhan toko, di toko juga kurang personal touch nya”
- “Kalau secara keseluruhan kurang”
- “Kurang, kurang karena toko lain lebih dominan”
P
- “Kalau di children kurang personal touch nya. Karena baju anak2 ini
tuh kategorinya yang membeli adalah orang dewasa bukan ynag
bersangkutan anak2 nya, jadi tanpa dipush banget juga ibu itu mau
gitu. Gitu sih bu engga ada personal touch nya kalau di world saya
S

sih belum ada”.

- “Kalau menurut kami berdasarkan keseluruhan toko sih masih
kurang bu. Karena beberapa dari mereka masih kurang bisa
L

memahami customer, kurang bisa membaca customer tuh maunya

seperti apa. Jadi memberikan pelayanan secara universal, engga
ada yang mengkhususkan untuk customer yang seperti ini seperti
ini. Karena mereka ngga tau apa bedanya”
- “Kalau personal touch di toko kami belum, belum menjalani semua,
karena menurut kami semua customer tidak ada yang special”
- “Kalau personal touch mungkin engga semua anak2, tapi BA udah.
Waktu itu pernah ada BA maybeline dia emang udah gimana ya, dia
dapat customer loyal. Nah jadi customer itu hanya mau sama dia
karena pelayanan si BA ini bagus. Dan customer itu dia kaya MUS
gitu kan, kalo misalnya barangnya kurang Eti langsung adain, dan
dia langsung ngontak. Nah kebetulan Eti dirolling dong dan pas
customernya datang loh kok eti udah ngga ada, akhirnya customer
belanja nya pindah ke toko eti yang baru”

Managerial level:
- “Ya kalau personal touch kepada customers memang belum
semuanya Bu”.
(Makky)
 258

- “Belum bu”
(Suhendar)
- “Belum”
(Dea)
- “Sama sih saya pikir Bu, kalo personal touch. Kalo karyawan semua
sebenarnya dari sisi memberikan service itu mereka udah punya
standard nya tapi dari sisi untuk yang langsung ke customer yang
personal sekali itu saya pikir belum”.
(Budi)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- “Kalau selama ini tim toko lakukan Bu, bagaimana mereka membina
hubungan ke malah2 ada yang lebih ini lagi, beberapa SA dengan
SPG itu biasanya justru mereka bikin list customer loyalnya mereka,
dan kadang mereka kalo ada acara2 yang sifatnya itu acara yang
benefitnya bisa lebih besar kepada customer, mereka informasikan
langsung ke customernya”
(Alex) R
P
4.4.3.3 Going the Extra Mile
S

Eventhough some people refer going the extra mile as exceeding

expeactions or going beyond expectations, Johnston (2007) described it as a

L

simple one: providing a little bit extra, as extra also connotes as mile or small

things. It means when we provide a little extra service to our customers we

already do going the extra mile.

Table 107
Going the Extra Mile
 259

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 1 0.1

Agree 62 8

Neutral 364 47.2

Disagree 212 27.5

Strongly disagree 133 R 17.2

P
TOTAL 772 100 49 2.5

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

S

The service excellence indicator: going the extra mile also had low

index. It was only 49 meaning very poor. From the surveys conducted the
L

number of respondents who claimed neutral was 364 or 47.2%, 212

respondents or 27.5% chose disagree, and 133 people or 17.2% stated

strongly disagree, 62 front liners or 8% said agree, and only 1 employee or

0.1% strongly agreed. In short, the majority people or 364 respondents

(47.2%) were neutral on the statement that they had provided customer with

extra mile service. The front liners’ response scale was 2.5 meaning

moderate.

The informants’ answers during FGDs and interview about how going

the extra mile was applied in MDS are as follow:

 260

Table 108

Going Extra Mile FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Kalau extra mile kami juga sudah memberikan extra mile untuk
customer. Kalau customer minta, mba tolong carikan yang ini, kita
berusaha nyari eskipun itu barangnya segunung, tumpuk2an gitu
bu”.
- “Tapi kalau extra mile belum sih bu”.
- “Dan kalau untuk extra mile ya seperti sama sih belum kalau saya”.
- “Terus kalau untuk melayani lebih kayaknya sih masih belum ya bu
masih kurang”.

Supervisory level:
R
- “Sesuatu yang lebih, kayaknya udah biasanya sih bule bu.
Contohnya itu kaya pengiriman matras gitu Bu. Kalau pengiriman
matras kan matras itu kadang pengirimannya engga sesuai. Dia lari
P
ke saya. Tolong dong gini gini gini. Akhirnya saya saya janjiin
dengan tanggalnya dan dia dapat kiriman sesuai tanggalnya”
- “Kalau extra mile di toko saya belum bu”.
- “Kalau disaya bu mungkin cosmetics yang udah karena BA ada
S

yang betul2 nyari barang sampai kemana2 sampai dia dapat. Itu BA
yang tadi bu.. dia pake HP nya sendiri kontak barang yang dimauin
customer yang ditoko saya udah abis”
- “Rata2 anak2 saya belum extra mile sih bu”
L

Managerial level:
- “Belum juga bu kalau extra mile, tidak terlalu, masih kurang”.
(Makky)
- “Belum Bu”
(Sehendar)
- “Masih kurang bu”
(Budi)
- “Iya masih belum bu”
(Dea)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- Ya ini yang kadang nah ini yang saya bilang kalo extra mile ini
memang kurang di.. apa ya masih kurang difasilitasi mungkin Bu
kalo boleh dibilang”.
(Alex)
 261

From the informants’ answers when they were asked about whether

they had gone extra mile, most of everybody in the company said they had

not. However, a supervisor stated that only BA who had applied extra mile, it

could be the nature of service they provided.

4.4.3.4 Dealing Well with Problems and Quiries

Delivering the promise is a start of excellent service, but when it goes

wrong customers will expect the organization to deal with the problems or

quiries as soon as possible and as smoothly as possible. Johnston (2207)

R
emphasized service excellence is mainly about delivering the promise and

dealing well with problems and quiries when they occur, hence organization
P
should have easy process both from customers and their staff to better

improvement as the focus should be on learning and improving. In short,

S

customers would appreciate problem solution more than a beautiful smile.

Table 109
L

Dealing Well with Problems and Quiries

Frequency Percent Index Respondents’

response

scale

Strongly agree 159 21

Agree 186 24
 262

Neutral 397 51

Disagree 21 3

Strongly disagree 9 1

TOTAL 772 100 72 3.6

Source: Researcher’s excel data analyisis 2020

The number of respondents who claimed neutral was 397 people or

51%. 186 respondents or 24% chose agree, 159 people or 21% stated

R
strongly agree. 21 sales staff or 3% of respondents claimed disagree, and 9

front liners or 1% said strongly disagree. The majority of respondents was

P
neutral on the statement that MDS front liners had dealt well with problem

and quiries. The index of dealing well with problem and quiries was 72
S

meaning fair whereas frontliners’ response rate was 3.6 meaning good.
L

Based on key infomants’ responses regarding how MDS dealt with

problems and queries, the results are as follow:

Table 110

Dealing with Problem / Queries FGD Result

Front liner level:

- “Queries, kalau untuk permintaan sih kami meskipun belum bisa
memenuhi customer, mungkin dari size nya contohnya customer
minta size xl untuk kemeja, tapi kita engga punya. Akhirnya kita
berinisiatif tanya ke pejaten. Jadi customernya menunggu, terus kita
telponin ke pejaten. Di pejaten ada ngga, kalau ada customernya ke
pejaten”.
 263

- “Apa customer inginkan, kalau engga ada kita carikan di toko lain.
Ada kita engga akan pernah bilang engga ada”.
- “Itu tergantung anaknya sih bu kalau saya saya cariin dulu tapi ada
anak yang males nanya ke toko lain ribet soalnya”
- “Iya terkadang sih anak2 baru kalau customer nyari apa ngga ada
ngga mau nyari dulu pake langsung bilang engga ada, eh akhirnya
customer complain karena pas dia ubek2 sendiri eh ketemu gitu bu”

Supervisory level:
- “Dealing with problem and queries sih udah”
- “Kalau untuk dealing with problem and queries kita sebisa mungkin
menangani complain dari customer meskipun terkadang merugikan
juga pihak kami”
- “Kalau dealing with trouble dan request itu sama dengan toko lain,
apa customer inginkan, kalau enggak ada kita akan carikan di toko
lain, ada kita enggak akan pernah bilang engga ada. Kita biasanya

mintak kontak customer”. R

carikan sebentar bu kita tanya dulu stock toko lain. Biasanya kita

- “Kalau yang untuk customer request itu saya pernah ngalamin untuk
di seragam sih bu baju kaya polo itu minta 120 piece. Ya itu bisa
P
dengan size semua. Jadi itu coordinator nyampein ke saya, itu saya
sampein ke bisa bikin customer nya dia siap menunggu selama satu
minggu akhirnya datang barang itu saya kontak lagi”.
- “Kalau untuk menyelesaikan masalah sama juga. Ya paling kalo ada
S

customer ngga ada di toko size nya. Waktu itu sih pernah customer
beli kemeja. Dia cari warna yang kebetulan itu udah barang lama.
Jadi udah barang 75. Jadi di semua toko udh ngga ada. Waktu itu
sampai kita carikan ke suppliernya dan langsung ke boss nya gitu
L

nelpon minta dong barang ini”.

Managerial level:
- “Kalau dealing with problem and queries saya masih belum. Karena
ketika customer minta saya mau size e saya mau minta warna
merah atau saya mau size M, o ngga ada bu, selesai”.
(Makky)
- “Iya belum bu”
(Dea)
- “Iya sama, belum”
(Suhendar)

Senior managerial / General Managerial level:

- “E.. kalo yang seperti ini Bu, harusnya semua toko justru disinilah
yang menjadi poin terbesar, semua yang manjadi masalah, keluhan
customer harusnya saat itu harus ada solusi. Kenapa saya katakan
Bu kayak gini, kayak size, size yang dicari misal ndak ada di toko
itu, ya carilah di toko lain, kan bisa diini, Ibu minta nomer HP nya
 264

atau alamatnya, nanti kita akan upayakan besok dihubungi, kita

akan antar ke rumahnya Ibu misalnya”.
(Alex)

Most of MDS front liners claimed they have dealt with customers’

quieries / problems. However, new employees tent to be ignorant to what

customers’ need. Supervisors also said that the stores have applied service

excellence element: dealing with problems / queries. Different from what their

team said, all store managers and general manager admitted they have not

R
dealth with customers’ problem / queries. They thought their team would stop

searching or did not put their fully effort in finding the customers’ need. The
P
writer can conclude that the store managers and the senior manager either

did not know their team well that the team already put all their effort in
S

meeting customers’ need or their expectation towards the store team was so

high that they could not meet managers’ expectation.

L

4.5 Classical Assumption Test

4.5.1 Normality Test

Data of the research resulted the central tendency was as follows:

Normality Test Graph
 265

Figure 10

R
P
S

Source: SPSS 22 Data analysis

L

The graph above shows that the spread of data formed a diagonal line

which meant the distribution of the data was not far apart or residual

regression data distributed normally.

Other way of detecting the normality of the data, researcher used

Kolmogorov-Smirrnov test, and here is the result:

Table 111
Normality Test Result
 266

R
P
Source: SPSS 22 data analysis
S

The above table reveals that the value of Asymp. Sig (2 tailed) was
L

0.200 meaning the data was distributed normally as Ghozali (2013) said that

a set of data was normally distributed when significance level is >0.05.

4.5.2 Multicollinearity Test

After testing linear correlation between independent variables in multi

regression, the result of multicollinearity test shown below:

Table 112
Multicollinearity Test
 267

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

R
The above table reveals that tolerance value of independent variables

was above 0.10 (.749) and VIF value was less than 10 (1.336), meaning the
P
data was free from muliticollinearity.

4.5.3 Heteroscedasticity Test

S

The result of Glejser test in identifying whether the data formed a

L

particular was shown below:

Figure 11
Heteroscedasticity Test
 268

R
P
S

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

The graph shows that the data did not form a significantly particular
L

pattern or spread in a scatterplot. This meant researcher can say it was free

from heteroscedasticity.

4.6 Correlation Analysis

In analyzing the relationship of variables the researcher used correlation

analyisis as to know how strong the relation was, and she used Pearson

product moment. The result of the correlation analysis is shown below:

 269

Table 113
Correlation Analysis of X1 Indicators to Y

R
P
Source: SPSS 22 data analysis
S

The table data above explains that Initiating Structure, Facilitating

L

Work, Relational Dynamic, and Representing Employees and the Unit had

weak correlations with Employee Performance, as their Pearson correlation

values of were below 0.41 and above0.20. Among those indicators,

Representing had the weakest correlation with Employee Performance as its

Pearson correlation value was the lowest (0.286).

Table 114
Correlation Analysis of X2 Indicators to Y
 270

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis R

P
The table data above tells us that Goal Setting had a weak correlation

with Employee Performance as its Pearson correlation was 0.350. It was also
S

the lowest value of all. Performance Feedback and Supervisor Support had

moderate correlation with Employee Performance, as their Pearson

L

correlation value were 0.410 and 0.567. The highest Pearson correlation

value belonged to Mentoring and Coaching which was 0.687 meaning it had

strong correlation with Employee Performance.

Table 115
Correlation Analysis of X1 and X2 to Y

Communicative Working Employee

Leadership Environment Performance

 271

Communicative Pearson

Leadership Correlation 1 .501** .501**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 772 772 772

Working Pearson

Environment Correlation .501** 1 .693**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

N 772 772 772

Employee Pearson

Performance Correlation .501** .693** 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

N
R .000

772
.000

772 772
P
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

S

Based on the table data above, it shows that the Pearson correlation

value of X1 (Communicative Leadership) was 0.501, meaning

L

Communicative Leadership and Employee Performance had a moderate

correlation whereas the Pearson correlation value of X2 (Working

Environment) was 0.693 meaning Working Environment and Employee

Performance had a strong relationship or correlation.

4.7 Regression Analysis

4.7.1 Simple Linear Regression Analysis Hypothesis 1

Researcher did a hyphothesis test to find out whether her hyphothesis

was accepted or rejected, and that to answer her research questions she

used linear regression analysis to find out the influence of independent

 272

variable to dependent variable. The simple linear regression analysis was

used to test the influence of Communicative Leadership on Employee

Performance. The result is as follows:

Table 116
Simple Linear Regression Analysis Result

R
P
Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis
S

The above table shows the influence of Communicative Leadership

L

variable (X1) on Employee Performance (Y) had regression model:

Y = 3.435 + 0.219X1

The equation above means:

a. The constant value (α) is 3.435 meaning if Communicative Leadership

variable (X1) is zero (nul), Employee Performance (Y) value is 3.435.

b. The coefficient value (β) of Communicative Leadership variable (X1) is

0.219 and positive, meaning in every increase of Communicative

Leadership (X1) Employee Performance (Y) will increase 0.219.

 273

4.7.2 Simple Linear Regression Analysis Hypothesis 2

The second simple linear regression analysis was used to test the

influence of Working Environment on Employee Performance. The result is

as follows:

Table 117
Simple Linear Regression Analysis Result

R
P
S

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

The above table shows the influence of Working Environment variable

L

(X2) on Employee Performance (Y) had regression model:

Y = 0.365 + 0.176X2

The equation above means:

a. The constant value (α) is 0.365 meaning if Working Environment

variable (X2) is zero (nul), Employee Performance (Y) value is 0.365.

b. The coefficient value (β) of Working Environment variable (X2) is

0.176 and positive, meaning in every increase of Working

Environment (X2) Employee Performance (Y) will increase 0.176.

 274

4.7.3 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

In analyzing the influence of two independents variables (X1:

Communicative leadership and X2: Behavioral / non-physical working

environment) on the dependent variable (extra role employees’ performance:

providing service excellence). The results are as follow:

Table 118
Multiple Regression Analysis

R
P
S
L

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

As shown on the above table researcher can conclude that the

influence of Communicative Leadership variable (X1) and Working

Environment (X2) had a regression equation as follows:

Y = -1.410 + 0.090X1 + 0.150X2

The above equation is explained below:

 275

 Constant value (α): -1,410 showed that if the Communicative

Leadership variable (X1) and Working Environment variable values

were 0, then Employee Performance (Y) was -1,410.

 Coefficients value (β) for Communicative Leadership variable (X1)

was 0.090 and positive, meaning everytime X1 (Communicative

leadership) increased Y (Employee Performance) would increase

0.090 with an assumption that X2 (Working Environment) value

remained unchanged.


R
Coefficients value (β) for Working Environment (X2) variable was

0.150 and positive, meaning everytime Working Environment (X2)

P
increased Employee Performance (Y) would increase 0.150 with an

assumption that Communicative Leadership (X1) value remained

S

unchanged.
L

4.7.4 Determination Coefficient Test

Determination coefficient test (R²) is used to measure how far a

variable is accounted for by another variable (Hair, Jr, Bush, & Ortinau,

2003). The research data results for determination coefficient of

Communicative Leadership with Employee Performance, Working

Environment with Employee Performance, and Communicative Leadership

and Working Environment with Employee Performance are shown below:

 276

Table 119
Determination Coefficient of Communicative Leadership with Employee

Performance

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .501ª .251 .250 2.66660

a. Predictors: (Constant), Communicative Leadership

b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

R
The above table shows the correlation of X1 (Communicative

Leadership) with Y (Employee Performance), and it reveals that

P
Communicative Leadership variable had a moderate coefficient correlation ®

which was 0.501, and coefficient determination (R²) value was 0.251
S

meaning 25.1% of Employee Performance (Y) was influenced by

L

Communicative Leadership (X1), while the rest 74.9% was influenced by

other factors that were not studied in the research.

Table 120
Determination Coefficient of Working Environment with Employee

Performance

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .693ª .480 .479 2.22228

c. Predictors: (Constant), Working Environment

d. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
 277

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

The above table shows the correlation of X1 (Working Environment)

with Y (Employee Performance), and it reveals that Working Environment

variable had a strong coefficient correlation ® which was 0.693, and

coefficient determination (R²) value was 0.480 meaning 48% of Employee

Performance (Y) was influenced by Working Environment (X2), while the rest

52% was influenced by other factors that were not studied in the research.

Table 121
R
Determination Coefficient of Communicative Leadership and Working
P
Environment with Employee Performance
S

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of

L

the Estimate

1 .715ª .512 .510 2.15513

e. Predictors: (Constant), Working Environment, Communicative Leadership

f. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

In determination coefficient R value shows the correlation of X1

(Communicative Leadership variavle) and X2 (Working Environment variable)

with Y (Employee Performance), and based on the table above, it reveals

those variables had a strong coefficient correlation ® which was 0.715, and

coefficient determination (R²) value was 0.512 meaning 51.2% of Employee

 278

Performance (Y) was influenced by Communicative Leadership (X1) and

Working Environment (X2). While the rest 48.8% was influenced by other

factors that were not discussed in the research.

4.7.5 F Test

F test was done to find out whether two independent variables:

Communicative Leadership (X1) and Working Environment (X2) when put

R
together in a regression model both influenced the dependant variable:

Employee Performance (Y). The result data is as follows:

P
Table 122
X1 F Test
S
L

Source: SPSS 22, Data Analysis

Based on the result from above table, it shows that calculated F value

258.242 > F table 3.854 (df1 = 1; df2 = 770) with significance of 0.000. When

calculated F value was greater than F table and its significance was less than

0.05 then researcher can conclude this regression model was signifant to

predict Employee Performance with Communicative Leadership. In other

 279

words, the independent variable: Communicative Leadership (X1) influenced

Employee Performance (Y).

Table 123
X2 F Test

R
P
Source: SPSS 22, Data Analysis

Based on the result from above table, it shows that calculated F value
S

710.516 > F table 3.854 (df1 = 1; df2 = 770) with significance of 0.000. When

calculated F value was greater than F table and its significance was less than
L

0.05 then researcher concluded this regression model was signifant to

predict Employee Performance with Working Environment. In other words,

the independent variable: Working Environment (X2) influenced Employee

Performance (Y).

Table 124
X1&X2 F Test
 280

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

The above table reveals that calculated F value 402.609 > F table

R
3.007 (df1 = 2; df2 = 769) with significance of 0.000. When calculated F value

was greater than F table and its significance was less than 0.05 then
P
researcher concluded this regression model was signifant to predict

Employee Performance. In other words, the two independent variables:

S

Communicative Leadership (X1) and Working Environment (X2)

simultaneously influenced Employee Performance (Y).

L

4.7.6 t Test

The writer conducted t-test to discover how far the influence of each

independent variable influenced the dependant variable, and the results are

as follow:

Table 125
X1 t Test
 281

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

The table above shows that calculated t value of Communicative

R
Leadership variable (X1): 16.070 > 1.963 of t table value (df = 769). Whereas

t significance value was 0.000 < 0.05 meaning:

P
a. Ho Communicative Leadership (X1) does not influence Employee

Performance (Y) was rejected.

S

b. Ha Communicative Leadership (X1) positively and significantly

influences Working Environment (Y) was accepted

L

Table 126
X2 t Test

Source: SPSS 22 Data Analysis

 282

The table above shows that calculated t value of Working Environment

variable (X1): 26.656 > 1.963 of t table value (df = 769). Whereas t

significance value was 0.000 < 0.05 meaning:

c. Ho Working Environment (X2) does not influence Employee

Performance (Y) was rejected.

d. Ha Working Environment (X2) positively and significantly influences

Working Environment (Y) was accepted

Table 127
X1 and X2 t Test R
P
S
L

Source: SPSS 22 data analysis

The data above tells that calculated t value of Communicative

Leadership variable (X1): 7.052 > 1.963 of t table value (df = 769). Whereas t

significance value was 0.000 < 0.05 meaning:

 283

a. Ho Communicative Leadership variable (X1) does not influence the

Employee Performance (Y) was rejected.

b. Ha Communicative Leadership variable (X1) positively and

significantly influences the Employee Performance (Y) was

accepted.

The calculated t value of Working Environment variable (X2): 20.245 >

1.963 of t table value (df = 769), and t significance value was 0.000 < 0.05,

meaning:

R
a. Ho Working Environment (X2) does not influence Employee

Performance (Y) was rejected

P
b. Ha Working Environment (X2) positively and significantly

influences Employee Performance (Y) was accepted.

S
L
 CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

5.1 Communicative Leadership

It has been explained in the correlation analysis and regression

analysis that a relationship occurred between Communicative Leadership

and Employee Performance, and the relationship was moderate with

Pearson correlation value was 0.501. Even though Communicative

R
Leadership had poor index (66), it positively influenced Employee

Performance and every increase of Communicative Leadership, Employee

P
Performance will increase 0.219. While based on R square test 25.1% of

Employee Performance influenced by Communicative Leadership. The

S

above facts were supported by qualitative results that:

L

5.1.1 Initiating Structure

 Goal and Expectation Setting: MDS leaders from Store Managers to

Supervisors had not provided employees with clear goal and

expectation, while only the management or the Senior Manager had

given his team clear goal and expectation. This condition was

deteriorating front liners’ motivation as they did not know clearly what

the company’s and or leaders’ goal, nor their leaders’ expectations

303
 200

either. Leblebici said goal setting is one of a tool to attract employees’

motivation as it is to guide the behavior and motivate to perform better.

 Task Planning and Allocation: MDS leaders from Store Manager to

General Managers had explained task planning and allocation to their

team. This indicator got the lowest index in initiating structure

dimension which was 64. However, these activities just stopped at

Supervisors as they did not transfer to their front liners. In short, there

were not any planning and allocation of tasks at all for frontliners. They

R
knew their tasks either by self learning or were informed by their

senior peers.
P
 Company Mission Defining: Eventhough this indicator’s index was

slightly better than task planning and allocation: 65 and was still
S

considered poor, most of frontliners and supervisors could not utter

the company mission which meant that their leaders: store managers
L

and supervisors had not defined it well.

5.1.2 Facilitating Work

 Coaching and Training Execution: Inconsistency occurred in coaching.

When coaching and training was acting as the indicator of facilitating

work dimension, it had index 74 (fair) and good respondent’s response

scale 3.7. When coaching stood as the dimension of coaching /

mentoring it got poor index of 64 and moderate respondents’ response

scale of 3.2. However, the qualitative results supported the second

 201

fact. Differences in understanding on how coaching should be done

also became the reasons why supervisors did not coach their team.

Most supervisors felt they had not been coached (eventhough they

might have been but they did not realize it) as a result, they did not

coach their team.

 Even though it was stated in MDS’s annual report that Human

Resource Department did facilitating each level of organization for

training (2017 Annual Report Matahari Department Store, 2018) and

R
the index for coaching and training was fair (74), the facts from

qualitative survey did not portray the condition. Managerial levels

P
received more training than levels below them, especially front liners

level. They received the least. Johansson, Miller, & Hamrin said
S

training for employees are to enable them to have enough knowledge

and necessary skills to succeed (2007). Reflecting the above

L

statement, it can be said that MDS employees specifically front liners

did not succeed in achieving company’s goals as they did not have

enough knowledge and necessary skills. This could jeopardize the

company’s condition in the future.

 Timely and Relevant Performance Feedback: This indicator in

facilitating work dimension had fair index (72) and good scale of

respondents’ response (3.6). Some leaders but not all leaders had

provided their team with this indicators. According to qualitative results

only store managers who had provided their direct subordinates with
 202

timely and relevant performance feedback while supervisor had done

nothing yet. One thing that management needs to pay attention: some

supervisors gave irrelevant feedback to their team. Instead of

addressing the problem to the right employee, they gave feedback to

other or wrong people hoping that the empoyees would inform their

partners / peers who were actually the target. This often happened

when the targeted employees were more senior in term of age and

length of service in the company than the supervisors were. In other

R
words, supervisors did not dare to provide feedback to senior

employees, and this showed that the feedback system was not
P
correctly applied in MDS. MDS supervisors also needed to gave

feedback timely not too soon not too late like Modaff said that timely
S

feedback was feedback given “at the appropriate time; not too soon

and too late” (2007). However, MDS supervisors seemed imposible to

L

provide immediate feedback as the number of direct frontliners who

reported to them was too many. Based on the interview they were

responsible to at least 20 front liners. According to Prue & Fairbank

(1981) “Immediate feedback may not be possible when supervisors

are responsible for a large number of employees”. The feedback

condition also worsened as most of supervisors did not apply or use

logbook for this activity, and this made them unable to track who did

what and how to solve.

 203

 Employees’ Engagement in Problem Solving and Decision Making:

Employees’ engagement received the lowest index: 70 (poor) among

three indicators of facilitating work. The score was supported by the

qualitative result that mentioned there was no engagement from

General Manager to stores managers’ side, meaning that store

managers were not involved by the management / the General

Manager nor Supervisors were by the store managers in problem

solving and decision making. However, the condition of supervisors

R
was the opposite. Frontliners felt they were involved in the problem

solving and decision making by their supervisors. The respondents

P
who took the quantitave survey were only front liners, but the answers

in FGD were quite opposite from the index score. Eventhough it was
S

only 50% of front liners informants took the quantitave survey, the

researcher believed that the FGD result explained the real condition in
L

the field that front liners were involved by the supervisors, as there

was only one respondent who claimed that the leaders were not care

enough to engage him / her.

5.1.3 Relational Dynamic

 Among four dimensions of communicative leadership variable,

relational dynamic dimension got the lowest and poor index (58) and

the lowest score of respondents’ response scale (2.9). This fact was
 204

supported by the results of FGD and in-depht interview which

explained indicators of relational dynamic such as:

 Openness: Although openness had moderate scale of respondents’

response (3.1), based on FGD one of items in relational dynamic was

only owned by the general manager, and by some store managers but

supervisors. Hence, it explained why the index was only 63 (poor).

Other than indifference, Management needs to concern more about

trustworthiness of MDS supervisors as most of front liners informants

R
said their supervisors did not display this behavior at all. In fact, when

front liners felt depressed, tensed, or stressful about their job, they
P
needed someone higher whom they could trust to share the problems,

but they could not find any. As a result, the condition more or less
S

impacted their daily task activities. Therefore, MDS leaders had to

gain trust from the team first, then change their indifferent manners to
L

caring ones to make the job done well.

 Supportive: Being supportive had a poor index which had slightly

different index from being open above. It was 62. The FGD results

also explained why the index was low: no supervisors had

personalities of being supportive, only some managers did.

Supervisors were portrayed as unhelpful and judging. Therefore, the

Management needs to pay attention to these type of supervisors as

they made front liners felt demotivated, afraid of being judged as

stupid. As a result, they did not convey their problem to their leaders
 205

and asked their peer’s help instead which did not much help as they

had similar capability and experience in solving the problems. This

would result a bad or poor solution for the front liners, the store it self

and the company.

 Constructive Approach on Conflict-full Issue: Among items in

Communicative leadership indicators, constructive approach on

conflict-full issue had the lowest index of all. It was 48 and meaning

very poor. The results of FGD explained why: most of store leaders

R
both store managers and supervisors did not apply constructive

approach on conflict-full issues in their leadership. Instead of facing

P
the issues using constructive approaches, MDS leaders tent to avoid

them. Supervisors pretended the issues were not there or explicitly

S

confessed that they let the issues exist. This created muddled

situation among front liners as they felt hopeless and being unfairly
L

treated, and the worst scenarios would happen were front liners did

not respect the leaders anymore, or they would copy their friends’ bad

deed in the long run as they found there were no consequencies in

doing so. Unfortunately, supervisors experienced similar case. Store

managers openly spilled out that they let the issue exist and asked

supervisors to understand that. This might be the core reason why

supervisors did pretend. They copied it from their leaders, Store

Managers. Another analysis was because either front liners or

supervisor who were the sources of the conflict-full issue were those
 206

who had been with the company for quite sometimes, store managers

or supervisors felt bad if they had to warn or do assertive actions

towards them. Nevertheless, MDS management should have

conducted constructive approach to solve the problem.

5.1.4 Representing Employee and the Unit

 Representing employees and the unit indicator had poor index as well

which was 69 eventhough it was better than initiating structure and

R
relational dynamic. Its respondents’ response scale was good with

score 3.47.
P
 Upward Influence: Its index score was within the poor range. The

score in fact was the highest in the range which was 70. The
S

qualitative results slightly explained about it. Most managers both

General Manager and Store Managers had applied this behavior. And
L

yet, the management still needs to focus on the supervisory level as

the behavior had not been applied yet by supervisors. Incompetence

and indifference became the reason why supervisors did not do

upward influence. Management should ensure that all supervisors

know what they are doing. If we flashed back to previous element in

initiating structure dimension store managers had not conducted task

planning and allocation behavior appropriately. As a result,

supervisors’ capability or competence did not reach to its fullness.

Hence, when they had to influence their leaders they did not know
 207

how and what to influence. This also resulted disrespect from their

front liners.

 Active Monitor: This behavior had the lowest score (65) among three

behaviors of representing employee and the unit. The qualitative data

shows that only managerial level applied active monitor. Both General

Manager and Store Managers had fed their direct subordinates with

opportunites and threat regularly. However, this action did not flow

downwards to supervisory level. Most of them did not apply it. Front

R
liners either found opportunities and threat by themselves or by getting

information from their peers which could not be all correct. They
P
sometimes passed through the information to the leaders instead.

Hence, MDS management needs to concern with the situation, as

S

retail competition is getting tougher. If the threats were not conveyed

to all levels of employees the pace in reaching the goal, or fighting and
L

winning the competition would not be the same among employees.

Some who did not know the current situation were slow and some who

knew ran very fast. Opportunities should have been spread among the

team, if they were late getting the opportunities even a second, the

opponent might have taken it first. ‘Lost opportunities’ was ‘lost

potential sale’ as well. This uneven situation among store team

hindered the organization in winning the battle.

 Manage Boundary & Build Network: Among the three behaviors of

representing employees and the unit only manage boundary and build
 208

network that showed both store leaders (supervisors and store

managers) had applied it. Hence, the index was also the highest

among other behaviors in the indicator, which was 73 and considered

fair. The FGD result also supported it. Almost all MDS leaders had

built good network with suppliers and merchandisers also had

managed boundaries from other departments in the company. This

should be maintained.

R
5.2 Working Environment (Behavioral / Non-Physical Working

Environment)
P
The quantitative result showed that a relationship occurred between Non-

physical Working Environment and Employee Performance. The score of

S

0.693 was slightly higher than communicative leadership but considered as

strong relationship. This variable also had bigger influence than

L

communicative leadership variable on employee performance. 48% of

Employee Performance was influenced by Non-physical Working

Environment. The index of this variable was 67 meaning poor.

5.2.1 Goal Setting

 Goal setting had index 66 which meant poor. This index was actually

not in the lowest range compared to other indicators indexes in

working environment variable, but this fact was contradictory with the
 209

previous explanation of initiating structure indicator which almost

everybody in front liner level did not know the goal of the company that

stated in the company mission statement.

 Clear goals: Eventhough the index of clear goal was not the lowest,

which was 64 and meaning poor most of front liners did not know

about company’s goal. This indicated the goal itself might be clear but

it was not described thoroughly or in a proper way by the leaders.

Management should attend this issue seriously as understanding goal

R
was basic and crucial for the longevity of the company. When

employees were clueless of company goals they did not know which
P
way to go and ended up going in circle or nowhere and would never

reach the finish line on time. However, MDS employees knew their
S

financial target which was good but not good enough as other things

such as organization culture, policies seemed to be ignored or not well

L

known and this caused those behavior would not be well applied.

 Specific goals: It has the lowest index (61) among behaviors in goal

setting indicator. It was explained in the qualitative data result that all

front liners only knew their financial target. In other words, MDS

financial goal was specific enough that everybody in the copany was

aware of. Unfortunately, the company’s goal did not only consist of

financial figure and this should also be management’s attention. When

front liners could not utter other goals meaning the other goals were

not specific enough that they just easily forgot. Another thing that
 210

should be on management’s attention was the habit of supervisors in

blaming their direct followers. Instead of explaining the goal

thoroughly, supervisors tent to blame their team on being ignorant or

not being attentive.

 Goal Acceptance and Commitment: The index was 66 meaning poor.

However, FGD result explained that most everybody in the company

accepted the goal. The commitment was only the problem. Many front

liners confessed in the qualitative result that they did not commit

R
because the way their direct leaders treated them did not portraying a

self worth. Eventhough management realized this and claimed only

P
small percentage of front liners who were doing so, it should still be

their focus so that the percentage would not increase. The above
S

condition also showed that MDS front liners were nice, kind and

obedient individuals who tended to accept whatever ‘people from

L

above’ instructed. This might be the company’s luck and strength.

However, MDS management needs to be well prepared for behavior

changes in which employees are no longer obedient.

 Difficult but Attainable Goal: This behavior had the highest index in

goal setting indicator which was 70 or poor. 6% of respondents

strongly agreed that the goal was difficult but attainable and 49%

agreed. FGD result explained the reason. When the goal was in figure

all employees knew and understood it. That was why they could

answer the question easlily. Most employees considered the goal was
 211

difficult enough and yet achieveable. However, some still considered

very difficult to achieve. Management did not need to worry about this

what they should worry was how MDS leaders teach, coach, and train

employee how to achieve it as they had not done it yet.

 Frequetly Reviewed and Revised Goals: Although it had index only 67

and meaning poor. 11% respondents strongly agreed that the goals

were frequently reviewed and revised, and 31% did agree. Based on

FGD results, most of informants also claimed the same. Why the index

R
was only 67 might be because the respondents reffered to the

previous MDS condition that the goal was unrevised. This was
P
supported by informants’ answers that in previous years the goal was

remained unchanged. Starting the year when FGD was conducted the
S

company changed the policy and the goal could be revised more than

once a year.
L

5.2.2 Performance Feedback

Performance feedback as one of communication form between leaders

and subordiantes in the company should be done regularly to enable the

bond between leader-employees to happen. In the survey result,

performance feedback indicator had 66 index which meant poor and

respondents’ rate was 3.3 meaning moderate. The detail explanation derived

from qualitative data result is as follows:

 212

 Mentioning Things Done Right and Areas to Improve: Although the

index was not at the bottom poor range which was 65, informants’

answers showed bad result. Most of MDS leaders did not mentioned

things that employees had done right but mostly mentioned areas to

improve only. MDS leaders did not have habits of praising

subordinates’ good jobs or deeds in front of the person, instead they

did it at their employees’ back. It made employees feel less

appreciated. In addition, when leaders only stated the negativity of

R
their subordinates, it would create employees’ demotivation. MDS

management from general managers to supervisors should change

P
this practice otherwise the employees would feel dissatisfied and

might seek new place to work where they felt more appreciated.
S

 Frequently Done: This behavior had the lowest index of 63 among

other behaviors of performance feedback indicator in the survey. The

L

FGD result explained that the implementation of feedback was not

done evenly. Managerial level did regular feedback while not all

supervisors did conduct performance feedback to their team, few even

did not do at all. A program called STAR program in which enabled all

leaders to determine which front liners under them should be given

priority feedback was recently discontinued. In fact this program was

good according to front liners and supervisors as it also obliged

leaders to provide performance feedback monthly. Since Management

discontinued the program the monthly feedback they used to conduct

 213

also stopped. Management should be aware that when supervisors

did not provide feedback regularly the front liners who eventually

became the ones who attended MDS customers might provide wrong

service and perform wrong daily tasks. They would keep doing the

wrong activities until their leaders explained it was wrong and said

stop. The less frequently leaders provided feedback the longer

employees did the false deed / service.

 Done formally and informally: Although the index of this behavior was

R
poor (66) the FGD explained that formal and informal feedback had

been applied by MDS leaders. 33% respondents agreed that their

P
leaders had given formal and informal feedback, and 9% strongly

agreed. While 38% of respondents were not sure. This might be

S

because the respondents did not understand what formal and informal

feedbacks were. What they knew was feedback with paper and
L

feedback without paper. Therefore, management needs to socialize

types of feedback to its employess to avoid misunderstanding.

 Consist of Task Guidance and Personal Evaluation: The index was the

highest among other items in performance feedback indicator (68) but

still meaning poor. As also mentioned in the first behavior of

performance feedback that MDS leaders had mentioned areas to

improve, in FGD most of informants claimed that personal evaluation

was lacking. According to Modaff (2007) performance feedback should

consist of personal evaluation as guidance for employees adapt with

 214

social environment. In other words, when leaders did not mention

personal evaluation, they did not help employees in adjusting

themselves with working environment which affected employees

socially and psychologically.

 Deliverance That Results Good Consequences: The index was similar

with the third behavior of performance feedback which was 66,

meaning poor. 33% of respondents said the deliverance of feedback

had resulted good consequencies and 14% strongly agree with it.

R
However, in the qualitative findings most of front liners demanded the

“after deed or after action”. When leaders informed their areas to

P
improve they should also have explained how to improve them and

this had not been applied by the leaders. If management wants to

S

improve company’s achievement, they should put action after

feedback at the top list. This would force MDS leaders not only to
L

focus on providing feedback but also to give guidance so the action

would be continuous and simultaneous: providing feedback and

coaching. The other thing that management should focus was

supervisors’ blaming habits. This habits occurred not only in

performance feedback indicator but also in other indicator.

Management should set leaders as the example thus they should

cease this habit, as when leaders blamed on their teams meaning they

blamed themselves. Moreover, in performance theory, Naharuddin &

Sadegi said that employees would reach their target on track if their
 215

leaders or supervisors monitor and help them to achieve and this

condition seemed contradictory with what was happening in MDS

(2013).

 Accepted Feedback: This also had the highest index among other

behavior in performance feedback indicator which was 68 (poor).

Eventhough only 33% of respondents agreed that they accepted

feedback given by their leaders, the FGD result showed that most of

employees accepted it. It showed that most of employees were

R
obedient. However, management needs to be aware that front liners

would only accept when the feedback was given properly. When
P
feedback was given in a cruel way they would reject it. In other words,

there were few of leaders who did feedback improperly.

S

5.2.3 Supervisor Support

L

Among four indicators, supervisor support had the highest index which

was 68 but still meaning poor. The respondent’s response scale was 3.4

which considered moderate.

 Value Contribution / Recognition: Its index was 68 meaning still poor

and 24% of respondents agreed that leaders had valued their

contribution or given recognition. However FGD data result explained

there was a misperception towards recognition meaning. Front liners

did not consider ‘saying thank you’ as recognition or saying thank you

was not enough for valueing a contribution. This should be

 216

straightened up as misperception made front liners felt they were not

appreciated although they had done good job. According to Berry,

Parasuraman, & Zeithaml (1988) when good performance went

unnoticed, and was unappreciated or rewarded by immediate

supervisors or leader, it could hinder excellence service. Therefore,

management should socialize what recognition was more often to form

a uniformity in recognition perception, or make a concession what kind

of reward or recognition front liners hould get if thank you was not

R
enough. Another case was a recognition program that was once held

inspiringly claimed by informants now it was conducted ordinarily.

P
They added that Management once reached out front liners from

suppliers (SPG) in the program and as of the FDG took place did not
S

do it any longer. In fact the number of SPG was more than the number

of MDS SA (sales associate), hence the current program did not

L

represent a recognition activity or program for entire store team. This

should become management’s consideration. Another proof of

leaders’ behavior that made low index and should be ceased was

giving recognition behind subordinates’ back. Store managers should

have valued their team contribution right in front of the person.

 Availability to Help: The index of this behavior was 67 meaning poor,

and its scale of respondents’ response was 3.4 meaning moderate.

FGD results explained why the index was poor. Most front liners said

their supervisors were not available to help even at the time of crisis
 217

which was handling customers’ complaints. This condition where

supervisor support was lacking should become management priority

attention as Yoon, Beatty, & Suh said that supervisors who support

their subordinates provide helpful action are categorized as supervisor

support (2001), meaning when supervisors were not available MDS

had not provided its employees with supervisor support. Moreover

when leaders are not in the field to coach, provide feedback, praise or

observe it can be said there is insufficiency in the service leadership

R
that makes employees are underled (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry,

1990).
P
 Willingness to Help: This behavior had the highest index of four

behaviors in supervisor support indicator, 72 and meaning fair.

S

However, the FGD results explained slightly the opposite. The

informants who took the survey were only 50% might be the reason
L

why the result was the opposite. Respondents who did the survey

probably perceived their leaders’ willingness to help as moderate or

fair based on their experience, while informants including 50% of

whom took quantitative survey also told the truth based on their

experience. Mostly when people are gathered and asked some

questions, they tend to give more honest and vocal answers than

those who do it individually. This because they are afraid when they

do give honest answers that portrait the real condition, it will be

discovered by their leaders. Since FGD conducted by researcher

 218

involved some informants of the same level / position in the company

with more than 3 participants and it was impossible to recognize who

said what in the recorded voices, they had nothing to hide and could

express what they felt when answered questions. In the previous

indicator explanation showed that leaders’ availability was rare, as a

result willingness to help was also perceived rare by frontliners. In

addition, whenever leaders were around / available according to front

liners they mostly did not help employees in doing their daily job. It

R
meant supervisor support was unsatisfactory. Seeing the above

condition, management should act on it and encourage leaders to do

P
some favors for their team not only to motivate them (as claimed by

informants) but also to build connection between leaders and

S

employees.

 Care about Well Being: The index of this behavior was the lowest
L

among four behaviors in Supervisor Support which was 65, meaning

poor. The FGD result explained the ripple effect of the previous

behaviors caused bad result. Judging behavior, close (not open)

behavior, and indifferent behavior made MDS supervisors perceived

uncare about employees’ well being by their team. If management

wants to change the image of its leaders, it needs to focus on the

basics such as creating supportive leaders.

 219

5.2.4 Mentoring and Coaching

Among four indicators in Working Environment variable, mentoring and

coaching had the lowest index which was 64 and meaning poor, while the

respondents’ rate was moderate (3.2). When training was impossible to be

provided regularly by a company, coaching actually could be the best

alternative solution to replace training. Unfortunately, the result of survey

showed low index which meant mentoring and coachingwere not well

implemented.


R
Series of Agreed Conversation: The index of the behavior was 63
P
(poor) and below mentoring and coaching index itself. While 10% of

respondents strongly agreed that series of agreed conversation had

S

been done, and 34% of them also agreed. How it had such a low

index was explained in FGD result. Based on front liners’ testimonies

L

most supervisors did not provide their team series of agreed

conversation. They even did not do any coaching. However, there was

controversy about it as explained before that it only happened due to

there was a misperception on coaching meaning. Apart from the

controversy, leaders according to Parsloe & Leedham (2009) should

conduct series of conversation to have a long lasting effect. If MDS

leaders had already done coaching but had not conducted series of

agreed conversation, the effect of their coaching would not last long as

expected.
 220

 Time Commitment: The index of this behavior was similar to mentoring

and coaching index which was also poor (64). FGD result revealed a

claim from both front liners and supervisors that coaching conducted

was never been planned as the leaders were too busy or did not have

time and if they did they did not commit with their time. In fact, based

on Parsloe & Leedham’s statement that most common failure in

coaching / mentoring is leaders do not have time to do sessions for

their team (2009). It can be said that the coaching activities in MDS

R
was not successful. If MDS management wants the process of

coaching and mentoring to succeed, management should encourage

P
store leaders from store managers to supervisors to spend and

commit their time at least once a month.

S

 Coach-Mentor Role Simplification: The index for this behavior was 65,

a little bit higher than mentoring and coaching index and meaning
L

poor. Unfortunately, FGD result of front liners could not explore more

deeply as they claimed they could not explain how the process was.

This was because they had never been mentored so far. The writer

made two conclusion about this behavior. First, the index that was

derived from the survey probably the respondents did experience

being a mantee and they rated 3.2 (response rate). Secondly, the

informants who joined the FGD including the 50% of whom also took

the survey did tell the truth that they had never been mentored.

Despite the fact that none of the informants could explain about the
 221

coach-mentor process, the supervisors who had been coached by

store managers and had been mantees explained the process was

simple and even too simple to be considered as a coach-mentor

activity. It was as if just a formality that needed to be done.

 Basic Progress Implementation: The index of this behavior was the

lowest among five behaviours in mentoring & coaching which was 61.

Only 20% of respondents agreed that their leader had implemented

coaching briefly, productively, and conducted one to one session, and

R
7% of respondents strongly agreed. The FGD result could not explain

much either as none of front liners informants claimed had become

P
mantees. What they could explained was one to many sessions had

been conducted by their leaders. Seeing those two behaviors (coach –

S

mentor simplification and basic progress implmenetation) MDS

management needs to revive and encourage leaders to do some

L

mentoring activities for the purpose of regeneration in the company as

coaching and mentoring are done to help empoyees at their current

role and prepare for their future role. When no supervisors did

mentoring session to their team meaning no front liners were prepared

for future role as successor leader in the company.

 Learning Habit and Personal Development Implementation: The

highest index in mentoring and coaching was from this behavior which

was 67 but still meaning poor. However, the result of FDG did not

explain the reasons why it had the highest index. In fact this behavior
 222

had not been well applied as the result of no mentoring process for

front liner level. The informants had been in their current position for

quite sometimes and so had supervisors which meant they were not

well developed by their direct leader could be another reason. Other

two possible reasons that researcher could draw were firstly the

respondents truly felt their personal had been developed and learning

became their habit so they rated their response on learning habit and

personal development implementation 3.3 (moderate). Secondly, the

R
50% of informants who took the survey felt their position was stuck or

they did not see any development in their career (which also claimed
P
by few supervisors). In other words, some supervisors who had not

been mentored by their leaders felt their career was not developed
S

and caused them stucked in their position for quite long time. As a

result, they did not mentor their team either and led to a similar
L

condition in fron liner level. This according to the researcher was a

ripple effect caused by no mentoring. Moreover, as leaders did more

on the spot coaching than planned one, it made the coaching and

mentoring activities unable to focus on their team personal

development.

5.3 Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior Performance – Service

Excellence)

Service excellence provided by MDS front liners had low index which was 60,

meaning poor and had moderate respondents’ response rate which was 3. In
 223

fact, performance is the output employees produce, it means if the extra role

behavior performance / service excellence had poor index, MDS

performance was also poor.

 Delivering the promise: The indicator of delivering the promise had the

highest index among 4 indexes which was 72. It meant the indicator

was fair. The response rate was also good (3.6). The FGD result

explained the high score: most of front liners or the company (probably

the bigger scenario) had delivered the promise. If there were few who

R
did not do this indicator, it was just minor or very small in number.

Most of employees from front liners to general manager were

P
confident that they had already done it. In other words, as a company

wise MDS had conducted this indicator. However, to make the

S

implementation perfect management needs to pay attention to

programs that were set by the Head Office such as marketing

L

programs. According to FGD respondents what were promised in the

programs could not be implemented. For example: in the

advertisement some discounts were applied for both DP and CV

products, in reality some CV products were not on sale and this made

customers disappointed. As a result these programs became

obstacles in implementing delivering the promise indicator perfectly.

Management should learn from the front liners what other things that

hinder the implementation as front liners were the one who dealt with

customers.
 224

 Providing Personal Touch: The indicator had the lowest index which

was 46, meaning very poor. Respondents’ rate was bad (2.3) as well.

Based on quantitative result none of respondents agreed that they had

already provided customers with personal touch, and 0.4% of

respondents strongly agreed. The result of qualitative data also

supported and explained the reason of having very poor index. Most

informants admitted they had not provided customers with personal

touch. Eventhough some stores claimed they already did it, for

R
instance their Beauty Advisors in serving their customers. MDS

management in this case should learn from their BA in handling

P
customers and encourage other store team to do the same.

 Going Extra Mile: Its index was second from the bottom. It was 49
S

meaning very poor. The respondents’ response rate was 2.5 slightly

higher than providing personal touch but it was considered moderate.

L

Only 8% of respondents agreed that they had gone extra mile and

0.1% of respondents strongly agreed. And yet the implementation

occurred unevenly. It seemed that how store team implemented going

the extra mile was limited to Beauty Advisors (BA) only while other

team in the store had not. Hence, MDS management should

encourage other team members to duplicate what BAs do in handling

customers to make this indicator well implemented. The researcher

also discovered that both Supervisors and Store Managers did not

fully understand what going extra mile was and how to implement it. It
 225

can be seen from illustrations they provided in FGD, and that explains

why front liners had not implemented going extra mile yet.

 Dealing well with problems and Quiries: The index for this indicator

was similar to delivering the promise 72 (fair) and respondents’

response rate was 3.6 meaning good. The FGD results explained that

as a company wise, MDS had conducted this indicator. In other words

almost everybody in the company had dealt problem and quiries well.

Some respondents even claimed they dealt problems especially

R
customer complaints very well. However, based on FGD results the

researcher can say that only supervisors dealt with problems and
P
quieries well or better than front liners. This might be because the

knowledge transfer through coaching-mentoring activities had not

S

done properly by the leaders.

5.4 Communicative Leadership (X1) and Non-Physical Working

L

Environment to Employee Performance (Extra Role Behavior

Performance – Service Excellence)

The correlation of Communicative Leadership and Working

Environment with Employee Performance was even stronger (0.715) than

when X1 (Communicative Leadership) and X2 (Working Environment) stood

alone. Employee Performance 51.2% was influenced by Communicative

Leadership and Working Environment.

 226

The study result is only applied or portrayed the condition of Jakarta

MDS stores only and does not portray other MDS stores outside Jakarta that

are not included in the research.

R
P
S
L
 304

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Conclusion

Based on the data gathered, researcher concludes that:

1. Communicative leadership behaviors influence Employee

Performance, Ha1 is accepted.

R
2. Non-physical Working Environment factors influence the front liners’

behavior performance which is providing excellent service to

P
customers, Ha2 is accepted.

3. When X1 (Communicative Leadership) was combined with X2 (Working

S

Environment), they also influenced Y (Employee Performance), Ha3 is

accepted.
L

4. Communicative Leadership was not well applied in MDS as front liners

could not portray the company’s goals, leaders’ goal, and company

mission definition due to bad socialization. MDS leaders had not

planned and allocated task for front liners. Coaching and especially

training activities were not well spread among employees. Leaders had

not engaged front liners in problem solving. Leaders were not open, and

supportive enough to front liners. Leaders had not displayed

constructive approach on conflict-full issues. Leaders / supervisors

were ‘afraid’ of senior front liners by avoiding issues, problems or

 305

conflict. Supervisory level had not applied upward influence. They did

not actively monitor opportunities and threats. Researcher also

concludes that Working Environment was not fully applied in MDS, as

there were different perceptions towards performance feedback among

leaders and their followers. Leaders’ support to front liners was also

lacking, Coaching was not done properly, and mentoring activities were

rarely conducted by top store leaders and had never been done by

supervisory level.

6.2 Recommendation
R
P
As the main problem occurred in supervisor, a further research should

be done merely on supervisor to get a better picture what the problems are
S

and why they occur. Another research to study detail demographic factors

that influence employee performance can be done as well.

L

6.2.1 Theoritical Recommendation

In the future research it is suggested that another study to analyze

further how recognition should be applied in an organization. How

communicative leadership is applied in supervisory level is also needed to

study.
 306

6.2.2. Practical Recommendation

After conducting the study, the researcher recommend some new

activites and programs that were previously already conducted by the

company such as:

a. MDS should focus more on the supervisor levels as they lead front

liners directly, some important information are missed because of their

leadership.

b. Store managers need to conduct sampling check and rechecking

R
thoroughly on both communicative Leadership and non-physical

working environment based on the explained above theories.

P
c. MDS should relaunch its goals, retrain / reintroduce goals, and

continuously explain goals to all levels in the organization especially to

S

front liners.

d. The Stores need to improve the internal communication system

L

especially in conveying important messages from the management

such as company’s goals and not just by reading them or hanging the

writings on the wall magazine.

e. MDS needs to create specific mission / goals that are easy to

remember by employees especially by front liners.

f. Log book system should be revived or reintroduced and both Store

Managers and Supervisors should commit in performing the system

regularly. Stores need to revive STAR program if necessary.

 307

g. MDS should ensure that supervisors must be on the floor at all times

by logbook program / system which should be signed hourly.

h. MDS should conduct reward and punishment system more seriously

i. The management should investigate deeply the reasons why

supervisors are afraid of senior front liners. Is it the weak system or

leadership lacking, should be found out. Serious enforcement system

should also be applied.

j. Management should provide supervisors with a lot of problem solving

R
exercises especially in resolving conflict-full issue assertively.

k. Management should make interesting program to encourage store

P
team to provide personal touch and going extra mile.

l. Management should take quick action in instructing all leaders in the

S

store to set an example for their team and not to blame subordinate for

unsuccessfull program
L
L
S
P
R
331
 336

REFERENCES

Ajala, E. M. (2012). The Influence of Workplace Environment on Workers' welfare,

Performance and Productivity. The African Symposium, 12(1), 141-149. doi:
research gate.net/publication/321126457

Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2011). An Objective Review of the Effectiveness
and Essential Characteristics of Performance Feedback in Organization Setting.
Journal of Organization Behavior Management, 21(1); 2-29. doi:
10.1300/J075v21n01_02

Amm (2017, Nov 1) Daftar Ritel di Indonesia Yang Memilih Menutup Usaha (List of Retailers

R
in Indoenesia who Chose to Close Down the Business). Sindo.News.com. Retrieved
from https://ekbis.sindonews.com/read/1253581/34/daftar-ritel-di-indonesia-
yang-memilih-menutup-usaha-1509533639.
P
Arikunto, S. (2002). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek (Research Procedures a
Practical Approach. Jakarta, Indonesia: Asdi Mahasatya.

Ashforth, B., & Humphrey, R. H. (1993). Emotional Labor in Service Roles: The influence of
S

Identity. Management Review, 18(3), 88-115. doi: 10.2307/258824

Asif, M. (2014, April 18). A critical review of service excellence models: towards developing
an integrated framework ©Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Riyadh,
L

Saudi Arabia. doi: 10.1007/s11135-014-0022-y

Babakus, E., & Mangold, W. G. (1992). Adapting the SERQUAL scale to hospital service an
empirical investigation. Health Service Research, 26(6),767-780. doi:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069855/pdf/hsresearch00075-
0070.pdf

Bäckström, I., Ingelsson, P., & Johansson, C. (2016). How Communicative Leadership
influences co-workers' health - a Quality Management perspective. International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(2), 143-156. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-08-2015-0059

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004, Spring). Using the job demand-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1),
83-104. doi: 10.1002/hrm.20004

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: an
emerging concept in occupational health psychlogy. Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group, 22(3), 187-200. doi: 110.1080/02678370802393649
 337

Barrett, J. D. (1995). Strong communication skills a must for today's leaders. Handbook of
Business Strategy, 73(3), 132-142. doi: 10.1108/10775730610619124

Berger, A. A. (2000). Media and Communication Research Methods An Introduction to

Qualitative and Quantitatve Approaches. London, England: Sage Publication, Inc.

Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988, Sept - Oct). The Serivice-Quality
Puzzle. Business Horizon , 31(5) pp. 35-45. doi: 10.1016/0007-6813(88)90053-5

Blaikie, N. (2003). Analyzing Quantitative Data: From Description to Explanation. London,

England : SAGE Publication.

Boles, M., Pelletier, B., & Lynch, W. (2004). The relationship between health risks and work
productivity. Journal of Occupational and Environment Medicine, 46(7),737-745.
doi: 10.1097/01.jom.0000131830.45744.97

Boshoff, C., & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model to evaluate the relationship among

R
supervison, role stress, organizational commitment and internal service quality.
European Journal of Marketing, 29(2) 23-42. doi: 10.1108/03090569510080932

Boyce, C., & Neale, C. (2006). Conducting in-depth Interview: A guide for designing and
conducting in-depth interview for evaluation input. In C. Boyce, & P. Neale,
P
Pathfinder International Tools Series: Monitoring and Evaluation - 2 (pp. 1-16).
Watertown: Pathfinder International. diwqtxtsixze7.cloudfront.net

Brady, M. K., & Cronin, J. J. (2001). Customer Orientation effect on Customer Service
S

Perceptions and Outcome Behaviours. Journal of Service Research, 3(3), 241-

251.10.1177/109467050133005

Brodie, B. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Customer Engagement: Conceptual
L

Domain, Fundamental Propositions and Implications for Research. 14(3),252-271.

doi: 10.1177/1094670511411703

Burke, Michael, J., Borucki, C. C., & Hurley, A. E. (1992). Reconceptualizing Psychological
Climate in a Retail Service Environment: A Multiple-Stakeholder Perspective.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77 (5): 717-729.doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.77.5.717

Busck, O., Knudsen, H., & Lind, J. (2010). The transformation of employee participation:
Consequences for the work environment. Economic and Industrial Democracy 31,
285-305. doi: 10.1177/0143831x09351212

Bushiri, C. P. (2014). The Impact of Working Environment on Employees Performance: The

Case of Institute of Finance Management in Dar Ers Salaam Region (Master's Thesis
The Open University of Tanzania). Retrieved from
http://repository.out.ac.tz/id/eprint/608

Carson, K. P., Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1991). Performance Appraisal as Effective
Management or Deadly Management Disease: Two Empirical Inestigations. Group
& Organization Management , 16(2): 143-59. doi: 10.1177/105960119101600203
 338

Chandrasekar, K. (2011). WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON

ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS.
Internationla Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1). doi:
http://www.ijecbs.com

Chen, P., & Choi, Y. (2007). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Study of Hospitality
Management. 20(6), 595-615. doi: 10.1108/09596110810892182

Choo, L. S. (2017). Collegue Support and Role Clarity in Promoting the Work Engagement of
Frontliners in Malaysian Hotels. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(4), 389-
405. doi: 10.1002/piq.21234

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative

Research. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publication.

R
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publication.

Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and
P
Extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68. doi: 10.1177/002224299205600304

Curwin, J., & Slater, R. (2008). Quantitative Methods for Business Decision. London,
England: Geraldine Lyons.
S

Davis, F. R. (1989). How Companies Define Their Mission. Long Range Planning, 22(1); 90-
97. doi: 10.1016/0024-6301(89)90055-1
L

Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (n.d.). Millennials at Work: What We Know and
What We Need to Do (If Anyting). ©Springer Science+Business Media, 25(2010).
doi: 10.10007/s10869-010-9177-2.

Deng, W. J., Yeh, M. L., & Sung, L. M. (2013). A customer satisfaction index model for
international tourist hotel: Integrating consumption emotion into the American
Customer satisfaction Index. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
35(2013), 133-140. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.05.010

Denzin, N. (2012). Triangulation 2.0 . Journal of Mixed Method Research, 6(2), 80-88. doi:
10.1177/1558689812437186

Douglas, C. A. (1997). Formal Mentoring in Organization. Greensboro N.C: Center for

Creative Leadership.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).
Perceived Supervisor Support: Contributions to Perceive Organizational Support
and Employee Retention. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002, 87(3), 565-573. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.565
 339

Erez, M., Earley, P. C., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). The Impact of Participation on Goal Acceptance
and Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1). doi: 10.5465/256061

Fairhurst, G. T. (2007). Discursive leadership: In Conversation with Leadership psychology.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Fang, E., Evan, R. K., & Zou, S. (2005). The moderating effect of goal-setting characteristics
on the sales control system-job performance relationship. Journal of Business
Research , 58(9), 1214-1222. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusre5.2004.03.006

Fauzi, y. (2017, April 4). Kwartal I 2017, Penjualan Industry Ritel Melorot 20 Persen (1st
Quarter 2017, Sales of Retail Industry dropped to 20%). CNN Indonesia. Retrieved
from CNNindonesia.com

Forne, F. F. (2014). Front-line employees-customer relationship experience: exploratory

case on mission identification in the spanish hospitality industry. Cuadernos de
Turismo, 36(2015), 197-218. doi: 10.6018/turismo.36.230961

R
Frey, K. A., Leighton, J. A., & Cecala, K. K. (2005). Buidling a Culture of service Excellence.
The Physician Executive, 31(6); 40-44. doi: sarch.proquest.com

Gallo, A. (2015). Analytic: A Refresher on Regression Analysis. Harvard Business Review.

P
Retrieved from hbr.org/2015/11/a-refresher-on-regression-analysis

Ganapathi, R., & Balaji, M. P. (2008). Effects of Working Environment on the Performance of
Executives. Asia Pacific Business Review, iv(3), 117-123. doi:
S

10.1177/097324700800400314

Gardner, W. L., & Martindo, M. J. (1988). Impression Management in Organization. 14 (2).

doi: 105465256497
L

Glienmorinsie, D. (2017). Retail Growth in Second Quarter 2017 is not Satisfying Yet.
Sindo.news.com. Retrieved from
https://ekbis.sindonews.com/read/1217084/34/pertumbuhan-industri-ritel-
kuartal-ii2017-belum-memuaskan-1498810602.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When "the show must go on": surface acting and deep acting as
determinant of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Management
Journal, 46(1), 86-96. doi: 10.5465/30040678

Grawitch, M. J., Gottschalk, M., & Munz, D. C. (2006). The Path to a Healthy Workplace A
Critical Review Linking Healthy Workplace Practices, Employee Well-being and
Organizational Improvement. American Psychological Association and the Society of
Consultacy Psychology, 58(3), 129-147. doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.129

Gronroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory,
11(3), 279-301. doi: 10.1177/1470593111408177

Guba, E. G. (1990). The Alternative Paradigm Dialog. In E. G. Guba, The Paradigm Dialog
(pp. 17-30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 340

Hair, Jr, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2003). Marketing Research Within a Changing
Information Environment. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Hall, A. T., Zinko, R., Perryman, A. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2009). Organizational Citizenship
Behavior and Reputation: Mediators in the Relationship Between Accountability
and Job Performance and Satisfaction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 15(4); 381-392. 10.1177/1548051809331504

Hamrin, S. (2016). Communicative Leadership: Fostering Co-worker Agency in Two Swedish

Business Organization. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 21(2);
213-229. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-05-2015-0025

Handayani, R. D. (2015). The Influence of work motivation and environment to the

performnace of library staff of ten November institute of technology (ITS) Surabaya.
Journal of Public Administration and Bureaucracy, 8(5), 35-42. doi:
10.25139/sng.v6i2.80

R
Harris, T. E., & Nelson, M. D. (2008). Applied Organizational Communication Theory and
Practice in Global Environment. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Taylor
& Francis Group.
P
Hau, L. N., Anh, P. N., & Thuy, P. N. (2016). The effect of interaction behaviours of service
frontliners on customer participation in the value co creation: a study of health care
service. CrossMark Springer, 11(2017, 253-277. doi: 10.1007/s11628-016-0307-4

Haynes, B. P. (2008). An Evaluation of the Impact of the Office Environment on Productivity.

S

Journal of Facilities, 26 (5/6). 178 - 19. doi: 10.1108/02632770810864970

Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and Reliability in Quantitative Studies. Evidence
Based Nursing Online First, 18(3). doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102129
L

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of Resources a New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.

American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: psynet.apa.org/buy/1989-29399-011

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Manage Heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Berkely:

University of California Press. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr=&id=whi61UWpoJ4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9
&dq=hochschild+the+managed+heart+commercialization&ots=A8AedP23lu&sig=DJ
weYNHK_OgX9DgScp2hXz8mNzY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=hochschild%20the%
20managed%20heart%20commercialization&f

Hopkin-Thompson, P. A. (2000). Colleagues Helping Collegues: Mentoring and Coaching.

National Association of Secondary School Principals, 84(617); 29-36. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019263650008461704

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. NY: Vintage
Book.
 341

Hox, J. J., & Boeije, H. R. (2005). Data Collection, Primary vs. Secondary. Encyclopedia of
Social Measurement vol 1. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/LENOVO/Downloads/hox_05_data+collection,primary+versus+seco
ndary.pdf

Hu, H.-H. S., Kandampully, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2008). Relationship and imapact of service
quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and image: an empirical study. The
Service Industries Journal, 29(2), 111-125.

Ilgen, D. R., & Favero, J. L. (1985). Limits in Generalization from Psychological Research to
Performance Appraisal Processes. Academy of Management Review, 10(2): 311-21.
doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1985.4278227

Ivanova-Gongne, M. (2015). Culture in business relationship interaction: an individual

perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 30(5), 608-615. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2013-0002

R
Jayaweera, T. (2015). Impact of Work Environmental factors on Job Performance, Mediating
Role of Work Motivation: A Study of Hotel Sector in England. Internation Journal of
Business and Management, 10(3), 1833-8119. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p271
P
Johansson, C., Miller, V. D., & Hamrin, S. (2011). Theories, Concepts, and Central
Communication Behaviors. Sundsvall: DEMICOM. Retrieved from https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:468707/FULLTEXT01.pdf
S

Johansson, C., Miller, V. D., & Hamrin, S. (2014). Conceptualizing communicative leadership.
Corrporate Communication: An International Journal, 19(2), 147-165. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-02-2013-0007
L

Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: satifiers and dissatisfiers.

International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53-71. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239510101536

Johnston, R. (2004). Towards better understanding of service excellence. Managing Service

Quality: an International Journal, 14(2/3): 124-133. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520410528554

Johnston, R. (2007). Insight into Service Excellence. In M. H. Gouthier, C. Coenen, H. S.

Schulze, & C. Wegmann, Service Excellence als Impulsgeber (pp. 17-35). Gabler.
Retrieved from httpw://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9544-5_2

Johnston, R., & Kong, X. (2011). The customer Experience: A Road Map for Improvement.
Managing Service Quality, 21(1), 5-24. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/09604521111100225

Karpen, I. O., & Bove, L. L. (2008). Linking S-D logic and marketing practice: Toward a
strategic service orientation. Otago Forum 2, 13, 213-237. Retrieved from
doi=10.1.1.508.1838&rep=rep1&type=pdf
 342

Kaufman, R. (2012). Uplifting Service: The Proven Path to Delighting Your Customers,
Colleagues, and Everyone Else You Meet. Dallas TX: SUCCESS.

Kelly, J. P., & Hise, R. T. (1980). Role conflict, Role Clarity, Job Tension and Job Satisfaction in
the Brand Manager Position. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 8(2),
120-137. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009207038000800204

Kottke, J., & Sharafinski, C. E. (1988). Measuring Perceived Supervisory and Organizational
Support. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(4), 1075-1079. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164488484024

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials's(Lack of) Attitude Problem: an
Empirical Examination of Generation Effect on Working Attitude. Springer Link,
25(2010), 265-279. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8.

Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, Z., & Buyruk, L. (2010). The Human Dimension: A Review of
Human Resources Management Issues in The Tourism and Hospitality Industry.

R
Sage, 15(2), 171-214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1938965510362871

Kusuma, H. (2017, July). Perjalanan 7-Eleven di RI, dari Booming Hingga Tutup (The Journey
of 7-Eleven in Indonesia, from Booming to Closing). Detik Finance. Retrieved from
P
http:/finance.detik.com/berita-ekonomi-bisnis/3545042/perjalanan-7-eleven-di-ri-
dari-booming-hingga-tutup.

Larsen, L., Deal, B., Adams, J., Kweon, B. S., & Tyler, E. (1998). Plants in the workplace: The
effect of plant density on productivity, attitude and perceptions. Environment and
S

Behaviour, 30(3), 261-281. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001391659803000301

Larson, B. V., & Steinman, R. B. (2009). Driving NFL Fan Satisaction and Return Intention
with Concession Service Quality. Services marketing Quarterly, 30(4), 418-428. doi:
L

https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960903199430

Larson, Jr, J. R. (1984). The Performance Feedback Process: A preliminary Model.

Organizational Behaviour & Human Performance, 33(1), 42-76. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90011-4

Leblebici, D. (2012). Impact of Workplace Quality on Employee's productivity: Case Study of

a Bank in Turkey. Journal of Business, Economics & Finance, 1(1); 2146-7943.
doi=10.1.1.1024.2329&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effects of control over office workspace on perceptions of
the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 323-333. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.001

Levers, M. J. (2013). Philosophical Paradigm, Grounded Theory, and Perspective on

Emergence. Sage Open, 3(4),1-6. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244013517243
 343

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1(2008), 3-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
9434.2007.0002.x

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San Fransisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.

Matahari Department Store. (2018). 2017 Annual Report Matahari Department Store.
Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.

Matahari Department Store. (2018). 2017 Voice of Customer Report. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Author.

Matahari Department Store (2017). Know Your Customer Report. Jakarta: Author.

Matahari Department Store. (2018). 2017 Voice of Customers Report. Jakarta, Indonesia:
Author.

Matahari Department Store (2017). Report MS Matahari. Jakarta, Indonesia. Author

R
McQuerrey, L. (2018, June 27). Ways to Increase Communication between Managers and
Employees. Chron.com. Retrieved from small business.Chron.com.

Miller, K. I. (2000). Common Ground from the Post-Positivist Perspective: From 'Straw
P
Person' Argument to Collaborative Coexistence. In S. R. Corman, & M. S. Poole,
Perspectives on Organizational Communication: Finding Common Ground (pp. 46-
67). New York, NY: Guilford.
S

Miller, K. I. (2008, June 5). Organizational Communication. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved
from The International Encyclopedia of Communication:
doi/abs/10.1002/9781405186407.wbieco018
L

Misbahuddin, & Hasan, I. (2014). Analisis Data Penelitian dengan Statistik (Research Data
Analysis Statistically. Jakarta, Indonesia: Bumi Aksara.

Modaff, D. P., DeWine, S., & Butler, J. (2007). Organizational Communication: Foundation,
Challenges, and Misunderstanding. Ohio, OH: Pearson.

Morgan, D. L. (2013). Pragmatism as a Paradigm for Social Research. Qualitative Inquiry,

20(8); 1045-1053. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1077800413513733

Morris, J. A., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). The dimension, antecedents, and consequences of
emotional labor. Management Review, 21(4), 986-1010. doi:
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1996.9704071861

Matahari Department Store (2017). Mystery shopping Report Matahari Department Store.
Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.

Matahari Department Store (2017). Mystery Shopping Report Matahari Department Store.
Jakarta, Indonesia: Author.
 344

Naharuddin, N. M., & Sadegi, M. (2013). Factors of Workplace Environment that Affect
Employees Performance: A Case Study of Miyazu Malaysia. International Journal of
Independent Research and Studies - IJIRS, 2(2), 66-78. doi:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290214

Oliver, R. L., Rust, R. T., & Varkee, S. (1997). Customer Delight: Faoundation, Findings, and
Managerial Insight. Journal of Retailing, 73(3): 311-336. doi:
9a1888d9fa49637f59d76209627afe0d.pdf

Ollukkaran, B. A., & Gunaseelan, R. (2012). A STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF WORK

ENVIRONMENT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE. Namex International Journal of
Management Research, 2(2), 70-85. doi: 2012_july_dec_10.pdf

Oswald, A. (2012, November). THE EFFECT OF WORKING ENVIRONMENT ON WORKERS

PERFORMANCE: THE CASE OF REPRODUCTIVE AND CHILD HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
IN TARIME DISTRICT. Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences. Tanzania,

http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/592
R
Africa: Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences. doi:

Parasuraman, A., Zeitham, V., & Berry, L. (1988). Sevqual: A multiple-item scale for
measuring perception. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-29. doi:
P
7d007e04d78261295e5524f15bef6837.pdf

Parsloe, E., & Leedham, M. (2009). Coaching and Mentoring Practical Conversations to
Improve Learning. London, England: Kogan Page.
S

Patrick, S., Christa, B., & Lothar A, S. (2018). Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and
Interpretation. Anasthesia and Analgesia, 126(5): 1763-1768. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864
L

Payne, G., & Payne, J. (2004). Key Concepts in Social Research. London, England: SAGE
Publication Ltd. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.id/books?hl=en&lr=&id=CeE2uW3B1_QC&oi=fnd&pg=PT1
&dq=payne+key+concepts&ots=1xuHOBtwrj&sig=dOiYMN67-
G9V0I2Bw5Kc3rNWnx0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=payne%20key%20concepts&f

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviours: a critical review of theoritical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research . Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563. doi:
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.262

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Schuler, R. S. (1983). Leader Expertise is a Moderator of
the Effect of Instrumental and Supportive Leader Behavior. Journal of
Management, 9(2), 173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014920638300900208

Pritchard, R. D., Roth, P. L., Jones, S. D., Galgay, P. J., & Watson, M. D. (1988). Designing a
Goal-Setting System to Enhance Performance: A Practical Guide. Organizational
Dynamic, 17(1); 69-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(88)90031-9
 345

Priyatno, D. (2017). Panduan Praktis Olah Data Menggunakan SPSS (Practical Guidance in
Data Processing Using SPSS). Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Penerbit ANDI.

Prue, D. M., & Fairbank, J. A. (1981). Performance Feedback in Organization Behavior

Management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3(1). doi:
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v03n01_01

Rashid, N. M., Sah, N. F., Ariffin, N. M., Ghani, W. W., & Yunus, N. N. (2016). The Influence
of Bank's Frontlines' Personality Traits on Job Performance. Procedia Economics and
finance, 37(2016): 65-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30094-6

Rhodes, C., & Beneicke, S. (2002). Coaching, mentoring and peer-networking: challenges for
the management of teacher profesional development in school. Journal of in-
service education, 28(2), 297-310. doi:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13674580200200184

Riadi, E. (2015). Metode Statistika Parametrik & Nonparametrik Untuk Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu

R
Sosial dan Pendidikan (Statistical Parametric & Non-Parametric Method for Social
and Educational Research) . Tangerang, Indonesia: PT Pustaka Mandiri.

Ripley, D. (2003). Methodology for determining employee perceptions of factors in the

P
work environment that impact on employee development and performance.
Human Resource Development International, 6(1), 85-100. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860110070192

Riyanto, S. (2016). Selling Yourself: Menang Bersaing Di Era MEA (Selling Yourself: Win the
S

Competition in MEA Era). Jakarta, Indonesia: Kaifa, MarkPlus.Inc.

Riyanto, S., Sutrisno, A., & Ali, H. (2017). The Impact of Working Motivation and Working
Environment on Employees Performance in Indonesia Stock Exchange. International
L

Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3), 342-348. doi:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5c29/f503edcdfc8ccb108ecd75414163997d0f21.
pdf

Rust, R., & Oliver, R. (2000). Should we delight the customer? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 28(1); 86-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281008

Rusyandi, D., Sule, E. T., Joeliaty, & Muizu, W. Z. (2016). Employee Engangement Impact the
Performance of Employees through the intention to Quit in Banking Sector
Bandung. Academic Research International, 7(4), 153-166. doi:
http://repository.ekuitas.ac.id/handle/123456789/185

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedent and Consequences of Employee Engagement. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169

Sedarmayanti. (2012). Human Resources and Work Productivity. Bandung, Indonesia:

Bandar Maju.
 346

Setyo, R., Adionia, & Ali, H. (2017). Effect of motivation and job satisfaction on the
performance of teachers in Mentari School Bintaro (MSB). International Journal:
Scholars Bulletin, 3(3), 83-91. doi: 10.21276/sb.2017.3.3.2

Singh, j. (2000). Performance productivity and quality of frontline employees in service

organizations. Journal of Marketing, 64(2): 15-34. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkg.64.2.15.17998

Snipes, L. R., Oswald, S. L., LaTour, M., & Arrmenakis, A. A. (2005). The effect of specific job
satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: an employee-level
analysis. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1330-1339. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.03.007

Stallworth, J., & Kleiner, B. (1996). Recent development in office design. Journal of Facilities,
14(1/2); 34-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/02632779610108512

Steckler, A., Mc Leroy, K. R., Goodman, R. M., Bird, S. T., & McCormick, L. (1992, Spring).

R
Toward Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: An Introduction. Health
Education Quarterly, 19(1): 1-8. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F109019819201900101
P
Sugiyono. (2006). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D (Quantitative
Qualitative Research Method and R&D). Bandung, Indonesia: CV, Alfabeta.

Taylor, R. (1990). Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient: A Basic Review. Journal of

Diagnostic Medical Sonography, 6(1), 35-39. doi:
S

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875647939000600106

Tetteh, E. K., Asiedu, C., Odei, G. A., Afful, C. B., & Akwaboah, L. (2012, June). WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE'S PERFORMANCE (A CASE STUDY
L

OF PRODUCE BUYING COMPANY, KUMASI) (doctoral dissertation, Christian Service

University College, Amrahia Ghana). Retrieved from Bachelor of Business
Administration - Thesis / Dissertation: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/37

Thurau, H. T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Are All Smile Created Equal?
How Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor Affect Service Relationship.
70(2006), 58-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjmkg.70.3.058

Totterdell, P., & Holman, D. (2003). Emotion Regulation in Customer Service Roles: testing a
Model of Emotional Labor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(1), 55-73.
doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1076-8998.8.1.55

Yap, J. E., Bove, L. L., & Beveland, M. B. (2009). Exploring the effect of different reward
program on in-role and extra role performance of retail sales associates. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, 12(3), 279-294. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750910963809

Yoon, M. H., Beatty, S. E., & Suh, J. (2001). The efffect of work climate on critical employee
and customer outcome: An employee-level analysis. International Journal of Service
 347

Industry Management, 12(5): 500-521. doi:

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006095

Zapf, D. (2002). Emotion work and psychological well-being A review of literature and some
conceptual consideration. Human Resource Management Review, 12(2002), 237-
268. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00048-7

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service Balancing
Customers Perception and Expectation. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Zweifel, H. A. (2010). Human Sigma Optimization: Engaging Employees an Customers

(Doctoral dissertation, University of St. thomas, Minnesota United States of
America) retrieved from https://ir.stthomas.edu/caps_ed_orgdev_docdiss/27.

R
P
S
L
 APPENDIX

TRANSKRIP FGD STORE MANAGER MATAHARI

Pewawancara : Baik selamat pagi, Bapak-Ibu semua

Audiens : Pagi..pagi
Pewawancara : Ee terima kasih atas kehadirannya, sudah meluangkan waktu untuk
membantu saya ee dalam melengkapi data untuk penelitian skripsi ee
tesis saya. Nah, tesis saya ee adalah berhubungan dengan ee
communication ee leadership..communicative leadership karena saya

R
major saya adalah di corporate communication, jadi nanti kita akan
membahas ee kurang lebih mengenai komunikasi dan leadership. Nah,
Bapak-Ibu mohon nanti ee ketika saya bertanya dijawabnya apa adanya
karena ini tidak ada hubungannya dengan PA
P
Audiens : [tertawa] Hahaha
Pewawancara : Dan jangan takut
Budi : […] Mesti dilihat PA
S

Maki : PA-nya udah keluar kok

Pewawancara : PA, iya. Terus kemudian ee jangan khawatir kalo tidak ee apa namanya
L

Maki : Saya jawab, bicara

Pewawancara : Nanti..bukan, kalo ee waduh ini kok kayaknya tidak sesuai dengan
instruksi atasan, bukan maksudnya bukan instruksi atasan, apa namanya
Maki : Oh, iya,istilahnya confidential, tidak bisa, tidak apa-apa
Pewawancara : Jangan khawatir karena saya tidak akan melaporkan ke atasan, jadi
kembali lagi ini hanya untuk ee apa hanya untuk [suara menutup pintu]
bahan penelitian saja, jadi dijamin aman.
Budi : [Tertawa] Hehe
Pewawancara : Dijamin sangat-sangat aman, okey. Ee jadi saya ingin yang apa adanya
saja intinya. Baik, ada pertanyaan sebelumnya?
Maki : Iya, sudah jelas.
Pewawancara : Pak Enda?
Endar : Iya, cukup, Bu.

346
Pewawancara : Cukup, ya. Sekarang kita ee mulai, ee Bapak-Ibu selama bekerja di
perusahaan Bapak-Ibu ya, ee atau mungkin gini dulu mulai, berapa tahun
Bapak-Ibu sudah bergabung di perusahaan ini?
Budi : Ee saya kurang lebih 23 tahun
Pewawancara : 23 ya Pak ya? Wow
Budi : Kalo inget Bu, ya, kalo ga salah hehe, 23 tahun
Dea : Saya 5 tahun
Pewawancara : 5 tahun?
Dea : Iya.
Endar : Saya udah 22 tahun
Pewawancara : Oh, beda setahun.
Endar
Maki
: Beda setahun.
: 25 tahun saya.
Pewawancara : 25 tahun?
R
P
Bapak Maki : Iya.
Pewawancara : Wow, Pak Maki luar biasa. Oke. Nah, selama Bapak/Ibu bekerja di
perusahaan ini, Bapak/Ibu apakah sudah mengetahui mengenai tujuan
S

perusahaan?
Audiens : Sudah. Sudah.
L

Pewawancara : Sudah, ya? Kira-kira apa, Pak, tujuannya perusahaan saat ini? Mungkin
tadi Pak Endar?
Endar : Iya, untuk tujuan perusahaan sendiri yang pasti dia punya target, ya.
Pewawancara : Target, ya.
Endar : Target dimana ee kita juga harus memberikan kontribusi untuk
mencapai target.
Pewawancara : Oke.
Endar : Selain itu juga perusahaan ingin growth, ya, growth dibandingkan tahun
lalu. Targetnya adalah 2 digit.
Pewawancara : Oke. Oke. Ada lagi mungkin?
Maki : Kalo saya melihat dari visi-misi, visinya adalah ee memberikan fashion
yang terbaik berdasarkan kualitas dan meningkatkan ee taraf hidup
untuk ee customer. Di raker biasanya dibahas sekilas nanti dilanjutkan
meeting regional Bu. Biasanya dibahas lagi tentang goal perusahaan

347
Pewawancara : Oke.
Maki : Dan misinya adalah memberikan ee experience kepada customer,
kemudian juga membuat harga terjangkau, kemudian misi yang lainnya
adalah memberikan ee panduan fashion sehingga MATAHARI dijadikan
ee barometer atau destinasi tren untuk fashion buat customer.
Pewawancara : Baik. Jadi Bapak paham ya Pak ya?
Maki : Paham betul.
Pewawancara : Paham betul ya Pak, ya?
Maki : Betul.
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo untuk tim Bapak bagaimana? Tim Bapak/Ibu kira-kira kalo
tadi rata-rata Bapak/Ibu sudah memahami mengenai objek ee objektif
perusahaan atau tujuan perusahaan, ya. Kalo tim Bapak/Ibu?
Budi
R
: Sejauh ini sih kalo tim di store saya pikir sih tujuan perusahaan sudah
clear Bu. Kita ke tim kita masing-masing sudah sosialisasi sehingga
tujuan daripada manajemen pun juga sampe ke level paling bawah,
seharusnya sudah sampai. Jadi intinya mereka pun juga pasti ke arah
P
yang sama dengan kita. Tentunya dengan arahan kita dan manajemen Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Kalo Bapak/Ibu sendiri mengetahui tujuan perusahaan itu
darimana?
S

Maki : Langsung
Pewawancara: Maksudnya pak?
L

Maki : Kalo kami langsung dari manajemen, apa yang disampaikan.

Pewawancara : Langsungnya bagaimana, Pak?
Maki : Ee maksudnya hasilnya, Bu?
Pewawancara : Bukan, tadi Bapak mengatakan
Maki : Visi misi, tujuan perusahaan?
Pewawancara : Iya, tujuan perusahaan itu tau langsung dari manajemen.
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Langsungnya itu bagaimana?
Maki : Melalui sosialisasi tahapan kepada struktur pimpinan, pertama
mungkin dari BOD, BOD mungkin dari para VOC, kemudian disampaikan
di tim BOD disampaikan ke regional yang manajer, kemudian
disampaikan dibikin surat manajer. Dan ini adalah satu ee program visi-
misi perusahaan yang sekarang sedang dikonsentrasikan atau sedang
difokuskan. Nah, dari situ kami langsung menyampaikan kepada tim

348
 staff, oleh tim staff kita bedah satu per satu dengan ada tahapan-tahapan
dimana disana ada ee tiga pilar yaitu dikuatkan customer experience,
kemudian mengenai numbering, kemudian juga ambience. Nah, itu
adalah salah satu juga yang […] untuk keberhasilan visi-misi atau tujuan
perusahaan tadi. Di numbering kita bisa dibedah lagi disitu berkaitan
dengan masalah data, baik itu data untuk toko atau untuk supervisor,
data untuk temen-temen SA, SPG semuanya harus fokus dan memahami.
Kemudian berkaitan dengan experience, kita juga harus bisa memahami
bagaimana keinginan customer karena sekarang sangat ee banyak
dengan adanya program-program yang dilakukan para kompetitor baik
itu dengan online shop, kemudian juga dengan marketing yang begitu
gencar di ee media sosial dan ini MATAHARI juga harus bisa
menyesuaikan. Kemudian untuk yang lainnya, bagaimana juga semua
untuk bisa mendukung ambience toko secara keseluruhan, baik secara
rating, baik secara observation merchandising dengan visual VM-nya,
kemudian juga dengan ee kenyamanan pada saat di area supaya sirkulasi

R
dan sebagainya tidak terganggu, kemudian juga sarana pra-sarana,
kemudian juga bagaimana dengan proses ending transaksi di kasir
sehingga dia sangat menyenangkan. Nah, itu yang ee kami sampaikan di
saat meeting umum, di saat meeting staff, dan itu harus kita ulang-ulang
P
supaya mereka tidak lupa dan selalu fokus sehingga kapanpun mereka
akan selalu menjalankan program dari tujuan perusahaan tersebut.
Pewawancara : Baik. Jadi secara ee singkat berarti Bapak mendapatkan itu dari atasan
S

Bapak/Ibu ya?
Audiens : Yes. Iya. Betul.
Pewawancara : Dari regional manager, ya?
L

Maki : Betul.
Pewawancara : Yang mana regional manager mendapatkan dari para BOD, ya?
Maki : Iya, betul.
Pewawancara : Baik. Ee cara regional manager menyampaikan kepada Bapak/Ibu itu
melalui tadi meeting ya Pak, ya?
Audiens : Yes. Betul
Pewawancara: Tujuan perusahaan tadi sudah spesifik belum?
Makky : Seperti tadi saya katakan. Kalo menurut saya tujuan perusahaan ato
goal tadi sudah sangat spesifik bu karena kami langsung dari
manajemen, apa saja yang harus dicapai dalam tahun ini sudah
disampaikan. Karena biasanya Melalui sosialisasi tahapan kepada
struktur pimpinan, pertama mungkin dari BOD, kemudian disampaikan
ke Regional Manajer angka-angka sudah ada semua, kemudian
disampaikan ke Manager. Nah, dari situ kami langsung menyampaikan

349
 kepada tim staff / supervisor dengan angka2 kami jadi sudah spesifik
sekali menurut saya”.
Suhendar : Biasanya kita juga taro di madding bu jadi sewaktu2 anak2 bisa melihat
tujuan perusahaan seperti apa detilnya bagaimana
Pewawancara : Sosialisasinya seperti itu ya. Kalo ee Bapak menyampaikan kepada
supervisor itu melalui meeting juga?
Audiens : Iya, sama, betul.
Pewawancara : Baik. Nah, ee berarti kalo mengenai tujuan perusahaan sudah clear, dari
sisi kesulitan gimana bisa dicapai?
Makky : Menurut saya saat ini target yang diberikan cukup sulit dan cenderung
sulit untuk dicapai. Padahal ini sangat mempengaruhi semangat anak2
karena ujung2 nya adalah insentives
Suhendar
R
: Sebenarnya company goal yang ada sudah jelas dan baik sehingga tim
kita juga bisa terarah, mereka juga bisa fokus, dan kita juga bisa lebih
detil memberikan kuasa kepada mereka supaya mereka tidak terlalu
jauh menyimpang dan sesuai dengan harapan yang kita sampaikan. Tapi
saat ini sepertinya terlalu susah untuk mencapainya”
P
Dea :Untuk goal tersebut menurut saya sudah cukup sulit. Ada beberapa yang
bisa mencapainya tapi ada beberapa yang tidak tidak bisa
S

Pewawancara: Sekarang mengenai tanggung jawab dan tugas Bapak/Ibu semua, apakah
Bapak/Ibu sudah memahami juga tugas dan tanggung jawab Bapak/Ibu
L

sebagai ee manajemen, perwakilan manajemen ya

Maki : Iya, Betul.
Pewawancara : Itu ee penyampaiannya bagaimana Pak tugas dan tanggung jawabnya?
Endar : Iya, kita sebagai leader itu harus bisa mendelivery ee ekspektasi dari
perusahaan, iya, terutama kita meeting dengan para staff ya, kita
informasikan sejelas mungkin apa yang sudah kita dapatkan dari
regional manager, dan juga kita tujuan perusahaan itu biasanya kan
setiap tahun rutin raker, Nah, itu semua kita ee deliver ke supervisor, dan
kita minta mereka commit untuk melaksanakannya. Jadi mereka harus
bisa mendelivery lagi untuk level dibawahnya
Budi : Terbuka lah ya bu
Dea :Iya, supaya mereka sama dengan ekspektasi saya pastinya. Misalkan
ekspektasi saya untuk tim bisa achieve target di atas manajemen 110
dan mereka gimana caranya ya kita harus beritahu, kita harus lead juga
ke mereka ya strateginya juga kita sharing, kalo perlu ya mereka itu
bener-bener paham seperti apa yang kita pahami”.

350
Pewawancara : Oke. Berapa sering sih direview?

Makky : Setahu saya sekarang lebih flexible jadi review dan revisi bisa terjadi
dalam kurun waktu kurang dari satu tahun”
Dea : Betul bu, perubahannya biasanya setahun sekali tapi kadang2 ada revisi
di tengah jalan

Jadi ee mengenai tugas dan tanggung jawab tetap Bapak/Ibu memberitahukan kepada
para supervisor dibawahnya.
Audiens : Iya.

Dea : Deliver lagi ke bawah.

Pewawancara : Deliver lagi ke bawah, ya.
R
Pewawancara : Nah, kemudian ee setelah itu supervisor itu paham mereka
P
Endar : Iya, dan kita sebagai leader harus kontrol dan juga evaluasi hasil
pencapaian atau strategi itu sudah berjalan atau masih ada evaluasi lagi.
Pewawancara : Baik. Nah, ee apakah para supervisor itu akhirnya ee betul-betul
S

memahami tugas dan tanggung jawab mereka?

Endar : Harus memahami.
Pewawancara : Harus memahami, ya.
L

Maki : Iya.
Pewawancara : Ee biasanya ee proses pemahaman itu membutuhkan berapa lama, Pak?
Budi : Ketika kita mendelivery suatu ekspektasi, tugas atau tanggung jawab ke
tim kita, kita pun sudah langsung on the spot Bu, kita guidance mereka di
area, kita lakukan eksekusi, tidak pakai planning2 dulu langsung
implementasi. sehingga mereka pun juga gak..gak cuma hanya secara ee
konsep dia dapetin materinya, tetapi mereka juga pun tau pada saat
eksekusi di lapangan benar dan arahannya memang seperti itu dari
manajemen, saya pikir begitu.
Pewawancara : Baik, baik. Ee kalo tadi menurut Bapak kan sebenernya mereka itu
memahami ya, ee penyampaiannya juga Bapak memanggil. Bagaimana
dengan para supervisor di bawah Bapak? Apakah mereka melakukan hal
yang sama, persis seperti yang Bapak lakukan, Bapak/Ibu lakukan
kepada bawahan? Jadi kepada supervisor level, ya. Itu bagaimana?
Maki : itu cek and recheck, check on the spot langsung.

351
Pewawancara : Oh, oke, baik.
Maki : Kita sebagai leader ya harus cek lagi.
Pewawancara : Ngecek ke para front liner?
Budi : Iya, betul.
Maki : Kami akan cek front liner-nya langsung dan melihat apakah mereka
sudah paham, pertama kita tanya karena biasanya pemahaman mereka
mungkin beda-beda. Dan juga mungkin pada saat mereka meeting
counter atau meeting umum, mungkin tidak semuanya mereka bisa
fokus, jadi kita harus check and recheck lagi supaya memastikan bahwa
memang mereka sudah paham akan tugas mereka maupun tujuan
perusahaan. Nah kalau ada yang tidak paham akan tugas, kita akan
panggil supervisornya, kenapa mereka ini kok belum tau apakah mereka
pada saat penyampaian / briefing tidak masuk atau memang mereka
tidak paham, kita cross checknya ke leader-nya

R
Pewawancara : Ooh, oke. Baik. Nah sekarang kita beralih ke performance feedback, ya.
Performance feedback itu ee bukan..bukan ee performance appraisal ya
P
Bapak/Ibu ya, bukan performance appraisal tetapi ini adalah feedback
mengenai performa ee yang rutin lah ya, jadi bukan yang setahun sekali
ya, tapi kalo memang ee nanti kita..ketika kita bicara memang di
perusahaan ini belum ada yang rutin, adanya yang tahunan, ya tidak apa-
S

apa, tahunan seperti performance appraisal tadi, ya. Oke. Ee biasanya

Bapak/Ibu mendapatkan feedback dari atasan?
Audiens : Iya, betul.
L

Pewawancara : Itu berapa kali dalam setahun? Setahun sekali?

Audiens : Setahun sekali.
Budi : Setahun sekali. Minimal setahun sekali, Bu ada performance appraisal,
disitu feedback diberikan. Nanti dikumpulkan di HRD
Pewawancara : Minimal setahun sekali? Oke, baik.
Maki : Tapi kalo feedback secara operation itu bisa day to day, Bu, bisa
mungkin melalui media sosial seperti Whatsaap atau ee email, atau saat
visit ya feedback mungkin menanyakan tentang progress sales kenapa
growth, kenapa minus growth, itu kalo feedback performance yang
berkaitan dengan sales ya Bu, ya. Kemudian mungkin hal lain mungkin
dengan sedikit bisa juga, atau mungkin dengan performance kita punya
ee kondisi toko itu yang sering dilihat. Tapi kalo untuk feedback secara
keseluruhan misal, itu dilakukan di setiap setahun sekali.
Pewawancara : Oke.

352
Maki : Tapi untuk feedback performance yang berkaitan dengan operation
entah itu sales, entah itu visual, entah itu mungkin berkaitan dengan man
power atau juga dengan ee divisi lain berkaitan dengan koperasi, nah itu
selalu ada diingatkan, bagaimana perkembangannya, bagaimana
progressnya, bagaimana updatenya.
Pewawancara : Baik, jadi ee yang berhubungan dengan operational itu
Maki : Iya, itu selalu ada.
Budi : Ada feedbacknya.
Endar : “Kalau di saya misal management mnt kita fokus di hal A karena misal
sedang bermasalah sedikit, kita sebagai pimpinan mengingatkan, terus
menanyakan bagaimana antisipasi. Kalo ada berkaitan dengan case
tersebut masih belum bagus itu menjadi perfomance feedback yang
harus diperbaiki lagi untuk tim kita. Begitu, Bu

Audiens
R
Pewawancara : Baik. Nah, kembali lagi ke yang tadi Pak, ya, yang Bapak katakan
performance feedback itu setahun sekali itu kan untuk yang performance
appraisal seperti tadi saya katakan
: Yes, betul.
P
Pewawancara : Nah, berarti dalam setahun Bapak/Ibu kan punya ee tujuan supaya saya
bisa mendapatkan performance yang bagus, yang nanti dinilai setahun
sekali itu, kan Bapak/Ibu harus melakukan ABCD,
S

Audiens : Iya. Iya.

Pewawancara : Nah, apakah ini direview setiap misalnya 3 bulan sekali atau 6 bulan
L

sekali, itu ada review terstruktur?

Audiens : Iya. Ada. Ada.
Pewawancara : Berapa itu sekali?
Maki : Iya, biasanya kan dari regional sendiri punya..punya strategi sendiri
untuk regionalnya, contoh kayak yang sekarang mungkin di Jakarta I ee
untuk Imlek ini event dia mengadakan acara barongsai, terus itu kan
akan direview gimana untuk traffic dampaknya ke toko. Yang kedua
dengan acara Chinos, itu setiap harinya harus report, berapa
penjualannya itu akan direview. Itu feedback performance sih
sebenarnya itu bisa anytime, bisa kapan aja, iya, dan untuk yang ee yang
satu tahun itu sebenarnya adalah performance untuk annual, nah tapi
untuk performance feedback, itu kapanpun bisa dilakukan memang pada
saat performance dari store ke store itu terjadi penurunan atau tidak
growth, atau memang ee suatu yang acara sudah dicreate sama regional
tapi tidak sukses atau mungkin sukses, itu juga akan dievaluasi.

353
Pewawancara : Oke. Ee berarti ee Bapak/Ibu tadi mendapatkan sesi feedback tadi
sebenarnya bisa kapan pun ya?
Audiens : Iya. Betul.
Pewawancara : Nah, apakah Bapak/Ibu juga melakukan hal yang sama kepada bawahan
Bapak/Ibu?
Audiens : Iya. Pasti. Harus.
Maki : Itu tergantung […] urgennya, misal aja kita fokus di sales, itu harus by
day activity mereka, kita harus tau. Kita bisa liat disitu, apa yang mereka
lakukan, karena tidak semua supervisor itu sama, jadi ini memang kita
harus bisa memberikan guidance ke mereka bagaimana melakukan
tugasnya dengan baik dan tetep kita harus memberikan semangat, dan
ini yang kadang-kadang terkendala, mungkin tidak semuanya bisa lancar,
bisa diterapkan oleh mereka maka butuh kesabaran, nah kita diuji
leadershipnya disitu, Bu, dan tim”.
Dea R
: Kami disini harus memahami jobnya mereka supaya kami juga bisa
menjelaskan ke mereka ketika mereka tidak sesuai dengan standard
yang ada misal tidak boleh jutek pas kita lihat mereka jutek ke customer
P
berarti personality nya harus dirubah supaya lebih ramah. Nah itu kita
infokan baik ke supervisor atopun ke anak-anaknya”.
S

Pewawancara : Betul. Nah, ee kalo tadi Bapak menerapkan hal yang sama kepada para
supervisor, bagaimana supervisor kepada front liner? Apakah mereka
juga melakukan ee tadi secara reguler?
L

Endar : Kita juga lakukan ke supervisor kita dengan harapan jika kita
melakukan kepada supervisor, mereka melakukan hal yang sama ke
timnya. Jadi tidak perlu menunggu setahun, tidak perlu catat mencatat
langsung saja ketika ada yg perlu difeedback kita langsung feedback
Pewawancara : Baik. Kemudian sekarang ee melihat kepada atasan Bapak/Ibu, ya.
Bapak/Ibu merasa atasan Bapak/Ibu sudah memberikan feedback itu
secara jelas dan transparan?
Audiens : Jelas. Jelas.
Pewawancara : Cukup jelas, ya. Efisien, Pak?
Audiens : Efisien. Sangat efisien.

Pewawancara: Biasanya dalam feedback itu formal atau informal?

Dea : Biasanya yang formal itu pas meeting staff dan yang tahunan, kalau
yang informal pas saya keliling counter biasanya langsung

354
Budi : Iya sama
Pewawancara: Setelah di feedback bisanya perubahan tim atau bapak ibu bagiamana?
Makky : Biasanya apa yang kita catat dalam PA itu untuk catatan apakah ada
perubahan. Dulu kan kita setahun dua kali jadi PA semester 1 kan kita sampaikan ke
staff nah di semester 2 mereka harus sudah harus lebih baik”
Suhendar : Iya bu, dulu kita ada PA semesteran, itu untuk menilai apa ada
improvement dari semester 1 ke semester 2 baik dari sisi sales maupun
personal. Tapi sekarang setahun hanya sekali

Pewawancara: Bagaimana sih penerimaan anak2 terhadap feedback itu sendiri?

Budi : Kalau menerima feedback tergantung anaknya mungkin bu, kalau yang
kritis ya pasti akan minta penjelasan lebih”.
Dea
Makky
: Iya betul bu”
R
: Kalau atasan kita jelas dan sangat efisien dalam memberikan feedback
menurut saya tinggal bagaimana kita follow up nya”.
P
Pewawancara: Kalau tentang problem solving decision making. Bagaimana pimpinan
S

Bapak Ibu atu Bapak Ibu sendiri dalam menyelesaikan masalah? Apakah
ada melibatkan karyawan?
Makky : Biasanya dari pusat bu, kita tinggal jalanin. Meskipun sekarang agak
L

mending kadang2 kita diikutkan meeting untuk membuat keputusan tapi

jarang sih
Pewawancara : Sangat efisien, ya? Oke, baik. Sekarang kita bicara mengenai ee
congruity. Ee congruity ini biasanya ee berhubungan dengan ee
keseimbangan didalam ee perusahaan misalnya mengenai gender, tidak
ada ee kalo ee laki-laki lebih berkuasa, kemudian ‘oh kalo agama tertentu
gitu berkuasa’ misalnya. Nah, kalo di perusahaan Bapak/Ibu, ee apakah
gender itu mempengaruhi?
Budi : Mempengaruhi apa, Bu?
Pewawancara : Mempengaruhi ee apa namanya
Endar : Kinerja perusahaan
Pewawancara : Iya, misalnya mempengaruhi karir.
Budi : Oh, gitu. saya pikir sih semua kesempatan sama Bu, kalo dari sisi ee
kesempatan untuk berkarir di mata perusahaan, baik begitu laki-laki

355
 maupun wanita, dan kita semua di perusahaan juga ee tidak dari sisi
perusahaan juga tidak melihat ee dari golongan tertentu, atau dari suku
tertentu, atau dari agama tertentu, dan mereka semua dapat kesempatan
yang sama dari sisi ee haknya, Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, jadi sebenarnya sama ya. Ee tapi apakah pria lebih banyak yang
dipromosikan daripada perempuan? Kalo saya melihat ini hanya satu
wanita, tiganya..
Endar : Tidak, Bu.
Pewawancara : Bagaimana Pak?
Endar : Melihat dari kemampuan yang bersangkutan. Ini mengacu kepada
filosofi yang tidak mengenal ras, golongan, suku, agama. Jadi semua
diberikan kesempatan yang sama, karena melihat MATAHARI siapapun
yang punya potensi dan mereka memang mampu, kita akan selalu
dipromosikan, tidak melihat laki, tidak melihat perempuan, tidak melihat

Pewawancara : Oke.
Endar
R
usia. Jadi betul-betul diberikan kesempatan.

: Seperti sekarang sedang ada program untuk karir dari koordinator ke

P
supervisor, supervisor ke manager assistant, semuanya diberikan
kesempatan. Tidak hanya khusus laki-laki karena mungkin dia ee […]
man atau […] woman, semuanya sama. Jadi sangat sangat ee ee baik tidak
hanya jenjang karir di perusahaan kami ini, ya, dan bahkan sampai
S

mereka jadi regional, dan kita juga melihat eksternal internal, kalo
memang mereka mampu dan punya kompeten ya diberikan kesempatan
untuk karir berikutnya.
L

Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Jadi ini tidak mewakili ya, Pak, ya?
Audiens : Oh, tidak, tidak.
Pewawancara : Karena kan cuma satu.
Dea : Semua sama.
Pewawancara : Semua sama, ya. Baik.
Budi : Itu juga kami juga udah jelas Bu, pada saat mereka yang mempunyai
potensi, semua diikutkan dalam proses tahapan yang sama, artinya
mengikuti tes yang sama, jadi gak ada tes yang berbeda. Nah, itu yang
lebih riil, jadi kalo kita tuh tidak melihat ee dari sisi gendernya.
Pewawancara : Baik. Iya, sekarang kita bicara mengenai defined process. Defined
process itu adalah misalnya ee pekerjaan-pekerjaan didalam perusahaan
untuk mau level ee front liner, supervisor itu didokumentasikan. Jadi
proses-proses yang ada, sistem yang ada itu didokumentasikan.
Endar : Iya, iya.

356
Pewawancara : Begitu, ya. Nah, ee apakah pekerjaan-pekerjaan para front liner atau
pokoknya dibawah Bapak/Ibu itu sudah didokumentasikan, di
perusahaan ini ya?
Budi : Kalo di..yang jelas kita melakukan dokumentasi pada saat ee job
yang..yang di front liner itu pada saat kita sedang melakukan stock […]
biasanya, nah kalo kita lakukan stock […] itu biasanya kita kan ee untuk
riil update ee informasi ke tadi review ke regional, jadi kita foto biasanya
kita kirim, direport kita lakukan hal tersebut.
Pewawancara : Oke, maksudnya dokumentasi bukan difoto.
Budi : Oh, jadi apa tuh, Bu?
Pewawancara : Tapi misalnya didokumentasikan itu dibuat secara manual, ada
misalnya ee supervisor.
Maki : Oh, iya […] maksud Ibu.
Endar : MOT bukan?
R
Pewawancara : Ya misalnya saya supervisor, saya supervisor misalnya di Waltmann,
saya tugasnya apa sih, jadi sudah ada buku manualnya
P
Maki : Manualnya, SOP?
Pewawancara : Buku manualnya untuk si supervisor ini, oh kalo saya demand saya
harus paham ini..ini..ini, saya kerjakan
S

Budi : Jobdesknya?
Pewawancara : Tidak hanya jobdesk, jadi proses-prosesnya
L

Budi : Oh, proses-prosesnya?

Pewawancara : Iya, ketika dia ditugaskan ke ee ekspedisi, kan dia kan otomatis tidak
paham nih
Maki : Betul
Pewawancara : Terus ini lho dokumentasinya, jadi manualnya, kemudian jobdesknya,
jadi sebenarnya tidak..tidak hanya jobdesk saja, jadi kalo
Endar : Semua yang berkaitan operation misal ekspedisi
Pewawancara : Iya, misalnya itu di jobdesk, misalnya setiap barang datang harus dicek
apakah ee sama, nah di manualnya atau didokumentasi, itu cara
ngeceknya bagaimana, nah itu semua sudah didokumentasikan.
Maki : Maksudnya kayak SOP mungkin, Bu?
Pewawancara : Iya, SOP lebih

357
Maki : Kami ada itu, semuanya di bagian ada, di ekspedisi bilamana supervisor
ada tugas di [ladies], kalo area sama, kemudian bilamana mereka
bertugas di […] supervisor atau di HR supervisor, itu semua sudah ada,
begitu juga mengenai proses pekerjaan yang lain diluar operation,
misalnya di koperasi atau di VM, itu semuanya ada. Jadi mereka sudah
ada tuntunan untuk melakukan proses terhadap pekerjaan yang menjadi
tanggung jawabnya. Nah prosesnya nanti itu tergantung dari
supervisornya mengenai pemahaman, nah kami disini akan
mengingatkan kembali bilamana ada penyimpangan atau tidak sesuai,
kami disini harus memahami juga jobnya mereka supaya kami juga bisa
menjelaskan ke mereka sehingga kami tidak salah memberikan tuntunan
kepada mereka.
Pewawancara : Oke, jadi sebenarnya sudah ada ya?
Audiens : Sudah ada, sudah jelas.
Pewawancara : Oke, tapi ini kemarin
Maki : Semua bagian itu ada,
Pewawancara : Betul. Dalam survey
R
P
Maki : Proses kasir […] ada
Pewawancara : Ee memang nilainya tidak, bukannya jelek, tapi masih di tahap yang ee
biasa
S

Endar : Kurang?
Budi : Standar?
L

Pewawancara : Ee biasa, standar. Kan kalo PA itu standarnya adalah

Budi : Tiga?
Pewawancara : Minimal 3 itu adalah sampe 75 ya?
Budi : Iya
Maki : Ee 5, Bu. Bukan 75, 1-2-3-4-5. Maksudnya kalo di PA appraisal. Maksud
Ibu PA yang mana?
Pewawancara : Iya, 3 itu dari angka
Endar : Iya, 75 sampe
Budi : Iya.
Pewawancara : 3, 75 sampe 8..
Endar : Sampe 9..
Budi : Sampe 95 kalo ga salah

358
Endar : 95, ya?
Budi : 95 kalo gak salah
Pewawancara : Kalo 4 baru
Endar : 85 ya?
Pewawancara : Sampe 85 kalo gak salah. Iya, nah ini masih di angka 72
Endar : 75?
Pewawancara : 72
Maki : Oh, 72
Pewawancara : Berarti masih kurang
Maki : Masih kurang, mesti diatas 90 ya Bu
Pewawancara : Berarti ee para ee ini
Audiens : Supervisor, SA? R
Pewawancara : Mau SA maupun ee supervisor
P
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Ee mereka masih belum
S

Maki : Memahami?
Pewawancara : Mendapatkan
Maki : Oh..
L

Pewawancara : Manual sebagai pedoman dalam tugas sehari-hari

Maki : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Oke. Dan mereka juga ee apa namanya, belum mendapatkan
dokumentasi tersebut.
Maki : Oke. Iya, iya, Bu.
Pewawancara : Nah, ini bagaimana menurut Bapak/Ibu?
Endar : Sebenarnya sih gini Bu ee di..di MATAHARI sendiri kan memang sudah
jelas dan sudah perusahaan yang profesional yang sudah ee membuat
yang namanya SOP dan MOT, nah itu sudah jelas, memang itu untuk
secara global ya, global, dan apa, tugas dan tanggung jawab mereka, terus
kemudian apa yang boleh mereka lakukan dan apa yang tidak, dan kita
juga ada..ada ditambah BP, tapi untuk detailnya tugas memang ee itu
belum ada dokumentasinya, memang baru secara global, ya, dan itupun
kita pasti akan dibantu dengan divisi..divisi training..divisi training
khususnya untuk level supervisor dan koordinator, tapi untuk SA sendiri

359
 itu adalah tugas dari kita. Ya kurang lebih memang yang dibutuhkan di
SA sendiri apa sih, contohnya customer service, display, [terima barang]
nah itu, nah itu yang memang tugas dari leader yang harus memberikan
ee training kepada mereka grade 1.
Pewawancara : Baik. Sekarang kita masuk kepada leader ataupun supervisor support.
Jadi supervisor ini tidak harus menga..mengacu kepada ee jabatan
supervisor ya, supervisor disini adalah leader maksudnya ya. Supervisor
support berarti support atasan kepada bawahan, intinya seperti itu ya.
Nah, ee kalo menurut Bapak/Ibu ya, Bapak/Ibu apakah ee bebas kapan
saja bisa meminta bantuan kepada atasan?
Audiens : Iya.
Maki : Kalo saya melihat daripada kondisi ee permasalahan, kalau seandainya
kita bisa take care, ya kita bisa lakukan sendiri dengan tim. Tapi kalau
tidak bisa dan memang itu bukan kapasitas saya, maka saya akan minta

Pewawancara : Oke.
Maki
R
untuk disupport atau bantuan dari atasan.

: Contoh mungkin kebijakan yang berkaitan dengan masalah sewa

P
bazaar, masalah permasalahan developer yang terutama under LIPPO ini
kan sulit nih, Bu, jadi mungkin kami kadang-kadang saya meminta
bantuan atasan, nah atasan akan langsung ke management sampai ke
direktur. Meskipun tidak semua bisa kita dapatkan tapi beberapa kali
S

atasan saya berhasil mengegolkan apa yang dibutuhkan dan diharapkan

toko
Pewawancara : Oke.
L

Budi : Itu Bu kalo dalam hal ee bawahan atau supervisor tim kita itu ingin
meminta ee ee mendapatkan support dari kita, Pada dasarnya sih kita
siap support mereka, Bu, artinya tatkala supervisor kita memang
terbentur suatu kendala di operasional dan mereka tidak bisa
menyelesaikannya, pasti kita akan memberikan suatu solusi dimana
solusi tersebut mungkin bisa membantu mereka didalam menyelesaikan
tugasnya sehari-hari ataupun aktivitas pekerjaannya atau tanggung
jawabnya sehari-hari gitu.
Pewawancara : Baik. Jadi kalau seandainya nih, tadi saya katakan ee setiap saat adalah
maksudnya atasan Bapak/Ibu itu misalnya Bapak/Ibu ketika
menemukan masalah, kebetulan itu adalah jam 09 malam, dan
Bapak/Ibu tidak bisa menyelesaikan sendiri karena itu diluar wewenang
Bapak/Ibu misalnya, apakah pada saat jam 09 malam itu Bapak/Ibu
menelpon misalnya ya, itu langsung mendapatkan respon atau
bagaimana?
Maki : Itu tadi, pertama kondisi daripada permasalahannya

360
Dea : Betul
Budi : Iya, Betul
Maki : Kalo saya melihat daripada kondisi permasalahan, kalau seandainya
kita bisa take care, ya kita bisa lakukan sendiri dengan tim. Tapi kalau
tidak bisa dan memang itu bukan kapasitas saya, maka saya akan minta
untuk disupport atau bantuan dari atasan. Contoh lain, kemarin kami
mendapatkan musibah yang waktu itu ada kebakaran di AHU itu mau
tidak mau harus bisa urgensi sekali datang ke toko, dan begitupun juga
saya, sama. Saat dimintain dan itu saya teralami, saya harus balik. Setelah
itu saya melaporkan ke Ibu Linda yang dimana beliau merespon dan
beliau datang jam 02 dini hari, Bu. Jadi memberikan semangat kepada
kami sehingga kami pun juga bisa lebih tenang, tim juga bisa lebih tenang,
begitu juga saya bisa lebih tenang. Tim juga bisa lebih tenang, begitu juga
saya bisa lebih tenang karena […] saya, gitu Bu.

Endar
: Sama R
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Apakah sama dengan Bapak/Ibu?
Dea&Budi
: Kalo saya punya pengalaman, mungkin beda ya antara Jakarta dan luar
P
pulau. Ya luar pulau kan memang regional tidak bisa langsung check on
the spot, mungkin regional akan membantu pastinya atasan kita akan
bantu ya, untuk kejadian check on the spot seperti yang Pak Maki
sampaikan kebakaran saya juga pernah pengalaman, dan kita harus take
S

over, tentunya dengan minta petunjuk dari regional, dan itu siap kapan
pun, pasti disupport.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik, baik. Nah sekarang kalo, ini kembali lagi masih Bapak/Ibu
L

dengan atasan ya
Audiens : Iya. Oke, siap.
Pewawancara : Oke. Bapak/Ibu pernah cerita, misalnya Bapak/Ibu lagi ada masalah
pribadi misalnya yang mungkin pasti itu akan pengaruh kepada kinerja
karena bagaimanapun juga yang namanya masalah pribadi, kalo teori
kan bilang ee ‘masukkan ke kotak ini, masuk..’ nah itu teori, praktek itu
pasti, 75% itu pasti terbawa. Nah, apakah Bapak/Ibu ee ketika
mempunyai masalah pribadi tadi bisa berdiskusi mendiskusikan
masalah tersebut dengan atasan?
Endar : Iya, tergantung sih Bu, sometimes ya, jadi ini akan berpengaruh kinerja
kita tapi yang pasti ee kita hanya sifatnya curhat, tidak minta solusi
Pewawancara : Betul
Endar : Karena masalah pribadi, tapi yang pasti ya ee supaya dari atasan kita
tahu bahwa kita sedang ada musibah, itu aja sih sebenarnya hanya report
Pewawancara : Oke, bisa Pak cerita begitu, ya?

361
Endar : Iya.
Pewawancara : Memang tidak minta solusi,
Endar : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Kadang-kadang mau didengerin aja
Endar : Sudah syukur
Pewawancara : yang penting kita keluar
Endar : Yes, iya.
Dea : Meringankan beban
Pewawancara : Meringankan beban. Iya, itu Bapak bisa, ya?
Endar : Iya.
Pewawancara : Bagaimana dengan Bapak?
Budi R
: Kalau saya sih sejauh ini belum pernah ya, Bu, mudah-mudahan jangan
pernah gitu ngalamin hal yang sifatnya pribadi […] ke pimpinan gitu, jadi
cukup ee sejauh ini masih lancar aja sih Bu, gitu, masih yang ee dalam
P
kondisi
Maki : Bahagia selalu
Budi : Iya […]
S

Dea : Mungkin ada beberapa perbedaan ya Bu, maksudnya ada masalah yang
memang ada orang yang mau menshare atau tidak, berbeda caranya
dengan setiap orang gitu, tapi ee mungkin untuk orang yang mau
L

bercerita itu hanya untuk sekedar meringankan apa yang kita rasakan
dan membangun lagi spirit kita untuk ee perusahaan juga gitu,
keberlangsungan pekerjaan. Mungkin kalo saya pribadi ee belum pernah,
tapi kalo pun nanti terjadi hanya—sama seperti Bapak—hanya untuk
meringankan isi hati dan kita memulai spirit yang baru.
Pewawancara : Oke. Nah ee kalo Pak Endar sudah pernah mengalami kemudian sharing
dengan atasan?
Endar : Iya.
Pewawancara : Oh, terus tanggapan atasan bagaimana?
Endar : Iya, beliau sih memang ya pastinya kita gak berharap untuk ee solusi,
tapi kan paling gak kita dapat spirit ya ee terus juga ada masukan, ya itu
ee paling tidak ee bantu meringankan beban kita juga.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Ee kalo mengenai komunikasi dengan atasan. Menurut
Bapak/Ibu, Bapak/Ibu komunikasi dengan atasan Bapak/Ibu lancar?

362
Audiens : Iya, lancar. Lancar selama ini sih
Maki : Saya juga punya pengalaman—menambahkan tadi masalah pribadi, ee
masalah pribadi tapi saya menghubungkan dengan kepada kinerja
pekerjaan saya agar saya bisa move-on, bisa fokus biasanya mengenai
kaitan kebijakan kontrak rumah Bu, nah ini kadang-kadang ee mungkin
hampir semua mengalami di saat sudah habis kebijakannya dan ini saya
harus menggunakan uang pribadi tentunya kan gak bisa mencukupi
untuk operasional biaya-biaya, ya alhamdulillah selama ini waktu mulai
dari saya mulai bergabung di Jakarta, dan kemudian setelah saya juga
pindah di beberapa region, terbantu Bu dan bisa memahami dan saya
sampaikan, dan sampai kepada pimpinan yang tinggi juga memahami
sampai saya dipanggil, jadi komunikasi sangat baik, perlakuannya sangat
baik, dan juga solusinya sangat baik sehingga memberikan semangat lagi
buat saya, gitu Bu pengalamannya.
Pewawancara : Eh Pak Makky ngomong Lippo jadi inget ini, kalau networking leader itu

Suhendar
gimana sih di MDS?
R
: Saya rasa hubungan kami dengan MD, pihak mall maupun supplier
sudah bagus bu, terbukti ketika kita meminta bantuan mereka pasti
P
mereka support
Makky : Betul bu justru kita ini hubungan dalam pekerjaan dengan pihak2
tersebut sangat dekat bahkan ada yang sudah akrab. Begitu juga atasan
kami sangat dekat dengan mereka apalagi setahun sekali kami ada
S

vendor gathering, supplier gathering juga meeting regional dengan para

supplier, hal ini menambah erat hubungan kami”
L

Baik, baik. Ee kalo atasan apakah ee kadang-kadang memberikan penghargaan atas

pekerjaan yang telah Bapak/Ibu lakukan dengan baik atau jarang?
Budi : Yaa kalo dari sisi reward, saya katakan itu reward berarti Bu ya?
Pewawancara : Iya
Budi : Yaa kalo kembali
Pewawancara : Recognition
Budi : Recognition itu seperti kan kalau perusahaan sendiri sih memang ada
ee program reward seperti itu, Bu. Ya contoh kayak misalnya kita kalo
achieve target, kita pun juga ada reward dari manajemen suatu insentif,
gitu.
Pewawancara : Oh, ini diluar dari insentif, ya.
Maki : […] atasan

363
Budi : Nah kalo misalnya atasan sendiri, kadang-kadang tuh juga kita ee contoh
misalnya reward itu kan gak berupa materi juga Bu, kadang ee dia
memberikan [approved/a proud] ya, memberi [approved/a proud] kalo
kita sudah melakukan sesuatu hal yang memang menurut dia itu udah
sesuai dengan harapan dia gitu, kayak misalnya kita udah melakukan—
tadi saya bilang achievement target dengan harapan dia juga mereka pun
pasti ngasih ee ucapan “congrats!” misalnya, itu udah cukup suatu
penghargaan buat saya sih, gitu Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke. Menurut Bapak/Ibu yang lain?
Maki : Iya. Ibu mau jawab, saya ga enak kalo saya terus, serak suaranya. Baik,
kalo secara ee maaf ya Bu ya
Endar : Iya, silakan, Pak.
Maki : Pak Endar mau jawab juga?
Endar
Budi
Maki
: Hehehe
R
: Enggak, enggak. Pak Maki, Pak Maki

: Kalo secara ee rewardnya dengan mungkin apa namanya ee materi gitu

P
jarang Bu, ya, tapi rewardnya adalah lebih banyak kepada memberikan
pujian ‘terima kasih sudah disupport’ itu saya sangat senang sekali,
tokonya clear tidak pernah dikomplain, tidak pernah tuh Bu selama saya
disini sampe sekarang saya pindah, tidak pernah ada komplain. ‘Terima
S

kasih, saya harus berpisah. Saya kehilangan.’ ‘Oh tidak Bu, saya juga
terima kasih ini berkat support Ibu.’ Begitu. Dan yang lainnya mungkin
pernah maka itu juga salah satu yang membuat saya diberikan reward,
ya walaupun […] tapi ada satu perhatian, itu aja Bu pengalaman saya.
L

Endar : Iya sama sih, Bu, intinya yang penting ee kita tuh sebagai bawahan
diperhatikan sama atasan itu ya itu luar biasa banget bagi kami, itu udah
reward yang luar biasa, kan reward tidak harus berbentuk materi. Itu aja
sih, Bu.
Pewawancara : Baik. Ee sekarang ee otomatis tadi kan Bapak/Ibu mendapatkan dari
atasan seperti itu, apakah Bapak/Ibu juga melakukan support yang sama
kepada tim Bapak/Ibu?
Audiens : Iya, sama Bu.
Dea : Betul, pasti kita kasih […]
Pewawancara : Ada yang mungkin Bapak/Ibu belum lakukan support tadi misalnya ee
Bapak/Ibu ee mungkin ee belum siap kalo mendengar anak buah cerita
tentang masalah pribadi atau mungkin ee Bapak/Ibu belum memberikan
penghargaan misalnya, yang belum..mungkin belum dilakukan apa kira-
kira?

364
Dea : Sejauh ini sih sudah, Bu, maksudnya entah itu cerita masalah pribadi
atau kita memberikan penghargaan kepada rekan yang kita yang di area,
itu sudah kita lakukan, karena kita sebagai coach atau leader pun harus
bisa kembali membangkitkan semangat, karena kalo tim kita melemah
pasti ibarat roda pasti gak lancar, jadi ee reward atau kita memberikan
pujian ataupun memberikan solusi ketika ee rekan kita punya masalah
pribadi, kita juga harus bisa memberikan yang terbaik untuk mereka,
karena toko kita perusahaan kita tetep harus berjalan dengan spirit yang
terus ee membara istilahnya.
Pewawancara : Oke, ada lagi yang mau menambah?
Budi : Cukup.
Pewawancara : Cukup, ya. Sekarang kita masuk kepada mentoring dan coaching ya. Ee
Bapak/Ibu apakah atasan Bapak/Ibu sudah melakukan supervisi secara
reguler kepada Bapak/Ibu?
Maki : Sudah.
R
Pewawancara : Sudah, ya? Kemudian ee waktunya dalam mengcoach juga sudah cukup?
Maki : Iya, cukup saya lakukan.
P
Endar : Anytime kita lakukan.
Pewawancara : Anytime, ya? Kemudian ee kalo training dari perusahaan bagaimana
S

Bapak?
Budi : Training sudah cukup, Bu. Manajemen atau perusahaan selalu
memberikan training-training, program-program training yang kita bisa
L

ikuti, Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Eem kemudian mengenai ee orientasi, orientasi pada saat
pertama kali Bapak bergabung, ya, atau mungkin dari asisten ke staf
manajer, atau dari supervisor menuju ee apa asisten. Nah, orientasi yang
dilakukan oleh atasan apakah sudah cukup memadai?
Dea : Cukup.
Maki : Sudah cukup memadai, Bu. Tapi supervisor tertentu misalnya, mungkin
seperti supervisor yang menjadi PIC customer service itu ada Bu, mereka
dibekali. Kemudian supervisor yang menangani PIC marketing, itu juga
ada, mereka bisa paham bagaimana menyampaikan, terus juga
supervisor [HRS] untuk training-training tentang bagaimana grooming,
uniform. Nah tapi bagi beberapa supervisor yang lain itu tidak semuanya
sehingga kadang-kadang di operasional itu masih banyak terkendala, ada
gap …….”
Pewawancara : Sudah cukup memadai, ya?
Maki : Iya. Iya.

365
Pewawancara : Oke. Nah sekarang ee bagaimana dengan Bapak/Ibu ke tim atau timnya
Bapak/Ibu ke timnya mereka? Kira-kira mereka melakukannya
bagaimana? Kalo mungkin kita potong atau kalau Bapak/Ibu dengan tim,
apakah dilakukan hal yang sama?
Maki : He’eh. Iya.
Endar : Anytime.
Pewawancara : Sudah melakukan coaching waktu yang cukup, gitu ya? Nah, kalo para
supervisor sendiri ke bawahannya bagaimana?
Maki : Cukup saya kira. Kalo saya mungkin dengan supervisor itu selalu setiap
hari ada, Bu dan terus saya akan selalu ingatkan ingatkan tidak bosan
bosan, bagaimana supervisor ke anak-anak, saya pun menyampaikan ke
mereka dan ini harus lakukan sama kepada anak buah supaya mereka
juga apa yang saya sampaikan kepada temen-temen itu sama, jangan
sampai nanti putus. Nah, mereka melakukan biasanya di saat ada

R
meeting counter, atau melakukan role play Bu di counter, atau juga
melakukan ada ee coaching on the spot dimana mereka melihat kepada
brand-brand khususnya yang paling top, kenapa misalnya secara sales ini
kok turun, kenapa ini kok ee barangnya kosong. Nah itu mereka lakukan.
P
Kemudian mungkin masalah kepada service, kenapa kok nilainya sampai
kecil untuk di ladies, misalnya seperti itu Bu, dan mereka melakukan
terus, dan tentunya juga harus ada confirm dari kita sebagai pimpinan
apakah sudah jalan apa belum. Dan bahkan saya membuat ada semacam
S

log book Bu, berapa orang yang harus ditarget minimal saya minta 3
orang, dan harus ada tanda tangan dan brandnya siapa, nah sehingga ini
membuat counter apa betul-betul bahwa mereka melakukan coaching,
L

gitu Bu, dan nanti kita lihat resultnya apakah resultnya itu ada perbaikan
sehingga dari situ kita bisa lakukan feedback, dan terus berputar tidak
bosen-bosen karena kalo tidak seperti itu kadang-kadang mindset
mereka tidak sama, Bu. Mereka kan taunya hanya jualan, datang ke toko,
istirahat, makan, nah supervisor harus bisa memahami kondisi terhadap
mindset anak-anak itu karena tidak semua karyawan yang dibawah ini
mereka memahami karena mereka berlatar belakang bermacam-macam,
ada yang mungkin kost, luar kota, kemudian mereka datang kesini
dengan orang tuanya, ada juga yang tidak dengan orang tuanya sehingga
itu juga memperlakukan mereka terhadap diri sendiri tidak disiplin, ada
yang dia bisa care, ada yang bisa dia bisa mengerti, itu sangat
berpengaruh sekali, Bu. Nah, bagaimana kita sebagai atasan bisa
mengakomodir pemikiran mereka sesuai dengan apa yang kita harapkan,
itu aja Bu.
Budi : Mungkin kalo menurut saya gini, Bu, pemahaman dari bawahan kita
mungkin yang dimaksud adalah mengcoaching atau mentoring itu yang
dia harapkan adalah dia mendapat waktu khusus, ada waktu tertentu,
atau di ruang tertentu, atau berhadapan tertentu gitu lho. Nah mungkin

366
 yang dia pikir seperti itu. Kalo kita memang dalam hal melakukan
coaching, dan mentoring seperti itu memang kita kurang, tetapi kita
selalu on the spot jadi gak selalu sifatnya formal didalam ruangan atau
di waktu-waktu tertentu yang memang kita sengaja untuk melakukan
itu, gitu”.
Suhendar : Anytime kita lakukan. Jadi tidak pakai janjian. Ya pastinya kita akan
sampaikan karena kita rutin weekly, ada monthly ya, nah itu kan
kegiatan untuk coaching dan mentoring sebenarnya yang beda2 dan
kita ingin staff / supervisor juga sampaikan kalo misalkan ada kendala
atau masalah di konter ya. Nah, jadi ya seorang leader harus terus
coaching dan mentoring sampai timnya bener-bener paham”
Dea : Kalau saya coaching sama tidak pake janjian”.
Pewawancara: Proses nya bagaimana?
Suhendar : Kadang2 tidak formal. Kita melaksanakan mentoring coaching on the

Budi
R
spot di area, gak pake buku catatan. Kita kadang2 langsung saja,
simple”.
: Kalo saya memang pada saat on the spot kita temukan hal, kita harus
lakukan coaching kita lakukan mentoring saat itu ya kita lakukan Bu”.
P
Pewawancara: Trus penyampaiannya gimana pribadi atau group?
Makky : Untuk mentoring biasanya kita lakukan untuk mereka yang akan kita
S

promosikan, biasanya kita mentor lebih detil di ruangan dan praktek

langsung”
Budi : Untuk coaching saya biasanya on the spot jadi bisa beberapa orang
yang ada di area langsung tidak harus satu persatu ato one to one gitu”
L

Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang kalo dari survei itu mengenai ee mentoring ya,
Bapak/Ibu kalo saya perhatikan mentoring disini justru waktu yang
diberikan oleh atasan, oke, untuk meng-coach itu masih kurang
Endar : Masih kurang
Pewawancara : Iya, dan kemudian mem..atasan juga belum memberikan supervisi
secara reguler. Bagaimana menurut Bapakk/Ibu?
Budi : Mungkin kalo menurut saya gini, Bu, pemahaman dari bawahan kita
mungkin yang dimaksud adalah mengcoaching atau mentoring itu yang
dia harapkan adalah dia mendapat waktu khusus, ada waktu tertentu,
atau di ruang tertentu, atau berhadapan tertentu gitu lho. Nah mungkin
yang dia pikir seperti itu. Kalo kita memang dalam hal melakukan
coaching, dan mentoring seperti itu memang kita kurang, tetapi kita
selalu on the spot jadi gak selalu sifatnya formal didalam ruangan atau di
waktu-waktu tertentu yang memang kita sengaja untuk melakukan itu,

367
 gitu. Ya paling kalau memang mau melakukan itu paling pada saat kita
feedback appraisal yang setahun sekali itu yang kita baru..baru
melakukan coaching tertentu di ruangan tertentu.
Pewawancara : Ini..ini surveinya dilakukan tidak hanya yang ini bukan yang kemarin,
kalau kemarin kan interview ya sama seperti
Maki : Maksudnya […] yang kemarin bukan Bu, ya?
Pewawancara : Bukan, bukan, ini survei
Maki : Ibu dapatnya dari?
Pewawancara : Survei dari
Maki : Ibu survei sendiri atau
Pewawancara : Ini survei, saya minta data dari customer service dulu, langsung kita
survei
Budi
Maki
: Oh, iya iya
R
: Tahun berapa Ibu kira-kira?
P
Pewawancara : 2018.
Budi : 2018 kemarin
Pewawancara : Iya. Iya, jadi ee ini datanya ee sudah ada, jadi ee kembali lagi mungkin
S

jangan berpikir ‘wah ini anak buahku nih’ bukan, ini kan ee apa survei,
ini makanya saya tanya kalo menurut Bapak/Ibu bagaimana dengan
fenomena ini? Nah tadi dijawab mungkin ada miskomunikasi karena
mereka menganggap kalo coaching itu ya didalam ruangan, ada waktu
L

khusus. Nah kira-kira, kan terjadi missed nih

Budi : Iya betul
Pewawancara : Kalo Bapak/Ibu mengetahui hal ini, Bapak/Ibu akan melakukan apa
kira-kira?
Endar : Ya pastinya kita akan sampaikan karena kita rutin weekly, ada monthly
ya, nah itu kan kegiatan untuk coaching dan mentoring sebenarnya yang
beda2 dan kita ingin staff / supervisor juga sampaikan kalo misalkan ada
kendala atau masalah di konter ya. Nah, jadi ya seorang leader harus
terus coaching dan mentoring sampai timnya bener-bener paham.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Jadi ee untuk ee mentoring dan coaching mungkin tadi saya
sudah kasih sedikit bocoran di survei, nanti kalo misalnya mau ee
bertanya bisa ke pusat ya Pak, ya.
Endar : Siap, insyaa Allah.
Budi : […] gak ada […]

368
Pewawancara : Iya ya, gak tau nanti kemana gitu, nanti saya coba hubungi ya
Audiens : [Tertawa] hehehe
Pewawancara : Oke. Sekarang ini mengenai opportunity to apply. Opportunity to apply
adalah ketika Bapak/Ibu mendapatkan ilmu setelah ditraining misalnya
ya, kemudian Bapak/Ibu kembali ke pekerjaan sehari-hari, Bapak/Ibu
kadang-kadang pasti pengen meng..mengaplikasikan
mengimplementasikan, tapi kadang-kadang mentok, mau implementasi
ini yah gak ada sarananya misalnya, itu kurang lebih. Nah, sekarang
pertanyaannya adalah apakah ilmu yang Bapak/Ibu pelajari dalam
training, mungkin dalam apapun ya itu seringkali mentok dengan sarana
yang disediakan di perusahaan?
Maki : Kalo berkaitan dengan masalah knowledge mungkin ada Bu hambatan-
hambatan ya kita terbatas dengan material-material seperti untuk
fashion ya Bu, ya, kita butuh ee mungkin sarana dan pra-sarana untuk

R
menunjang pemahaman terhadap product knowledge tersebut misalnya
contoh di 361 Adidas, itu terkendala Bu. Nah, kalo yang tidak
menggunakan materi mungkin kita bisa lakukan tanpa ada sarana dan
pra-sarana dari perusahaan, misalnya bagaimana how to manage
P
terhadap tim, bagaimana leadership communication-nya, bagaimana kita
bisa memberikan pemahaman tentang leadership untuk di toko, seorang
supervisor dengan program sekarang yang [CEO] itu Bu, kita punya
program itu dan itu kan juga ada training yang berkaitan dengan para
S

ahli kemarin. Nah itu mungkin bisa, Bu, dan kemarin saya sampaikan juga
ke tim bagaimana seorang leadership dengan mengacu kepada [CEO]
customer excellence, kemudian ee customer experience maksud saya,
kemudian ee E-nya adalah empowering, kemudian O-nya adalah ee
L

operational excellence. Nah ini bisa kita lakukan tanpa menggunakan

material misalnya kita kasih tau seperti apa sih kita harus […] leadership
itu, kita jelasin kita jabarin, dan ini nanti kita kontrol dan kita ingatkan
bahwa harus ingat ‘kan sudah disampaikan, masa sih kamu tidak
memberikan contoh’ Kan sebagai leadership yang ee apa namanya ee
empower yang baik, maksudnya bagaimana memberikan contoh,
bagaimana memberikan keteladanan, bagaimana memberikan solusi
sehingga tanpa harus emosional, cara attitude—mohon maaf Bu terlalu
semangat—mungkin secara ee sikap itu juga harus menunjukkan sebagai
leader yang empowering, gitu ya Bu, ya. Mungkin itu aja Bu dari saya.
Pewawancara : Oke. Mungkin Pak Endar?
Endar : Cukup.
Maki : Sedang direkam jadi saya […] jadi ga enak. Ditahan aja Pak Endar, ya?
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Ee sekarang, oke, kalo sistem sendiri di MATAHARI ee
kadang-kadang mempersulit gak ee dalam menerapkan itu tadi misalnya
Bapak/Ibu mendapatkan training, trainingnya adalah misalnya ee kalo

369
 kita ee apa dalam menyediakan merchandise harus sesuai dengan
kebutuhan customer. Customer saya tidak ee atau kurang suka dengan
ee produk-produk ini, tapi saya melihat di toko yang sana produknya
cocok nih dengan customer saya, langsung tuker deh, tuker tambah eh
kok tuker tambah, tuker guling, nah misalnya ini contoh. Nah, bagaimana
kalo di perusahaan Bapak/Ibu? Apakah ee tadi ee sistem yang ada
kadang-kadang ee apa mempersulit atau tidak memungkinkan
Maki : Mekanisme tuker barang?
Budi : Membatasi mungkin ya Bu, ya?
Pewawancara : Iya membatasi ee apa ee tadi ilmu yang Bapak/Ibu baru saja pelajari
misalnya, tadi cerita tentang ee apa namanya experience—customer
experience, empowering, operational excellence, tapi ketika mau
terapkan ini misalnya contoh, tidak hanya di tuker barang, misalnya tadi
kan saya cuma satu contoh saja. Bagaimana? Pak Endar mungkin
Endar
R
: Iya. Jadi memang sebenarnya tujuannya sama Bu ya, apalagi kita di
MATAHARI SO itu divisi yang memang front liner yang disupport sama
semua divisi. Nah ini yang jadi kendala memang kadang-kadang kita
sudah mendapatkan training ini untuk bisa disupport, tapi kita harapkan
P
mereka semua yang support kita juga harusnya sama, satu mindset. Nah
ini yang kadang-kadang ee mungkin kita gak tau atau memang mereka
belum dikasih dari SDM—belum ada schedule nya, nah ini yang..yang
kembali komunikasi sih gitu, miskomnya itu kadang-kadang memang
S

keinginan kita di toko seperti ini, tapi ternyata dari divisi lain itu belum,
mereka belum sampe delivered ke mereka atau mereka belum di
training. Itu aja sih sebenarnya kadang-kadang, atau melibatkan pihak
L

ketiga seperti supplier. Ya kita tidak, ya kita akhirnya memang langsung

bisa langsung ke supplier, tapi kan kalo untuk komitmen ee nasional
berbicaranya kita akan discuss dengan [MB], nah [MB] nanti yang deliver
ke supplier. Ya kadang-kadang kita juga bisa sampaikan, tapi konsepnya
seperti apa, ya kita serahkan dengan [MB]. Ya kadang-kadang itu,
kadang-kadang ee kita terkendala memang ee store operation ini sudah
punya mindset dan ee tujuan seperti ini konsep, nah yang..yang divisi
internal sendiri kadang-kadang itu belum dapet, gak nyambung jadinya,
itu sih kendalanya.
Pewawancara : Oke, oke, baik, baik. Ya, tadi mengenai opportunity to apply. Sekarang
kita bicara mengenai job aids, job aids itu adalah alat bantu dalam ee
bekerja. Tadi mungkin Pak Maki sudah sempet bicara mengenai 361
contoh ya, 361 kan itu harus sepatu ee harusnya misalnya alat bantunya
itu ada ini-ini-ini-ini misalnya, nah itu contohnya. Kira-kira apakah ee
MATAHARI atau perusahaan Bapak/Ibu sudah menyediakan cukup alat
bantu dalam tim bekerja? Atau bahkan dalam Bapak/Ibu bekerja?
Bapak/Ibu harus ee membuat report atau harus membuat ini itu

370
 presentasi, tapi terkendala dengan tidak disedi..adanya software, ambil
contoh di perusahaan saya yang..yang
Maki : Yang sekarang?
Budi : Yang lain, Bu?
Pewawancara : Bukan, yang sebelumnya, pas kemarin yang pas saya ee sudah keluar
Desember kemarin itu misalnya mengharuskan kita membuat film.
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Kemudian ee kita waktu itu minta untuk membuat film bisa
menggunakan third party, tapi tidak ada dana, harus diolah sendiri,
begitu pake shooting video kamera ditolak karena hasilnya jelek. Ya
namanya video kamera kan tau sendiri
Endar : Iya, terbatas

R
Pewawancara : Kemudian ketika kita mau, kalo kita syuting pasti ‘oh ini yang di-cut, ada
yang ini’ untuk dijadikan menjadi satu bagusnya, kita minta softwarenya
supaya kita bisa namanya cutting ada..ada sistem ee apa software cutting
editing gitu ya, itu juga tidak di-aprrove. Nah ini kan salah.salah satu
P
contoh bahwa job aids nya tidak ada, alat bantunya gak ada, tapi maunya
begini, gitu. Nah, akhirnya ya solusi diem-diem download pake laptop
pribadi yang tidak resmi, gitu. Tapi yang penting tujuannya tercapai, tapi
sebenarnya ini kan menyalahi aturan
S

Budi : Betul
Maki : Iya
L

Pewawancara : Itu kurang lebih job aidnya seperti itu. Kalo di..ee kita bicara mengenai
tugas Bapak/Ibu dulu deh ya, ada gak Bapak/Ibu job aidnya yang
mungkin belum disediakan cukup?
Maki : Kalo secara tugas untuk sehari-hari
Budi : Di operasional
Maki : Buat operasional, kami sudah diberikan fasilitas ada laptop Bu, cuma
terkendalanya malah pribadi kita sendiri yang belum menguasai kadang-
kadang itu yang menjadi hambatan Bu ya, mohon maaf lahir batin Bu.
Audiens : [tertawa] Hahaha […]
Maki : Ini saking kita terbukanya sama Bu Endang supaya tau juga kayaknya
case-nya jadi lebih seru, tapi yang lain seperti fasilitas job aid yang di
visualization itu ada misalnya kita punya manekin terkendala itu
modelnya yang kayak gini udah jadul, nah kita mau nampilin produk yang
bener-bener eye catching kemudian customer tertarik kita gak ada, kalo
beli budget juga Bu, gak usah diceritain perusahaan kita ya, Bu ya.

371
Pewawancara : Berarti sama sebetulnya eh bukan sama berarti masuk ke bahwa job aid
tidak update, itu bener ya?
Audiens : Iya
Pewawancara : Karena survei juga mengatakan itu yang paling ee nilainya paling
Maki : Paling banyak Bu, ya?
Pewawancara : Iya, paling kurang.
Maki : Itu yang paling terasa sekali kurangnya di divisi visual karena visual itu
kan selalu ngikuti tren, ngikutin eem […] dari acara ke acara yang harus
trendi gitu
Pewawancara : Kalo job aid atau alat bantu saat ini kondisinya baik semua apa enggak?
Maki : Kalo alat bantu yang saya terima ya sangat baik sih Bu ya
Pewawancara : Kalo yang di toko, Pak?
Maki R
: Kalo yang di toko itu tadi salah satunya, kemudian juga untuk sarana
pra-sarana kita punya HRS, bagaimana kita juga ingin memberikan suatu
training-training tentang product knowledge itu terhambat. Kemudian
P
juga mungkin dengan ee divisi kami maintenance Bu, ini juga terhambat
di sarana pra-sarana dan kami harus selalu pinjam ke pihak mall
misalnya proses pencucian operasional untuk AC, untuk ee perbaikan-
perbaikan, mungkin itu Bu. Tapi secara operasional untuk pribadi saya
S

sebagai store manager masih bisa diberikan fasilitas lah, hanya saja itu
tadi kitanya yang gaptek itu ya Bu ya, mudah-mudahan ke depan bisa
lebih baik hehehe
L

Budi : Job aid […] di setiap toko itu masing-masing berbeda sih Bu gitu ya.
Contoh kan gini ya ee contoh di toko ini Pejaten mungkin dengan toko
saya, ya itu pasti ada suatu perbedaan job aidnya, contoh misalnya disini
kalo ee tadi Pak Maki bilang ee ternyata memang visualisasi
merchandising yang disupport dengan manekin, mungkin manekin disini
masih lebih baik ketimbang manekin di tempat saya, atau misalnya mesin
P.O.S atau register kita ya, di toko saya itu juga udah cukup lumayan tua
ketimbang mungkin disini bisa lebih fresh mesin P.O.S-nya, jadi mungkin
ya seperti itu Bu, mungkin job aid di masing-masing toko berbeda-beda
juga sih Bu, gitu.
Pewawancara : Baik
Budi : Tergantung mungkin usia tokonya juga hehe
Endar : Iya benar, liat..liat sikonnya toko yang udah lama biasanya […] lama juga
tinggi
Pewawancara : Berarti update-nya tadi ya?

372
Audiens : Iya, betul […]
Endar : Cuma kadang-kadang kan kita kendala budget […]
Maki : Yang terasa sekali di […]
Endar : Kemarin diminta ee untuk toko-toko sekarang ini kan lagi tren ee untuk
kita punya tempat untuk selfie-selfie yang 3D. Nah tapi kan kita gak
punya, ini darimana ya budget, kita mau gak mau kan kita juga keluar
budget sendiri dan itu tadi menyalahkan juga sebenarnya. Nanti kalo
diaudit ‘loh ini darimana?’
Budi : Dari store manager
Endar : Iya, cuman kan ya kita akhirnya pinter-pinter kita lah, iya gak? Pinter-
pinternya itu mungkin pake duit pribadi ya kan nanti, ya kadang-kadang
ada juga sih, kadang-kadang yang memang ee terkendala ee untuk kita
ini
Maki
Endar
R
: Lebih banyaknya ke operasional di toko
: Operasional di toko, kita ingin seperti ini manajemen cuma..udah..udah
[hari H] seratus, tapi tidak diikuti dengan budgetnya. Ya Bu Endang
P
ngertilah internalnya seperti apa. Makanya kita disini transparan hahaha
Maki : Bukan, nanti direkam sama […]
Endar : Oh, gapapa
S

Pewawancara : Kan gak disampaikan

Budi : Gak disampaikan Pak Maki hehe
L

Maki : Iya bercanda Bu, Pak Endar biar semangat

Pewawancara : Oke, baik.
Budi : Justru harusnya disampaikan biar nyampe
Pewawancara : Oh biar nyampe, boleh.
Endar : Tapi jangan sampe regional nih, Bu
Audiens : [tertawa] hahahaha
Maki : […] curhat ini Pak Endar ini
Endar : ini lho Pak saya dapet
Pewawancara : Enggak, enggak.
Endar : Enggak Bu, bercanda, bercanda
Maki : Banyak Bu permintaan ini itu, tapi kita kadang-kadang kendala budget
Pewawancara : Iya

373
Maki : kan kita membuka toko harus begini, kita mau bikin untuk booth
experience customer, kita bingung dananya darimana, tempatnya
darimana, sarananya gimana, itu kan harus kita siapin
Endar : Mungkin beda deh pengalaman kalo masalah budget hehe
Maki : Kalo asal jadi kan jadi gak bagus kelihatannya, itu saja tadi yang saya
bilang kebanyakan problem-nya di operasional untuk job aid itu.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Kalo begitu kita langsung ke topik selanjutnya
Maki : Oke, siap
Pewawancara : Yaitu enviromental ee factors, ya, ini adalah faktor-faktor lingkungan
misalnya temperatur, ventilasi, dan lain sebagainya ya. Kalo di..kalo
menurut Bapak/Ibu ruang temperaturnya sudah cukup?
Audiens : Iya, sudah.
Endar : Sudah standar lah.
R
Pewawancara : Ventilasinya juga udah oke, ya?
Maki : Sudah sangat baik lah, Bu.
P
Pewawancara : Penerangan?
Dea : Baik.
S

Maki : Penerangan tergantung toko lama/baru mungkin

Audiens : Hehehe
Pewawancara : Fasilitas tempat makan atau ee ruang makan?
L

Budi : Ruang istirahat itu juga

Pewawancara : Ruang istirahat?
Endar : Iya, sejauh ini sudah lebih baik
Maki : Oh, cukup. Itu kan kembali kepada kita sih Bu untuk mengelola
bagaimana ruangan
Budi : Betul
Pewawancara : Enggak, secara pribadi menurut Bapak/Ibu itu sudah cukup bagus?
Maki : Oh sangat baik, Bu.
Endar : Jauh lebih baik dibandingkan dulu ya, kalo sekarang lebih dipikirkan lagi
standarnya seperti apa, kemudian bangkunya kan dulu dari kayu
sekarang udah kita yang pake meja plastik, bangku plastik itu […]

374
Maki : Kalo mengikuti keinginan sebetulnya ya belom karena problemnya tadi
dari budget Bu, cuma bagaimana kita seorang tokoh harus kreatif
sehingga membuat nyaman, itu Bu yang kita dituntut
Pewawancara : Baik, Bu Dea nih mau ngomong nih.
Bu Dea : Kalo dari segi fasilitas misalnya kayak back office itu memang belum
maksimal, cuma kita berusaha untuk ee mengajukan renovasi minor
ataupun mau major, tapi kan memang terkendala budget jadi kita hanya
memberikan cara terbaik untuk memelihara tempat tersebut supaya
gimana kita juga bisa memberikan kesan feel good untuk karyawan kita
Pewawancara : Oke. Kalo toiletnya bagaimana, apakah sudah ber..menurut Bapak/Ibu
cukup bersih?
Maki : Toilet cukup bersih Bu kalo ee
Pewawancara : Oh, bersih
Maki
R
: Tidak..tidak banyak ee komplain dari karyawan, dan juga kami sendiri
dan itu tergantung juga bagaimana melakukan proses perawatan
terhadap penyadaran karyawan agar tetap terpelihara kebersihan
dengan standarnya toilet, standarnya musolla dan tempat makan.
P
Pewawancara : Oke. Ee bagaimana dengan penyediaan air minum yang bersih untuk
karyawan, apakah sudah ada Bapak/Ibu?
S

Maki : Kalo untuk penyediaan air minum di toko kami banyaknya mereka
penyediaan sendiri, Bu, jadi tidak difasilitasi karena memang tidak ada
Budi : Beli dengan […]
L

Maki : Ini beli sendiri, ini ada ee pembelian untuk aqua galon, kecuali kalo
perusahaan itu untuk staf dan kami ada, tapi tidak banyak karena
budgetnya sedikit jadi kadang kita nambah, karena nanti ada proses lagi
kenapa, kan begitu ya Bu Endang?
Pewawancara : Oh, makan […] jelek?
Maki : Tidak cukup sesuai budget
Pewawancara : Iya, Baik
Endar : Memang mereka masih beli, Bu. Dan difasilitasi lewat koperasi karena
gini biasanya sih kalo yang toko baru, itu ada yang namanya ee mesin
yang di[…] langsung
Bu Dea : Niagara
Endar : Niagara, itu langsung diambil dari ee apa namanya PAM
Budi : PAM..PAM, kurang sehat

375
Endar : Dan itu bisa di[…] langsung, cuma itu kan harus ada maintenance-nya
sekitar ee 6 bulan sekali. Nah, yang terkendala memang kadang-kadang
ya tadi Bu teman-teman kita grade 1 kan background-nya beda-beda, ada
yang ngerti ada yang enggak, kadang-kadang ya cara mereka
menggunakan juga yang akhirnya membuat yang harusnya dia ee
Maki : Tidak steril
Pewawancara : Enam bulan
Endar : Tidak steril, yang tadinya harusnya 6 bulan ininya ya itu bisa 1-2 bulan
udah rusak, itu kadang-kadang gaptek juga
Pewawancara : […] sudah ada?
Endar : Perusahaan sih sudah fasilitasi
Pewawancara : Ada?
Endar

Maki
terpakai
: Rasa airnya beda Bu.
R
: Ada waktu saya di..di toko sebelumnya dan itu ada dua, dua […] tidak
P
Endar : Rasa air beda,
Maki : Karena kan memang tidak ada proses
Endar : Terus itu kan filternya harus dibersihin
S

Pewawancara : He’eh, memang

Endar : Dan dia ada ultravioletnya yang buat bersihin air itu
L

Maki : Kita kan gak paham apakah itu steril

Endar : Itu juga harus rutin iya 6 bulan sekali dibersihin, cuma kadang-kadang
ya itu kita namanya di toko ya kan suka lupa ya
Pewawancara : Oh, oke. Baik. Sekarang kita masuk kepada physical factors, physical
factor itu faktor fisik misalnya layout, trus kemudian tempat duduk di
kantin.
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Ee menurut Bapak Ibu layout di ruang kerja Bapak/Ibu sudah cukup?
Maki : Cukup baik
Pewawancara : Cukup baik?
Maki : Sudah nyaman
Pewawancara : Ee tempat duduk di kantin sudah cukup untuk semua awak?
Maki : iya, cukup baik, sudah

376
Bu Dea : Ee kalo untuk semua awak sih mungkin enggak, Bu
Pewawancara : Terus bagaimana dengan yang lainnya mereka makannya?
Bu Dea : Kita berusaha memfasilitasi misalnya seperti tempat duduk kita by
word, sudah ditempatkan dengan masing-masing wordnya untuk—
memang gak semua anak-anak bisa diatas, tapi ada rekan-rekan kerja
juga yang memang mereka untuk makan bisa ke area luar, mereka
memilih kadang ada area luar, tapi untuk sejauh ini masih cukup, gak
terlalu kurang.
Pewawancara : Oke. Ini justru nilainya sangat..sangat buruk. Oh bukan, bukan, iya iya
sangat sangat buruk, 49 nilainya
Maki : Iya, itu untuk toko yang tidak baik […]
Pewawancara : Iya, sekedar masukan saja ya
Endar
Maki R
: Toko-toko lama mungkin biasanya terkendala
: Kalo toko saya karyawannya sangat sangat menikamati dengan sarana
pra sarana termasuk saya juga dan layout, kemudian juga meunjang
untuk mereka happy kita juga ada live music diberikan sarana sound
P
system semuanya
Endar : Bagi Pak Maki, Bapak 5R Bu
Maki : Gak ada hubungannya, bicaranya tadi
S

Endar : Kan back office 5R bicaranya hehe

Pewawancara : Kalo musollanya sudah cukup lega?
L

Maki : Sangat baik

Pewawancara : Oke. Nilainya masih..masih kurang juga, masih 60
Maki : Kalo dari fisik, problemnya kita hanya kurang luas saja. Jadi masih tidak
memadai di saat ee solat-solat yang memerlukan waktu yang ee cukup
Budi : Solat jamaah
Maki : Ee Banyak […] untuk solatnya tidak sampe terganggu sehingga dia harus
ngantri dan sebagainya. Dan ini yang mungkin masih belum jadi tuh saya
kira tidak akan bisa terealisasi kalo tidak didukung dengan kebijakan
Pewawancara : Oke baik. Nah, Bapak/Ibu ee Bapak/Ibu bertanggung jawab terhadap
performance ee anak-anak jadi baik supervisor maupun
Budi : Front liner
Pewawancara ; Front liner ya. Nah tetapi saya tidak akan membahas mengenai ee
performance kan performance itu ada dua, financial performance dan
behaviour performance. Financial performance sudah pasti target harus

377
 tercapai, uang lah. Behaviour performance itu adalah service providing—
memberikan service. Nah, kira-kira Bapak/Ibu, ee untuk goal setting ini
apakah mempengaruhi performa anak-anak, performa disini sekali lagi
service ya—memberikan service excellence ya, apakah goal setting ini
mempengaruhi kalo seandainya goal settingnya jelek anak-anak tidak
paham, ya pasti ee servicenya jelek. Kalo goal settingnya dia paham,
bagus nilainya berarti servicenya jelek, mempengaruhi gak menurut
Bapak/Ibu?
Maki : Iya, sangat mempengaruhi Bu kalo menurut saya, karena itu ee bisa
membantu dimana kita punya goal setting dengan jelas dan baik sehingga
mereka juga bisa terarah, mereka juga bisa fokus, dan kita juga bisa lebih
detil memberikan kuasa kepada mereka dengan adanya goal setting
tersebut sehingga mereka tidak terlalu jauh sesuai dengan harapan yang
kita sampaikan untuk goal setting tersebut.
Pewawancara : Baik. Bagaimana dengan performance feedback menurut Bapak/Ibu

Endar
R
apakah ini mempengaruhi terhadap performance tadi performance
sekali lagi providing service ya
: Pengaruh sekali karena di performance feedback itu kan ada empati, ada
P
pujian, nah itu akan berpengaruh buat kinerja mereka semua
Pewawancara : Oke. Bagaimana dengan role congruity misalnya tadi keseimbangan role
‘oh kalo cowok pasti service nya jelek, kalo cewek service nya bagus’
misalnya
S

Bu Dea : Enggak sih, gak ada perbedaan

Endar : Gak ada
L

Pewawancara : Kalo define process tadi yang bicara tentang manual, ya, pengaruh gak
dengan performance menurut Bapak/Ibu?
Endar : Define?
Pewawancara : Define process tadi itu adalah yang didokumentasikan
Maki&Endar : Oh, iya pengaruh, pengaruh sekali
Pewawancara : Pengaruh ya?
Maki : Iya, betul
Pewawancara : Kalo leader support?
Endar : Pengaruh sekali
Pewawancara : Pengaruh?
Audiens : Pengaruh
Pewawancara : Mentoring dan coaching?

378
Audiens : Pengaruh, iya sama
Pewawancara : Kalo mengimplementasikan apakah pengaruh?
Maki : Ee sangat pengaruh
Pewawancara : Sangat pengaruh?
Maki : Iya betul, Bu, harus banget
Pewawancara : Alat bantu?
Maki : Iya
Budi : Pengaruh, di MATAHARI pengaruh
Pewawancara : Kalo environmental tadi?
Audiens : Oiya pengaruh Bu, pengaruh sekali
Maki : Itu harus […]
R
Pewawancara : Secara fisik, physical factor?
Audiens : Iya betul, berpengaruh.
P
Maki : Karena itu kan memotivasi karyawan dan customer juga untuk […]
Pewawancara : Nah sekarang, Bapak/Ibu diminta untuk memilih yang sangat-sangat-
sangat berpengaruh terhadap performa fron liner, terhadap service front
S

liner ya
Maki : Dari yang Ibu sampaikan tadi?
L

Pewawancara : Iya. Nih ini tadi kita udah membuang ya, kita harus sortir lagi.
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Bagaimana dengan goal setting, apakah ini pengaruh?
Audiens : Pengaruh
Maki : Pengaruh agar sama satu persepsi
Pewawancara : Betul
Budi : Sangat, ini yang sangat Bu ya?
Pewawancara : Ini sangat ya, sangat
Endar : OH, ini sangat […]
Pewawancara : Ini, manual?
Maki : Define process tidak sangat
Endar : Tidak terlalu ya kadang-kadang memang tidak sesuai

379
Pewawancara : Support dari atasan?
Audiens : Sangat-sangat
Pewawancara : Mentoring coaching?
Audiens : Sangat pengaruh
Pewawancara : Sangat ya. Mengimplementasikan?
Maki : Ini tidak terlalu
Endar : Enggak
Pewawancara : Tidak terlalu sangat. Alat bantu?
Maki : Tidak terlalu sangat, Bu
Endar, Dea : Tidak
Pewawancara : Environmental?
Maki
Endar
: Itu sangat
: Itu berpengaruh
R
P
Maki : Kan lingkungan, suasana itu perlu Bu
Endar : Nah ini [seperti menunjuk sesuatu] gak
S

Pewawancara : Ini gak? Gak terlalu

Maki : Ini sih fifty-fifty ini Bu
Pewawancara : Fifty-fifty? Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang saya kita harus memilih hanya 4
L

saja.
Maki : Oh iya.
Pewawancara : Ini?
Maki : Goal setting Bu perlu karena itu harus
Bu Dea : Sangat banget
Endar : Iya
Maki : Itu harus, itu harus 4 ya Bu ya?
Pewawancara : Iya.
Maki : Oke, itu [menunjuk sesuatu] pake itu gak?
Pewawancara : Ini ya? Oke, baik. terima kasih
Maki : [performance] itu terbentuk kalo empowernya bener

380
Pewawancara : Iya, jadi yang sangat berpengaruh terhadap kinerja atau performance
dalam providing service adalah goal setting, performance feedback,
supervisor atau leader support, mentoring atau coaching ya Bapak/Ibu
ya
Endar : Iya
Pewawancara : Baik, terima kasih. Sesi pertama sudah, Bapak Ibu kita mau break dulu?
Endar : Langsung aja Bu
Budi : Langsung aja
Pewawancara : Sekarang kita bicara mengenai communicative leadership di working
environment sekarang communicative leadership. Bapak/Ibu ee tadi
didalam ee sesi pertama, kita sudah ee membahas mengenai ee
bagaimana goal setting itu Bapak/Ibu menjelaskan visi-misi gitu, ya?
Kalo ekspektasi Bapak/Ibu ke tim, kan Bapak/Ibu pengen dong tim saya

Maki
harusnya seperti ini
: Iya
R
Pewawancara : Apakah Bapak/Ibu ee katakan secara ee apa orally secara ee apa
P
Maki : Langsung
Budi : Terbuka lah ya Bu, ya?
S

Pewawancara : Atau Bapak/Ibu tempel di dinding misalnya?

Maki : Oke, iya
Endar : Kalo saya dua-duanya
L

Pewawancara : Dua-duanya?
Endar : Iya, dua-duanya kita tempel goalnya
Pewawancara : Oke, ekspektasi Bapak..Bapak ke tim apa?
Endar : Iya, supaya mereka sama dengan ee ekspektasi saya pastinya
Pewawancara : Misalnya? Contoh ekspektasi Bapak ke tim itu apa?
Endar : Misalkan ekspektasi saya untuk tim ee bisa achieve target di atas
manajemen [110] dan mereka gimana caranya ya kita harus beritahu,
kita harus lead juga ke mereka ya strateginya juga kita sharing, kalo perlu
ya mereka itu bener-bener paham seperti apa yang kita pahami
Pewawancara : Oke
Endar : jadi kita akan targetkan, setting target setinggi mungkin
Pewawancara : Betul, jadi tadi Bapak katakan secara oral?

381
Endar : Iya
Pewawancara : Orally ya, maupun secara
Endar : dan gak bosen-bosennya iya
Pewawancara : He’eh, secara ee
Budi : Media
Pewawancara : Media?
Endar : Iya
Pewawancara : Gitu, ya? Oke. Dan tim Bapak/Ibu sudah memahami itu? Ekspektasi ‘oh
ee saya, atasan saya meminta saya untuk melakukan ini’ sudah paham
ya?
Endar : Iya, sampe mereka clear
Pewawancara : Sampe mereka clear?
Endar : Iya.
R
Pewawancara : Nah sekarang, ee menurut Bapak/Ibu, apakah Bapak/Ibu sudah
P
melakukan coaching yang cukup kepada tim?
Budi : Nah itu, dikatakan cukup atau gak cukup kita bicara dari sisi mana dulu
Bu?
S

Pewawancara : Sisi dari kacamata Bapak/Ibu dulu aja gapapa

Budi : Oh, gitu.
L

Pewawancara : Iya.
Budi : Kalo dari sisi kita, itu tadi ee didalam melakukan coaching itu gak selalu
dalam suatu ee situasi yang formal Bu gitu, kita banyak terbiasa
melakukan yang namanya coaching itu justru pada saat on the spot gitu
lho, pada saat memang ee disitu saatnya kapan kita harus memberikan
coaching, itu mereka langsung dapat pemahaman, gitu Bu. Tapi tidak lagi
dengan secara formal, kita […] khusus, kita waktu khusus, itu saya pikir
terlalu ee banyak waktu yang saya pikir kesisih gitu lho.
Pewawancara : Oke
Budi : Tapi kalo memang pada saat on the spot kita temukan hal ini, kita harus
lakukan coaching saat itu ya kita lakukan, Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, kalo kemampuan ee bukan kemampuan, kalo ilmu Bapak/Ibu
dalam mengcoaching, oke? Mengcoaching itu bisa ilmu coachingnya atau
materi coaching misalnya mengcoaching mengenai product knowledge
misalnya, berarti kan harus paham dua-duanya nih?

382
Budi : Yes
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Cara mengcoaching iya, menurut Bapak/Ibu, apakah Bapak/Ibu sudah
mempunyai knowledge dalam mengcoaching?
Endar : Iya sekarang ini manajemen sudah memfasilitasi Bu khususnya untuk
level store manager, bahkan supervisor juga Bu sudah diberikan ee
standar untuk coaching dan konseling
Pewawancara : Nah ee kalo supervisor atau bawahan Bapak/Ibu, apakah mereka juga
sudah mempunyai knowledge dalam mengcoaching baik product
knowledge maupun cara mengcoachingnya?
Budi : Mungkin kalo di level supervisor ke bawah memang mereka masih
kurang dari sisi ee cara mengcoachingnya Bu, yang memang, ya
walaupun memang dari program SDM pun juga ada kita pelatihan-

R
pelatihan atau training-training tapi memang tidak mengkhususkan
bagaimana tim supervisor untuk mengcoach bawahannya lagi itu
memang belum, gitu Bu.
Pewawancara : Baik. Ee misalnya Bapak/Ibu, kalo front liner berharap ee mereka
P
mendapatkan cocaching materi coachingnya itu—isinya ya bukan
caranya, itu sesuai dengan apa yang mereka minta, Misalnya deh ee kita
bicara mengenai 361 misalnya, 361. Anak-anak front liner dia pengen
dicoaching mengenai ini produk ini fungsinya apa sih, ini bedanya ini
S

sama ini apa sih supaya nanti saya bisa jelaskan kepada customer, tapi
ternyata saya juga gak ngerti, misalnya. Nah berarti materinya mereka
belum dapet, mungkin cara mengcoachingnya sudah dapet, nah itu. Kira-
L

kira kalo ee bawahan Bapak/Ibu bagaimana?

Maki ; Ee memang tidak secara spesifik mereka semua bisa memahami
menerima karena hanya beberapa supervisor
Budi : Iya
Makky : kadang-kadang mungkin mereka sudah tau tapi menyampaikannya
mungkin kurang sehingga yang terserap oleh mereka hanya 40% 50%,
tidak 100 atau 99%. Itu, Bu.
Pewawancara : Iya, Oke.

Maki : Kalo sama sekali tidak ada, tidak. Ada, cuma belum secara keseluruhan,
itu Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah, kalo tadi kan Pak Maki sempet cerita ketika Pak Maki
dengan atasannya, ketika Pak Maki melakukan hal yang positif, Pak Maki
diajak makan bareng

383
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Itu kan lumayan suatu penghargaan ya, nah bagaimana sih leader di
MDS menghargai tim atau karyawannya?
Budi : Recognition itu kalau perusahaan sendiri sih memang ada program
reward seperti itu, Bu. Ya contoh kayak misalnya kita kalo achieve target,
kita pun juga ada reward dari manajemen suatu insentif, gitu. Nah kalo
misalnya atasan sendiri, kadang-kadang tuh juga kita contoh misalnya
reward itu kan gak berupa materi juga Bu, kadang dia memberikan
applause ya, kalo kita sudah melakukan sesuatu hal yang memang
menurut dia itu udah sesuai dengan harapan dia gitu, kayak misalnya kita
udah melakukan—tadi saya bilang achievement target dengan harapan
dia juga mereka pun pasti ngasih ucapan “congrats!” misalnya, itu udah
cukup suatu penghargaan buat saya sih, gitu Bu”.
Makky : Kalo secara rewardnya dengan mungkin materi gitu jarang Bu, ya, tapi

R
rewardnya adalah lebih banyak kepada memberikan pujian ‘terima
kasih sudah disupport’ itu saya sangat senang sekali, tokonya clear tidak
pernah dikomplain, tidak pernah tuh Bu selama saya disini sampe
sekarang saya pindah, tidak pernah ada complain”.
P
Suhendar : Iya sama sih, Bu, intinya yang penting kita tuh sebagai bawahan
diperhatikan sama atasan itu ya itu luar biasa banget bagi kami, itu
udah reward yang luar biasa, kan reward tidak harus berbentuk materi.
Itu aja sih, Bu”.
S

Dea : Iya sama Bu, dan untuk ke tim sejauh ini sih sudah, Bu, maksudnya kita
memberikan penghargaan kepada rekan kita yang di area, itu sudah kita
lakukan, karena kita sebagai leader pun harus bisa kembali
L

membangkitkan semangat, karena kalo tim kita melemah pasti ibarat

roda pasti gak lancar, jadi reward atau kita memberikan pujian akan
membuat mereka terus semangat

Pewawancara : Para supervisor melakukan hal yang sama kepada front linernya?
Maki : Iya, tapi mungkin sesuai dengan kemampuan dia yang punya budget
karena ini kan tidak terfasilitasi oleh perusahaan. Jadi seperti supervisor
dia melihat anaknya ee achieve untuk ditotal [CV …] tersebut, nah dia
memberikan ee tiket nonton, ada yang makan siang, kemudian saya juga
sama kepada supervisor, kemudian juga kepada tim yang bisa menjual
[MRO] lebih banyak, kita ajak makan, kita ajak nonton, memang tidak
secara ee konsisten terus menerus, tapi kita lihat daripada budget yang
ada, Bu
Pewawancara : Oke, baik, baik
Maki : Tapi pernah kita lakukan itu, Bu. Iya.

384
Pewawancara : Oke. Nah, untuk availability to helo leader MDS bagiamana?
Makky : Kalau atasan, seperti yang tadi sudah saya jelaskan sebelumnya beliau
selalu ada untuk membantu kita saya rasa”.
Suhendar : Betul bu, contoh saja pada saat saya di luar kota saya bisa menelpon
setiap saat pada saat saya membutuhkan bantuan atasan. Jadi memang
atasan kita itu selalu ada dan siap membantu”.

Pewawancara: Tapi menurut survei ya, ini tadi ya

Maki : Kurang Bu, ya?
Pewawancara : Ee bukan, ee menurut survei ee atasan itu kurang dalam engaged
dengan employee problem tadi yang saya cerita. Kalo Pak Endar kan
sudah sempet curhat kepada atasan, meskipun tidak meminta solusi, tapi

Endar : Iya, iya R

ketika sudah cerita, itu udah..udah lumayan hilanglah

Pewawancara : Tapi kalo survei front liner berkata sebaliknya, mereka tidak ee leader
mereka itu tidak engaged dengan masalah mereka, padahal mereka itu
P
pengen, tapi dibatasi ya ‘kamu…’ apa namanya entah leadernya kaku, dia
tidak bisa masuk atau memang dia tidak mau kalo masalah pribadi ya
urusanmu, ada, ada yang udah strict begitu. Nah, bagaimana tanggapan
S

Bapak/Ibu?
Maki : Memang saya akui ada Bu di beberapa staf kami khususnya tidak
semuanya mudah diapproach, pendengar yang baik, bisa dipercaya dan
L

bisa memahami atau juga memberikan empati. Tapi ada beberapa

supervisor yang memang dia bisa lakukan itu. Dan ini memang saya alami
Bu, dari kotak saran itu bisa dilihat supervisor disampaikan disana
juteklah, tidak bisa mengerti, maunya ngatur, tdk bisa dipercaya,
kemudian kalo ngasih instruksi tidak ada solusi bilamana ada salah, terus
maunya didengerin tidak pernah mendengarkan. Itu menjadikan
feedback dan ini yang saya lakukan langsung bagaimana supaya bisa
merubah mindset mereka, ya alhamdulillah […] sedikit demi sedikit
stafnya sudah berubah, dan itu terlihat juga dari kotak saran, kotak saran
sama sekali sudah kosong. Dan juga dibentuk selain itu ada satu ee wadah
yang dimana ini sudah dilakukan yaitu […] apa namanya ee 3 pilar, nah
dimana disitu juga dikondisikan supaya mereka terbuka disitu kalo ada
hambatan dengan supervisor, nah kami fasilitasi itu Bu. Jadi [RKS] yang
sangat membantu, ada meeting setiap bulan dengan pimpinan [RKS]
tanpa dihadiri oleh saya, nah disitulah mereka terbuka dan itu kita
sampaikan nanti [RKS] kepada saya. Dan ini harus ee fair, tidak perlu
merasa dia ee tidak enak atau mereka mengatakan, saya bilang ‘ini untuk
kebaikan’ bukan untuk mencari kesalahan dan tidak menyudutkan
temen-temen, dan mereka akhirnya terbuka, dan ya sekarang sudah

385
 membuat mereka terbiasa dengan transparan, terbiasa dengan mereka
apa adanya, jadi mereka juga terbuka, dari situ mereka mulai banyak
perubahan sehingga mereka seringkali ee kalo ada apa-apa tidak
langsung ‘kamu begini, kamu begini ya?’ tapi ditanya ‘ada apa?’ ‘kenapa
terlambat?’ ‘kenapa kok sampe tidur?’ ‘kenapa sampe di jam kerja
mengerjakan report sales?’ Nah jadi ditanya dulu solusi, dari situ kita
berikan masukan ke mereka. Jadi tidak langsung dimarahi, tidak
langsung ditegur, dan ini juga ngefek kepada kinerja terhadap tim. Gitu
Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke. Baik. Ada lagi mungkin yang mau menambah?
Endar : Iya sedikit
Pewawancara : Iya
Endar : Ee menambahkan Pak Maki ya Bu, jadi memang kita seorang leader
harus bisa mengerti dari masing-masing bawahan kita, ya. Biasanya sih

R
akan terlihat jika salah seorang supervisor sedang ada masalah pribadi
mungkin, ya entah dia dari yang biasanya dia dateng on time, ini gak on
time, ya. Terus kemudian yang biasanya kinerjanya mereka speednya
tinggi, kok jadi menurun. Nah itu tugas leader yang memang walaupun
P
dia gak mau curhat ya kita harus ee taking over mereka, kita panggil
‘Anda kenapa? Kok ini ada perubahan’ ya itu memang harus peka seorang
leader kadang-kadang
S

Pewawancara : Oke baik. Nah sekarang kita bicara mengenai atasan Bapak/Ibu ya,
apakah atasan Bapak/Ibu ee gampang diapproach? Kan ada yang jaga
jarak, tapi ada juga yang tidak, kalo atasan Bapak/Ibu bagaimana?
Approachable atau tidak?
L

Budi : Approachable menurut saya sih

Pewawancara : Approachable, ya?
Endar : Iya
Pewawancara : Good listener? Pendengar yang baik?
Audiens : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Bisa dipercaya?
Maki : Iya, bisa dipercaya
Pewawancara : Oke, kemudian ee adil?
Maki&Endar : Iya, iya
Dea : Untuk sharing masalah sebenarnya supaya atasan kita tahu bahwa kita
sedang ada musibah, kita tidak berharap mendapatkan solusi tapi paling
tidak meringankan beban kita sedikit

386
Pewawancara : Nah sekarang kita bicara mengenai Bapak/Ibu, kira-kira Bapak/Ibu
yang kurang dimana, tadi approachable, good listener atau pendengar
yang baik, bisa dipercaya, adil, kira-kira apakah sudah sama, sudah ada
semua atau ada yang kurang mungkin?
Budi : Sudah ada semua kalo saya
Pewawancara : Sudah ada semua?
Maki : Kita sudah semua sih Bu, sudah lakukan ya
Pewawancara : Oke. Sekarang kita bicara mengenai bawahan Bapak/Ibu. Bagaimana
antara supervisor, apakah mereka sudah approachable, pendengar yang
baik, bisa dipercaya, dan adil?
Maki : Tidak semua supervisor bisa melakukannya
Budi : Tidak semua

Budi
mana?
: Yang kurang dipercaya
R
Pewawancara : Oke, kira-kira yang ee apa namanya ee yang kurang dari mereka itu yang
P
Pewawancara : Ee approachable, yang pa..maksudnya yang paling banyak gak adanya
itu yang apakah approachable, apakah trust ee bisa dipercaya, ee iya
pendengar yang baik, kemudian bisa dipercaya dan adil. Satu-satu ya
misalnya, kan tadi ada beberapa, tapi saya mau pengen ee ngambil kira-
S

kira yang paling banyak yang gak adanya itu yang mana? Kalo
approachable, kira-kira para supervisor itu approachable gak?
Endar : Iya, rata-rata sih approachable, Bu
L

Pewawancara : Approachable?
Maki : Iya
Budi : Approachable
Pewawancara : Bisa?
Budi : Bisa, Bu
Pewawancara : Iya, jadi SA gampang mencari, ee gampang ketemu?
Endar : Iya
Bu Dea : Gampang
Budi : Bisa Bu
Maki : Kalo bisa sih bisa Bu, cuma yang kalo saya disini adalah mengenai ee
kepercayaan
Budi : Itu tadi

387
Maki : Karena biasanya itu kan dari kotak saran
Pewawancara : Oke
Maki : Jadi kalo ada masukan, itu follow up nya kandang-kadang tidak sesuai
dengan apa yang disampaikan, itu saya alami ada
Pewawancara : Oke
Maki : Yang paling banyak itu Bu, yang sering mereka ee keluhkan kalo di saya
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Pak Endar mungkin ee timnya bagaimana apa..kalo tadi kan
dari yang bisa dipercaya tadi ya, kalo yang Pak Endar apakah
approachable, pendengar yang baik, bisa dipercaya dan adil?
Endar : Ya kadang-kadang yang adil tadi, mereka kadang-kadang suka pilih
kasih
Pewawancara : Adil ya, pilih kasih? Betul, karena itu ada disurvei juga
Endar
Maki
: Iya
: Itu ada
R
P
Pewawancara : Yang di survei ee apa itu rata-rata itu tidak adil ada. Kalo Bu Dea?
Bu Dea : Adil, terkadang juga ada untuk beberapa sisi terkadang terlalu defensif
untuk ee beberapa orang saja.
S

Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Pak Budi?

Pak Budi : Tidak semua supervisor bisa dipercaya, approachable. Adil atau tidak
adil itu berhubungan dengan approachable, kalo misalnya mereka yang
L

bisa mendekati supervisornya itu pasti akan merasa adil Bu, tapi kalo
merekanya gak bisa deketin supervisor pasti udah bilangnya tidak adil,
gitu kan.
Pewawancara : Betul
Pak Budi : Jadi kalo yang […] ya sama sih Bu, ya seperti itu tadi, adil, kurang adil,
tidak adil itu tadi
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah kalo ee kebanyakan sih rata-rata sama, berarti sama nih
saya mau ngeklopin aja. Ee Pak Maki tadi cerita kalo atasannya Pak Maki
itu ee justru gampang dihubungi terutama ketika ada masalah urgen
kebakaran gitu, ya?
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Ketika ada kebakaran langsung approach terhadap konflik, itu kan
termasuk issue atau masalah konflik ya, konflik gitu ya atau kita sebutnya
ee crisis. Nah kemudian ee atasan juga memberikan ‘oh, yaudah ini ada
begini, yaudah kita begini’ kurang lebih memberikan solusi meskipun

388
 tidak saat itu terus langsung cling ilang masalah, tapi paling tidak
memberikan solusi yang konstruktif. Nah, apakah Bapak/Ibu
menerapkan hal yang sama kepada tim? Ketika supervisor ada masalah
Bapak/Ibu melakukan ee approach atau pendekatan ee apa yang ee
konstruktif?
Makky : Sama bu
Pewawancara : Sama, ya?
Pak Budi : Harus sama, Bu
Endar : Harus bisa
Maki : Harus sama
Pewawancara : Oke. Kalo supervisor sendiri, menurut Bapak/Ibu, ketika front liner
mempunya masalah misalnya ya, apakah mereka itu memberikan

Maki R
pendekatan konstruktif atau mereka menghindari?
: Lebih banyak yang saya alami adalah supervisor menghindari karena
mungkin ketidakmampuan mereka dalam menangani permasalahan
yang disampaikan oleh bawahannya. Jadi memang sangat jarang yang
P
konstruktif
Pewawancara : Oke, yaudah. Sama.
Maki : Sama ya Bu, ya?
S

Pewawancara : Sama, betul. Dalam surveinya sama. Kalau menurut bapak ibu
bagiamana kemampauan leader di matahari dalam merespon
opportunity dan threat dan gimana sih info ke timnya?
L

Makky : Tidak semua supervisor langsung respond and follow up untuk inisiatif
bila ada ancaman dari competitor terutama di dalam mall. Mereka akan
jalan bila saya instruksikan. Untuk opportunities supervisor jarang
melakukan visit toko competitor. Harus diingatkan, mereka baru jalan
Oke sekarang ee kalo sekarang kita menilai tim Bapak/Ibu, tim itu berarti seluruh toko
ya, timnya Bapak/Ibu baik SA maupun front liner, apakah mereka itu
commit dalam bekerja? Ada komitmen dalam bekerja.
Pak Budi : Ada, Bu
Pewawancara : ada, ya?
Maki : Ada
Pewawancara : Kalo tidak commit misal kalo misalnya itu berapa persen, kalo tidak
commit, pasti kan ada nih?
Maki : Pasti diantara karyawan yang komit ada yang tidak, tapi tidak semua”

389
Budi : Tujuan perusahaan biasanya kami terima sudah given tidak bisa
diganggu gugat harus menerima dan kami juga harus komit, tapi
biasanya kalau yang berhubungan dengan angka kalau terjadi hal2 diluar
kehendak misal musibah biasanya kami mengajukan revisi. Atasan kami
biasanya memperjuangkan supaya ada koreksi. Jadi sekarang lebih
akomodatif daripada dulu. Untuk komitment ada anak2 yang tidak komit,
tapi kecil lah, Bu. Paling ya 5%-10%.”
Suhendar : Betul, untuk company goal kita tidak bisa merubahnya kita terima kita
telan bulat2 tapi jika ditengah jalan ada apa2 kami mengajukan revisi
biasanya. Jika disetujui pasti kami akan lebih komit karena kan ngga enak
udah direvisi masih ngga capai juga
Maki : Pasti ada Bu, tidak semuanya bisa, tapi ada, semua bisa lakukan
Pewawancara : Baik. Tim Bapak/Ibu menurut Bapak/Ibu kompak atau tidak?
Bu Dea : Kompak
Maki
Endar
: Kalo saya kompak
: Kompak, saya kompak
R
P
Pewawancara : Kompak? Kemudian ee apa namanya ee dalam achieving target tadi
ataupun achieving ya target itu bisa finansial, bisa non-finansial bisa
behaviour tadi servis ya Pak ya. Ee dalam achieving target-target tesebut
apakah mereka confident atau defensif eh atau sudah ‘ah mana bisa sih
S

dua digit’ ‘mana bisa servis lima’ misalnya contoh. Bagaimana?

Maki : Ee tadi Bu ya dilihat dari persentase ya kadang-kadang ada yang
memang ya tidak terlalu optimis, ada juga yang
L

Pewawancara : Berapa persen Pak yang tidak optimis?

Maki : Ya sekitar 3 sampe 5% lah, kalo saya punya total 300 karyawan seperti
itu lah Bu
Pewawancara : Oke, betul. Jadi gak..gak banyak ya Pak ya?
Maki : Sebenarnya tidak banyak, Bu, itu tadi mungkin karena masalah ee lama
bekerja, dan juga faktor lingkungan
Pewawancara : Nah sekarang kalo ada fenomena seperti ini Pak, ini menurut survei
alasan ketidakkompakan ya, itu adalah misalnya tadi kan ada oknum
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Misalnya oknum ini ee karena merasa tadi senioritas, ketika barang
dateng misalnya deh barang dateng ya dia gak mau ngecek, dia mau shift
pagi kek, mau shift siang kek, dia gak akan ngecekin barang, yang barang
dateng pagi dia biarin, diterima dulu, nanti yang ngecek adalah shift dua,
anak yang junior.

390
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Nah itu kurang lebih rata-rata ketidakkompakan alasannya itu kesana.
Kalo fenomena seperti ini bagaimana Pak?
Maki : Kalo saya alami, kalo sebelumnya memang pernah seperti ini Bu, tapi
setelah coba kita berikan arahan kepada oleh supervisor, koordinator,
dan sudah mulai berkurang dan sekarang mereka saling […] yang sama.
Bahkan bukan hanya yang menjadi tanggung jawabnya juga seperti dari
ee VM atau dari ADM memang itu dibutuhkan segera untuk ditangani
penerimaan barang, kita libatkan mereka. Bahkan SPG pun kita libatkan,
bahkan buka tutup pintu rolling door pun juga kita juga libatkan yang
bukan menjadi tanggung jawab dari karyawan […] saya melihat dari situ
parameternya.
Pewawancara : Iya, ada lagi mungkin yang mau nambah?
Bu Dea : Kita kan
Endar
Bu Dea
R
: Ya kalo saya ya, ladies first
: Punya goal setting semua, kita bekerja sama jadi kalo memang ada
oknum yang seperti itu pasti kita panggil maksudnya kita kembalikan lagi
P
kepada mereka bahwa visi-misi mereka datang kesini untuk apa.
Pekerjaan yang mereka ee akan kerjakan itu mereka benar lakukan atau
tidak karena kalo misalnya kita punya goal setting, ee kita harus menjaga
tim kita keep on the track gitu. Kalo memang ada oknum yang seperti itu,
S

kita coaching ulang, kita punya HR, kita punya asisten atau store
manager, kita harus bisa mengembalikan orang tersebut keep on the
track sesuai goal kita.
L

Pewawancara : Baik, Pak Endar?

Endar : Iya, kurang lebih sama sih, kalo saya prinsipnya kalo ada oknum yang
bermasalah seperti itu, yang kita lakukan konseling coaching, kalo tidak
berubah ya bisa berbicara PP kalo saya. Kalo bicara PP ternyata mereka
masih..masih sama ya kita ikut aturan rule yang ada, kasih tetep
punishment.
Pewawancara : Oke. Pak Budi?
Budi : Sejauh ini sih kalo perihal ada oknum-oknum yang seperti itu Bu di
tempat saya, kita biasanya gimana kita ke leadernya atau ke
supervisornya itu bisa ee membawa atau mengajak yang bersangkutan
itu untuk engaged tadi, dan biasanya kalo dia lebih ee approachnya lebih
dalem ke sisi personalnya dia, dia akan bisa kita ubah, kayak gitu Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke. Kalo seandainya justru oknum ini adalah yang sudah ee ini Pak,
yang sudah karyawan tetap, tadi kan Pak Endar kan bilang pake PP
Endar : Iya, saya sih pendekatan personal, kalo gak bisa PP. Udah itu aja.

391
Pewawancara : Kalo PP dia karyawan tetap?
Endar : Toolsnya sekarang mau karyawan tetap ataupun tidak tetap itu sama
aturannya di-PP gitu, jadi kita sendiri ya sebagai leader harus bisa
tegaskan.
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Sekarang kita bicara mengenai masalah komunikasi didalam
perusahaan atau didalam toko, ya. Ee pernah mengalami kejadian atau
masalah yang disebabkan karena komunikasi entah itu miskomunikasi
atau komunikasi A menjadi AAAAAA, kalo miskomunikasi A menjadi B,
kalo ee apa komunikasi ada lain lagi adalah yang A jadi AAAA gitu, Pak
Endar mungkin?
Endar : Itu pernah sih memang iya, jadi ee mungkin penyampaian apa ya
messages kita goal settingnya apa itu kan di..kita selalu meeting kan, nah
kita sama mindsetnya sama ee supaya sama mereka, jangan sampe di
ruang meeting begitu keluar beda lagi, itu kadang-kadang ada juga ya

R
mungkin kurang pemahaman mereka, mungkin mereka pada saat
meeting ada masalah pribadi atau mereka gak fokus
Pewawancara : Nangkepnya beda gitu kali ya
P
Endar : Nangkepnya beda, itu akan terlihat di area di konter, jadi message kita
sampe apa gak, nah itu kita sebagai ee leader harus check on the spot lagi
karena pemahaman mereka beda-beda
Pewawancara : Baik. Bu Dea mungkin mau nambah, Pak Budi?
S

Pak Budi : Sama sih Bu, menurut saya ya jadi pasti ada yang ee apa ya namanya tadi
kalo udah dikatakan mungkin pada saat penyampaian informasi
sehingga terjadinya miskomunikasi itu memang adanya gagal fokus Bu si
L

apa penerima message gitu sehingga tatkala mereka harus

implementasikan di area message itu gak sampe lagi kan. Nah, itu
kembali lagi proses sebagai leader untuk membenahi atau
mengembalikan mereka ke track yang bener gitu Bu
Pewawancara : Baik, baik. Jadi solusinya ketika menemukan di area Bapak/Ibu
langsung cepet-cepet me..apa
Pak Budi : Iya, meluruskan lagi
Pewawancara : Meluruskan lagi ya supaya nanti gak ini ya
Endar : Kita crosscheck lagi mereka paham gak sih tujuannya
Pewawancara : Oke, nah sekarang kita bicara mengenai tadi servis ya, ee Bapa/Ibu
pernah gak mendapatkan ee servis yang diterima oleh customer tidak
sesuai dengan yang seharusnya sehingga membuat customer tersebut
komplain? Pasti pernah ya?
Pak Budi : Pernah

392
Endar : Sering Bu, pernah ngalamin
Pewawancara : Nah, kira-kira yang paling berat masalah komplainnya apa? Mungkin
dari Pak Maki dulu
Maki : Ee baru kemarin kejadian dan ini memang sangat fatal, customer
merasa tidak diperlakukan dengan baik, dia komplain langsung di HALO
MATAHARI mengatakan bahwa dianggap customer itu tidak mampu beli,
terus pengakuan customer karyawan tersebut tidak mengenakkan, tidak
bisa ee seperti yang selama ini kita sampaikan dengan senyumnya, tidak
bisa melihat ee kepada customer itu mukanya yang mengenakkan, nah
itu pengakuan dari customer. Nah sudah kita crosscheck memang ada
yang sama pengakuan customer dari ee setelah kita tanyakan kepada
yang bersangkutan. Akhirnya saya instruksikan ini harus segera di follow
up untuk bisa diklarifikasi, namun customer ini masih belum bisa
memberikan, padahal kita sudah kirim email untuk bisa ee memberikan
nomer handphone

Pak Budi : Nomer teleponnya

R
Pewawancara : Oo iya, maaf di HALO MATAHARI kan ada nomer telepon
P
Maki : Iya, tapi ini tidak ada Bu ee waktu itu saya melihat tidak ada makanya
kita minta nomer handphone-nya, minta alamatnya kita mau dateng. Nah
sampe hari ini belum ada ee kabar dari..dari pihak customer, tapi kami
sudah sampaikan bahwa mohon maaf ya dengan standar kita punya
S

MATAHARI Bu menyampaikan ‘terima kasih masukan dijadikan

pembelajaran agar ke depan lebih baik’ dan ini kita akan terus kejar, dan
kita juga sudah sampaikan kepada [Ferry] dan juga ke pihak MATAHARI
bahwa kami sudah follow up namun belum ada respon
L

Pewawancara : Oh oke
Maki : Dan ini kita harus tuntaskan
Pewawancara : Belum ada yang balik, ya?
Maki : Iya, dari pihak customernya
Pewawancara : Oh, jadi sebenernya masih belum yang berat berat banget ya Pak ya
Maki : Oh gitu Bu, kalo saya buat saya itu berat Bu
Pewawancara : Oh, sudah berat ya Pak ya
Maki : Sudah berat karena yang lain saya belum pernah
Pewawancara : Karena belum ketemu langsung nih
Maki : Belum pernah ada yang lebih berat, itu saya anggap lebih berat, kalo
yang lain kan cuma komplain masalah ee ada yang sedikit sobek, atau ini
size-nya beda kayak gitu Bu kebanyakan

393
Pewawancara : Oh, kalo ini benar-benar pelayanan si ee SA-nya
Maki : Ini dianggap berat kenapa? Karena dia sepertinya kayak emosi,
menumpahkan semuanya kekesalan gitu, jadi selama saya di Pejaten ini
Bu baru kali ini
Pewawancara : Oh, baru kali ini ya, baik baik
Maki : Iya, jadi yang saya harus pikirkan ke depan bagaimana
Pewawancara : Tapi anaknya betul, memang mengakui?
Maki : Ee ada yang tidak betul katanya, saya tidak mengatakan bahwa saya ee
menyampaikan ‘Ibu tidak punya uang’ atau ‘Ibu tidak mau beli barang-
barang mahal. Tidak itu’ Memang kalo saya lihat dari ee orangnya setelah
kita lacak itu dia punya media sosial, itu wajahnya memang sedikit kayak
orang arogan gitu loh Bu ya, mudah-mudahan sih tidak, itu hanya wajah
saja. Saya coba desak ‘Betul gak Dek, tolong jujur kan, ini membawa nama

R
baik company, bukan nama brand’ Jadi SPG [La Villa] Bu. Nah, terus
akhirnya follow up sementara adalah ke internal kita dulu supaya kita
tidak sampai terjadi langsung saya ambil meeting, saya yang bawa
pimpin meeting, kemudian kita arahkan supervisor tolong harus sering
P
selalu mengingatkan berulang-ulang teruuus supaya mereka tidak lupa
apapun kondisinya, sedang capek, sedang lembur, gak boleh, karena ini
bukti adalah yang disampaikan itu pasti bukan mengada-ada, tapi kita
ambil poinnya bahwa ini ada komplain jadi kita harus serius menangani
S

dan ini saya anggap udah sangat ee luar biasa gitu, Bu. Itu aja Bu
pengalaman saya.
Pewawancara : Baik. Pak Endar mungkin?
L

Endar : Saya pernah Bu, jadi memang ini terjadi bukan di yang sekarang, tapi di
Taman Anggrek sebelumnya. Jadi ada customer Korea dan suaminya
orang Indonesia, jadi waktu itu dia mau beli ee Polo shirt, nah size-nya
tinggal 1 S. Nah dia sudah melihat, tapi dia tidak kasih kepastian jadi atau
enggak. Nah ada customer lain akhirnya beli, begitu dia balik lagi ndilalah
sudah gak ada. Itu dia ngomelnya seantero toko itu sampe saya ditunjuk-
tunjuk hehe
Pewawancara : Pakai bahasa apa? Korea?
Endar : Pake Bahasa Inggris ya, Inggris, dan tapi suaminya bisa Bahasa
Indonesia. Nah itu yang
Pewawancara : Yang marah suaminya atau istrinya?
Endar : Istirnya, itu marah banget, dia marah pokoknya sampe semua customer
tertuju ke dia, se-lantai itu kedengeran sampe saya bawa ke atas itu juga
ngomel sepanjang jalan sampe ke office saya bawa ke office, dan saya
cuma minta

394
Pewawancara : Ngomelnya kenapa kan dia gak memutuskan?
Endar : Nah itu, tapi dia merasa dia sudah mau, tapi dia juga..ya mungkin karena
mungkin dia sudah lihat tidak ada size yang S-nya, cuma ada di Polo, wah
itu dia sampe dari sepanjang eskalator sampe ke office itu haha
Pewawancara : Terus suaminya gimana?
Endar : Suaminya sih ya akhirnya ikut, ya bapak, cuma saya akhirnya solusinya
ee saya minta gimana caranya itu di showroom cari
Pewawancara : Kan gampang Pak, toko lain kan ada
Endar : Di toko lain itu gak ada, di showroom adanya Bu, dan itu kalo gak salah
di..ee saya lupa dimana. Ya akhirnya saya minta, saya sampe telepon
supervisornya, ‘pokoknya ini harus ada’ Ya akhirnya kita berikan solusi
ya si ininya juga ikut nyari sampe dapet, gimana caranya pokoknya
malem itu udah mau tutup toko pula jam 09.

Endar : Dapet, akhirnya dapet.

Pewawancara : Oke.
R
Pewawancara : Akhirnya dateng? Si itunya dateng?
P
Endar : Ya itu lah Bu, itu pengalaman bener-bener saya dimaki-maki customer
yang gak dengan jelas bahasanya, ya itu kita, saya juga tanya sama
customer eh sama si SPG-nya, itu gimana kejadiannya.
S

Pewawancara : Nah, ketika diberikan solusi customernya bagaimana?

Endar : Customer tetep ngomel ya karena dia tetep ya mungkin sudah..sudah
L

kebawa orang
Pewawancara : Meskipun akhirnya dapet solusi ya?
Endar : Dapet solusi tetep, iya kita sih iya tetep ee dari temen-temen biar gimana
pun ya servis is […] gitu aja.
Pewawancara : Baik. Bu Dea?
Bu Dea : Kalo di toko saya terutama Bu memang yang paling ee agak berat ya
memang cuman seperti Pak Maki, jadi customer tidak bisa menerima
mimik seseorang gitu lho, dianggapnya tidak mampu membeli gitu,
padahal setelah di crosscheck dengan waktu kejadian didalam
MATAHARI, dan shift anak tersebut ternyata bukan anaknya
Pewawancara : Nah, terus?
Bu Dea : Jadi ada brand lain, cuma customer gak menyebut spesifik nama, tapi
karena dia datang ke konter itu ketemunya SPG itu
Pewawancara : He’eh siapa mungkin yang dari brand lain membantu mungkin

395
Bu Dea : Betul, iya. Tapi kita kan tetep aja yang..ee kita tetep harus minta maaf ke
customer. Kalo internal tetep harus diperbaiki
Pewawancara : Tapi akhirnya selesai?
Bu Dea : Selesai
Pewawancara : Oke. Baik. Pak Budi?
Pak Budi : Sama halnya dengan yang lain sih Bu, kalo di toko saya atau di tempat
saya selama pun saya bekerja ee komplain customer sejauh ini ya masih
hal-hal yang seperti itu kayak salah tuker size, salah ee pengembalian
barang atau masukin barang.
Pewawancara : Oke, jadi belum yang parah parah banget ya?
Pak Budi : Belum lah
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah sekarang kita bicara mengenai service excellence ya,

R
service ketika kita bicara mengenai service excellence, oke, kita bicara
adanya personal touch, extra miles, delivering the promise dan ee dealing
with problems and queries. Jadi dealing with problems and queries
adalah kita meng..menghadapi ee masalah baik komplain atau
P
permintaan-permintaan customer. Oke. Delivering the promises adalah
kita memberikan sesuai janji kita, kita mau katakan ee misalnya
home&co, biggy, kan di MATAHARI ada biggy. Begitu customer datang
‘lho kok diskon 40% cuman’ misalnya. Extra miles berarti kita ee
S

memberikan lebih misalnya kalo sepatu 2 menit 2 pasang, 2 menit 3

pasang, atau 2 pasang cuma 1 menit, extra miles. Kalo personal touch
otomatis ini yang individu ya, yang bener-bener memberikan sentuhan
ee langsung ee yang menyentuh kepada individu tersebut. Nah kira-kira
L

Bapak/Ibu, di toko Bapak/Ibu, kita bicara ee toko ya secara keseluruhan

tidak hanya satu [wall] tapi berarti seluruh [wall] ya. Mulai dari Pak Maki
dulu, apakah di tokonya Bapak sudah melakukan personal touch?
Maki : Ee sudah melakukan, tapi tidak semuanya
Pewawancara : Oke, berarti belum ya Pak? Karena saya katakan seluruh, jadi kalo cuma
satu [wall] misalnya kalo itu ee kosmetik, tapi kalo children belum
melakukan ya berarti belum.
Maki : Oh gitu
Pewawancara : Kita satu-satu kita bedahnya ya
Maki : Ya kalo personal touch ini sebetulnya secara keseluruhan sudah
berjalan, cuma tidak spesifik Bu ya. Kita lakukan kepada staf dan staf
kepada temen-temen, itu..
Pewawancara : Oh bukan, ini ke customer Pak.

396
Maki : Oh sorry, ke customer ya. Personal touch customer memang belum
semuanya Bu.
Pewawancara : Oke, jadi belum ya Pak
Maki : Iya
Pewawancara : Pak Endar?
Endar : Belum
Bu Dea : Belum
Pewawancara : Belum?
Pak Budi : Sama sih saya pikir, Bu, kalo personal touch. Kalo karyawan semua
sebenarnya dari sisi ee memberikan servis itu mereka udah punya
standarnya, tapi dari sisi untuk yang langsung ke customer yang
menyentuh sekali itu saya pikir belum

Maki
R
Pewawancara : Oke, belum ya. Sekarang kita bicara mengenai extra miles. Pak Maki
apakah tim Bapak sudah extra miles?
: Ee belum juga Bu
P
Pewawancara : Belum, ya
Maki : Tidak terlalu, iya masih kurang
S

Pewawancara : Pak Endar?

Endar : Belum
Pak Budi : Masih kurang Bu
L

Pewawancara : Delivering the promise berarti sesuai dengan janji. Ya Pak Maki?
Maki : Ee sudah ni, Bu
Pewawancara : Sudah?
Endar : Iya
Bu Dea : Iya, sudah
Pak Budi : Sudah commit
Maki : Iya, sudah sesuai
Pewawancara : Dealing with problems and queries jadi tadi komplain ataupun
permintaan customer-customer minta ‘saya mau size ee saya mau minta
warna merah atau saya mau size M’ ‘oh gak ada Bu’ sudah selesai
Maki : Saya masih belum
Pewawancara : Jadi kalo problems udah tapi queries belum?

397
Bu Dea : Iya
Endar : Iya, sama
Pewawancara : Sama? Sama? Oke, ini belum. Baik. Nah, sekarang 2 dari eh ini belum tadi
disini ya, ini fifty-fifty karena kalo yang problems sebenarnya sudah ya?
Audiens : Sudah
Pewawancara : Oke. Kita bicara mengenai ini yang belum Bapak/Ibu lakukan, ini yang
sudah Bapak/Ibu lakukan dan disini adalah fifty-fifty. Tetapi ketika
Bapak/Ibu ini sudah melakukan dealing with problems, itu tidak akan
terjadi, kenapa? Bapak/Ibu sudah?
Bu Dea : Menepati
Endar : Sesuai janji
Maki : Iya, betul

R
Pewawancara : Sudah menepati janji, jadi ketika Bapak/Ibu katakan misalnya kalo
melayani ee mimik harus tersenyum, kalo melayani tidak boleh dengan
kata-kata yang mengejek, kalo melayani harus dengan tulus misalnya, eh
ada komplain ‘ee iya Pak, memang saya agak kesel orang ibunya itu gak
P
apa ee cuma muter-muter bla..bla’ nah berarti dia belum delivering the
promise. Begitu juga misalnya ‘lho saya kan belinya ee sizenya kan M,
kenapa sampe rumah ternyata sizenya adalah L?’ Berarti belum
S

delivering the promise. Itu sebenernya. Jadi ini mohon maaf saya berikan
disini ya Pak, ya
Maki : Oh oke
L

Pewawancara : Termasuk yang belum dilakukan. Oke sekarang, ada tiga yang belum
Bapak/Ibu ee menurut Bapak/Ibu toko belum lakukan, baru satu
delivering the promise. Kira-kira Bapak/Ibu menilai service excellence di
toko Bapak/Ibu berapa? Satu sampe dengan lima, satu itu belum service
excellence, dua itu ee sorry, satu itu sangat tidak service excellence, dua
belum service excellence, tiga itu ee sesuai dengan service excellence—
sesuai harapan ya, terus kemudian empat sudah excellent jadi kalo yang
tiga sesuai dengan harapan dulu sesuai dengan harapan, empat itu
service excellence, lima sangat service excellence. Kira-kira Bapak/Ibu
mau menilai berapa untuk toko?
Maki : Kalo saya masih rata-rata ya 3, Bu
Pewawancara : Tiga?
Maki : Iya
Endar : Saya dua
Pewawancara : Dua?

398
Bu Dea : Tiga
Pewawancara : Tiga?
Pak Budi : Saya dua, Bu
Pewawancara : Dua? Inget karena ada tiga yang belum dilakukan, ya. Oke, baik. Nah,
sekarang ee terakhir, ini adalah kriteria tadi service excellence ada 4, ya.
Kira-kira menurut Bapak/Ibu mana yang sebenarnya paling penting
menurut Bapak/Ibu?
Endar : Kalo saya personal touch
Maki : Personal touch
Dea&Budi : Personal touch
Maki : Itu bisa membangun ee relationship yang baik
Pewawancara : Oke
Maki
Pak Budi
R
: jika ada masalah itu bisa diredam kalo kita sudah kenal
: Iya
P
Maki : Mereka sudah tau kita, sudah ada komunikasi yang baik lebih akrab,
pertemanan, itu Bu kalo menurut saya
Pewawancara : Oke, betul
S

Endar : Bisa jadi customer loyal

Pewawancara : Sama ya?
L

Bu Dea : Sama
Pewawancara : Tetapi ternyata personal touch kan belum ada nih tadi, kira-kira ee hal
seperti ini Bapak/Ibu akan antisipasinya bagaimana ke depan? Karena
ini kan belum ada nih, padahal menurut Bapak/Ibu itu penting, paling
penting bahkan, iya bagaimana menurut Bapak/Ibu antisipasinya?
Maki : Untuk bagaimana supaya tim daripada staf untuk bisa melakukan
Pewawancara : Supaya ada, supaya ada personal touchnya iya
Maki : Yang sudah dilakukan
Bu Dea : Hal kecil sih kayak mengumpulkan nomer handphone customer, gitu.
misalnya kayak kalo kosmetik dia beli bulan apa, dia sebisa mungkin
harus tau kira-kira customer ini habisnya bulan apa jadi bisa
menawarkan lagi untuk beli di bulan ini ‘Bu ee krimnya sudah habis, ya?’
atau sudah habis atau belum, ee beli terakhir bulan ini, kalo misalnya
bulan ini ada promo ini gitu, jadi lebih ke ee komunikasi yang lancar sama
customer

399
Pewawancara : Oke
Maki : Itu yang sedang saya lakukan, jadi memang ini hubungannya dengan itu
Bu, jadi mereka harus punya ada ee
Endar : List
Bu Dea : Database customer
Maki : […] jadi kita juga membangun komunikasi terutama bila ada event, terus
bila ada ee produk-produk new arrival itu juga sangat terbantu sehingga
dari sana hubungannya cukup baik sehingga menjadi customer yang
loyal untuk brand-brand tersebut, itu Bu kalo yang ee sehingga ini bisa
dilakukan nanti secara keseluruhan kepada brand-brand yang lain dan
juga kepada staf
Pewawancara : Baik, kalo mungkin Pak Endar?
Endar
R
: Iya kalo saya sih ya mereka pasti melihat topnya kan, jadi harus top-
down, ya kitanya juga harus memberikan contoh yang baik kepada
mereka, ya seperti ada customer mungkin kita sapa, terus kita coba kalo
memang dia niat beli, ya kita bantu. Dan ini juga bukan hanya untuk
eksternal, tapi kita juga biasakan di internal memberikan contoh, ya kita
P
harus, bukan kita yang ee minta disapa tapi kita juga menyapa duluan ke
mereka. Nah itu kan bentuk personal dan ya salah satunya tadi caranya
toolsnya dengan kita minta list customer untuk customer loyal mereka,
itu sih. Yang terpenting kita harus memberikan contoh kepada mereka.
S

Pewawancara : Baik. Bu Dea?

Bu Dea : Ee iya sih Bu, betul. Leader by example semuanya, jadi ee tidak hanya
L

store manager asisten, tapi supervisor semua pun harus bisa mencontoh
bahwa ee kita semua harus bisa personal touch untuk kepada customer,
jadi untuk tim yang ada dibawah rekan SA, SPG juga bisa meniru itu.
Pewawancara : Oke, Pak Budi?
Budi : Kalo saya sih dari sisi untuk menciptakan personal touch tadi terhadap
customer kita itu, kita harus membangun ee lingkungan kerja Bu,
lingkungan kerja itu sehingga kita tuh ee welcome dengan siapa aja Bu.
Jadi dalam hal ini akan terbawa pada saat mereka pun di area kerja
ataupun area dengan ee di lapangan ber..berhadapan dengan customer,
mereka pun juga familiar lebih familiar sehingga itu mencerminkan
lingkungan kerja yang membuat mereka karyawan nyaman, buat
customer juga akan terjadi suatu ee apa ya namanya perasaan yang
berbeda gitu lho, kalo dia dateng ke suatu store mungkin dia merasa ‘oh
ini kayak gak seperti ee di toko’ Tapi merasa ini seperti dateng ke
sodaranya, dateng ke familinya, atau dateng ke temennya, dia bisa
bersahabat gitu, jadi lebih ke arah sana kalo menurut saya.

400
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah sekarang terakhir masih berhubungan dengan ini, apa sih
sebenarnya kendala ee tim Bapak/Ibu tidak bisa melakukan tiga hal tadi,
personal touch, extra miles, ee dan dealing with problems and queries.
Apa Pak, Bapak/Ibu kendalanya?
Endar : Kendala yang saya lihat mereka sih kalo grade 1 itu kurang pede sih
mereka.
Pewawancara : Kurang pede
Endar : Kurang pede untuk ee mereka ee menyapa customer, untuk berbicara
dengan customer, kadang-kadang mereka masih memposisikan bahwa
mereka itu jauh [dibawah] harusnya kan kita sudah sampaikan bahwa
kita sejajar dengan customer, bahkan temen-temen ada yang sebagai
consultant, kadang-kadang customer kalo belanja sendiri itu akan nanya
cocok atau enggaknya kan sama temen-temen, jadi anggap customer itu
adalah ee sebagai rekan temen-temen, partner, ya jadi jangan temen-

Pewawancara : Betul, iya, iya

Endar
R
temen memposisikan temen-temen dibawah, tapi sejajar.

: Itu kadang-kadang yang kendala kita, saya.

P
Pewawancara : Mungkin ada lagi yang lain kendalanya? Bu Dea kayaknya mau ngomong
Bu Dea : Ee biasanya rekan-rekan di area itu masih menganggap bahwa ‘ya ini
toko saya, terserah saya’ Biasanya ada yang begitu, gitu, jadi kita bener-
S

bener harus bisa menanamkan bahwa ee setiap customer yang datang

itulah sumber kehidupan kita, gitu, maksudnya cepet harus di-grab
customernya. Bukan terserah apa maunya dia.
L

Pewawancara : Oke, baik.

Maki : Kalo saya ini kembali ke personalnya Bu, ee memang ada juga beberapa
staf saya yang tidak biasa melakukan dan tidak mampu, mungkin
pertama dari knowledge-nya bagaimana dia harus [men-touch] itu
seperti apa, tapi kalo personalnya memang suka mudah berteman dan
sangat ee mengasyikkan kalo dia bicara, sangat jelas, itu mudah untuk
bisa membuat bagaimana melakukan personal touch kepada customer,
jadi mungkin saya disini melihat banyak yang tidak mengerti bagaimana
melakukan personal touch, dan juga ee ada kendala didalam personalnya
sendiri, ya itu tadi mungkin kurang pede dan dia tidak biasa harus
melakukan bicara dengan customer, apalagi customer Pejaten ya Bu,
agak sedikit menengah ada beberapa customer seperti itu, kadang-
kadang sulit untuk memulai mereka bicara harus darimana dan ini
mungkin harus ada ee pembelajaran untuk bagaimana mereka punya
knowledge seperti itu, dan saya yakin ini sangat penting ,dan ini memang
banyak sekali terkendala, apalagi dengan kondisi seperti sekarang
kompetisinya ya Bu, ya. Kita harus lakukan itu, Bu, sangat sangat penting.

401
Pewawancara : Baik. Pak Budi mungkin?
Pak Budi : Cukup, Bu
Pewawancara : Sama? Cukup? Baik
Maki : Saya mau cari bukunya nih Bu, saya jadi terbuka nih wawasan […]
mengenai personal touch hehe
Pewawancara : Baik, terima kasih.

***SELESAI***
TRANSKRIP
FGD FRONT LINERS

NARASUMBER (?): Pagi.

NARASUMBER (?): Selamat pagi.
R
PEWAWANCARA: Baik. Selamat pagi, semuanya.
P
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi, pertama-tama saya ucapkan terima kasih teman-teman
sudah hadir di sini. Saya akan mengadakan FDG (Focus Group Discussion), ini tujuannya
adalah untuk melengkapi data untuk tesis saya. Saya sedang mengambil S2, di mana
S

penelitian saya adalah di Matahari. Nah, jadi, saya mengadakan ini tujuannya adalah
untuk penyelesaian atau melengkapi data dari tesis saya. Nah, FDG ini kita lakukan tidak
akan saya buka misalnya “Jangan ngomong begini, saya laporin.” Itu enggak ada. Jadi,
saya harap teman-teman tidak takut “Waduh, nanti kalau ngomong begini saya begini.”
L

Enggak. Jadi, itu kita perlakukan secara rahasia. Jadi, kita tidak akan... Kenapa... Tidak
akan melaporkan. Tapi kenapa kita direkam? Karena nanti saya harus mentranskripkan.
Saya enggak akan ingat teman-teman ngomongnya apa, makanya saya butuh...
NARASUMBER (?): Rekaman.
PEWAWANCARA: He-eh, oke. Jadi, sekali lagi, tidak usah khawatir, tidak akan
berpengaruh pada PA. Jadi, saya harap teman-teman kita diskusi enak saja. Oke, sambil
menulis mungkin saya sedikit tanya dulu ya. Di sini yang rumahnya di Jakarta Selatan,
siapa saja? Baik, Satu, dua, tiga, empat, lima, enam, tujuh, delapan. Delapan. Sisanya dari?
NARASUMBER (?): Depok.
PEWAWANCARA: Depok?
NARASUMBER (?): Depok
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, Depok. Sisanya Depok, baik. Yang umurnya 18-23? Lima ya Oke,
24 – 29? empat
Yang umurnya 20-30 angkat tangan. Oke, satu ya, enggak apa-apa. Yang di bawah 20?
Enggak ada ya. Yang di atas 30? Yang 30-nya di bawah 35? Iya, di bawah 35. Nggak ada

402
ya. Jadi, semua single ya?
PEWAWANCARA: Kemudian, yang lama bekerjanya kurang dari satu tahun? Oke, dua
orang.
PEWAWANCARA: Satu sampai dua tahun ya, enam orang. Dua sampai tiga tahun? Satu
orang. Tiga sampai empat tahun? Satu ya. Oke, lebih dari empat tahun? Iya, oke. Jadi, ini
cukup variasi ya semuanya ada. Oke, yang sudah punya anak? Oke. Yang belum punya
anak? Oke. Yang anaknya satu? Udah, tanya aja cuma berdua yang sudah punya anak ya.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik. Mungkin supaya ini kelihatan bisa enggak Dek Fitri geser,
supaya yang sebelah sini bisa tetap ke-shooting. Iya, terima kasih.
***
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik. Sekarang, kita mulai. Waktu itu teman-teman sempat
enggak diminta untuk ngisi kuesioner?
NARASUMBER : iyaa......

R
PEWAWANCARA: Boleh. Sekarang, saya mau tanya teman2 tau tujuan / goalnya
perusahaan tidak? Kok Cuma senyum2? Klo tau bilang aja kalau ngga tau juga info ga
dimarahin kok.
NARASUMBER Ngga bu… (bersama2)
P
Narasumber: Ngga tau bu…”
NARASUMBER: Hmm… ngga ngerti
S

PEWAWANCARA: Atasan ngga pernah info ya goal perusahaan apa?

NARASUMBER Hmm… ngga….
PEWAWANCARA Tapi leader kalian kasih tau dong harapan mereka terhadap kalian itu
L

apa, terhadapa world kaian itu apa.

NARASUMBER ngga sih bu.
PEWAWANCARA Masa? Misal leader bilang harapan saya ke kalian begini begini
NARASUMBER: Ngga bu…
NARASUMBER: Ngga ada penjelasan Bu. Dibebasin aja
NARASUMBER: Dibebasin aja, jadi kalau mentok, salah baru kena
NARASUMBER: Mandiri bu
PEWAWANCARA kok liat2 an? OK Kalau gita Matahari itu kan punya visi-misi ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: Teman-teman tuh paham enggak sih sebenarnya visi-misi
perusahaan? Kira-kira tahu apa enggak gitu. Ngga ada hubungannya sam PA, cuman
nanya doang. Kalau enggak tahu mah enggak apa-apa. “Enggak, saya enggak tahu kok.”
Yang tahu kurang lebih...
NARASUMBER: Untuk memajukan fashion trendy Indonesia.

403
PEWAWANCARA: Maaf bukan itu…kira kira teman-teman tahu atau enggak? Begitu. Jadi,
saya enggak nanya apa.
NARASUMBER: ... kurang lebih.
PEWAWANCARA: Kurang lebih tahu, oke. Sekarang, kalau saya minta untuk teman-
teman misalnya “Ayo, apa, sebutkan visi-misi” gitu ya, kira-kira teman-teman ngerti,
enggak? Tahu, enggak? Enggak ya? Enggak apa-apa. Enggak apa-apa.
NARASUMBER: Panjang…. kurang paham Cuma ditempel aja visi misinya.
NARASUMBER: Lima standard kan ada yang berbeda ya waktu itu diganti
PEWAWANCARA: Panjang soalnya ya? Kemudian, teman-teman pertanyaan saya adalah
teman-teman tahu enggak sih tugas dan tanggung jawab teman-teman sebagai SA? Nah,
ketika teman-teman masuk atau gabung ke Matahari, teman-teman kan nanya nih “Aku
harus ngapain nih?” Nah, teman-teman. taunya dari mana
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Baik, baik. Nah, sekarang kita mengenai kembali lagi ke visi-

R
misi ya. Tadi kan teman-teman enggak tentang goal nya perusahaan... Nah… ketika kalian
baru masuk deh apakah leader memberitahukan goal perusahaan & visi-misi “Ini loh,
Dek tujuan perusahaan visi misinya gini.” Nah, itu dikasih tahu enggak sih sama leader-
nya?
P
NARASUMBER: Cuma sekali doang dikasih taunya.
NARASUMBER: Iya tapi ngga dijelasin maksudnya apa.
NARASUMBER: Cuma sekali doang dijelasinnya”.
S

PEWAWANCARA: pas visi misi ganti bagiamana?

NARASUMBER (?): Waktu visi misi ganti, cuman sekali doang dikasih tahunya.
L

NARASUMBER (?): Sekali sih tapi ngga dijelasin... .

NARASUMBER (?): He-eh, tapi ... enggak ada lagi.
NARASUMBER: Sekali tapi ngga dijelasin...
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, makanya enggak paham ya?
NARASUMBER : He-eh, yang baru lupa.
PEWAWANCARA: Yang lain? Dijelasin ngga?
NARASUMBER: Kalau ke pribadi ato individu mah enggak, tapi kalau tiap pagi mah
informasi dibacain. Cuma baca aja.
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau itu kan yang diomongin filosofi ya?
NARASUMBER: Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: Visi-misi dibacain?
NARASUMBER: Iya Dibacain.
PEWAWANCARA: Dibacain?

404
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Dibacain.
PEWAWANCARA: Dibacain. Tapi enggak dijelasin?
NARASUMBER: iya dibacain tapi enggak dijelasin.
PEWAWANCARA: Kembali ke goal perusahaan ya. Menurut kalian sudah jelas belum goal
eperusahaan?
NARASUMBER: Enggak ngerti bu ngga dikasih tau dengan jelas paling cuma meeting
umum aja tapi karena waktu terbatas suka kita masih ngga ngerti”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya Senior biasanya yang ngasih tau. Misal tujuan visi misi
sekarang udah beda loh tapi detilnya ngga dijelasin
NARASUMBER: Baca di mading bu tapi sekilas jadi ngga ngerti juga.
NARASUMBER: Mungkin secara arti tujuan perusahaan jelas tapi kalau suruh
menjelaskan saya kurang tau bu karena cuma sekali aja dijelasin pas meeting umum.

R
PEWAWANCARA: Iya, oke. Kemudian, kira-kira teman-teman paham dan ngerti target
yang diberikan itu apa oleh perusahaan atau oleh atasan anda itu tahu betul enggak
targetnya itu apa?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
P
NARASUMBER (?): Ngga. ... .
PEWAWANCARA: Tapi kalian Jelas enggak bagaiamana mencapai target?
NARASUMBER (?): Penjualan gitu kan ya, Bu?
S

PEWAWANCARA: Iya, bisa tentang penjualan, bias target yang lain misalnya shrinkage,
trus...
NARASUMBER (?): Melayani customer...
L

PEWAWANCARA: Melayani customer harus dengan nilai sekian gitu ya?

NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, terus... Tahu semua ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Tahu.
PEWAWANCARA: OK kembali lagi nih, kalau dari sisi spesifik apa sudah cukup spesifik
goal perusahaan itu?
NARASUMBER: Kalau tujuan perusahaan seperti target sudah detil saya harus
mencapai berapa
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya ngga paham bu tujuan perusahaan, tapi target saya harus
capai berapa sudah detil sih
NARASUMBER: Saya juga kurang paham tujuannya tapi argetnya seperti apa saya harus
capai sudah detil bu
“Mungkin tujuan perusahaan salah satunya melayani customer, trus sama atasan saya

405
dikasih tau harus nilainya sekian
PEWAWANCARA: sekarang komitmen nih, kalian komit ngga sih nerima ngga sih tujuan
perusahaan?
NARASUMBER: Saya sih nerima…Sebenarnya saya komit, Bu. Tapi atasan saya begini,
ini kadang-kadang yang membuat saya enggak komit”.
NARASUMBER: ya sama kadang2 kita tergantung atasan kita
PEWAWANCARA: Nah kalau menurut kalian goal perusahaan gampang ato susah? Ee..
bisa ga dicapai kira2 ?
NARASUMBER: Ha ha itu dia bu…
NARASUMBER: Saya tau sih bu target berapa, target shrinkage berapa, target customer
service berapa tapi memang yang paling susah tuh capai sales bu
NARASUMBER: Iya penjualan susah, waktu saya masih baru saya ngga ngerti gimana

R
capai target soalnya ngga dikasih tau sama atasan. Trus sama senior diajarin
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya waktu itu target CS world nya ngga capai karena kena MS trus
yang divisit nilainya jelek jadi memang susah susah gampang sih target itu
PEWAWANCARA: tapi targetnya sama terus atao suka dirubah?
P
NARASUMBER: Suka dirubah sih, selama saya kerja di MDS tiap tahun pasti ada
perubahan
NARASUMBER: Saya kurang paham
S

PEWAWANCARA: Kemudian, tadi kita bicara mengenai target, kemudian kita bicara
mengenai tanggung jawab SA. Kalau leader kalian itu ngasih tahu enggak “Eh, saya
ekspektasi...” Ekspektasi tahu ya? “Harapan saya ke kalian, kalian itu harus begini loh.”
L

Itu begini, ini begini. Ekspektasi itu mereka kasih enggak? Atau kalian ya udah
dibebaskan...
NARASUMBER : ... dibebasin aja.
PEWAWANCARA: Dibebasin aja. Jadi, ketika mentok, salah, baru kena.
NARASUMBER : Baru kena.
NARASUMBER : ... ini siapa.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Kalau planning dan alokasi tugas kalian apa dijelasin ngga
NARASUMBER: Ngga ada planning bu, saya nanya partner”
NARASUMBER: Saya nanya senior, ga pernah dikasih dari supervisor”.
NARASUMBER : ... mandiri, Bu.
NARASUMBER (?): nanya partner
NARASUMBER (?): nanya senior.
NARASUMBER (?): Otodidak.

406
NARASUMBER (?): Otodidak.
PEWAWANCARA: Istilahnya...
NARASUMBER: Proses.
PEWAWANCARA: Ooo....proses.?
NARASUMBER: Ngga dijelasin bu, kita bisa karena biasa”.
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi atasan ngga ngasih tau ya
NARASUMBER : Ala bisa karena biasa.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, enggak apa-apa. Teman-teman tahu feedback, enggak? Feedback
itu...
NARASUMBER (?): Timbal balik.
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau positif, kita dikasih tahu “Oh, kamu udah bagusnya di sini.”
Kalau ada negatif, “Oh, kamu kurangnya di sini. Kamu harus begini, begini.” Itu feedback.

R
Apakah atasan sering melakukan feedback?
Kemudian, kalau kita bicara tentang atasan teman-teman. Seberapa sering kalian dapat
feedback?
P
NARASUMBER: Setahun sekali pas PA
NARASUMBER: Iya pas PA…..
PEWAWANCARA: Itu yang kalian dipanggil satu2 ya pake kertas gitu. Ada ngga yang tiap
S

tiga bulan?
NARASUMBER: Ngga bu, biasanya yang pake kertas setahun sekali tapi kalau langsung
ngga pakai penilaian lumayan sering
L

NARASUMBER (?): Kalau saya yang ngga pake kertas jarang

NARASUMBER (?): Iya saya juga jarang…….
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau begitu seberapa jarang dan seberapa sering
NARASUMBER (?): Kalo saya sering.
PEWAWANCARA: Sebentar ya. Di sini tadi ngomongnya sering, yang di sini ngomongnya
belum.
NARASUMBER (?): Belum.
NARASUMBER: Saya malah belum. Baru mau jalan lima bulan. Tapi belum ada
pembicaraan kayak gitu
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Belum itu berapa waktu yang lalu?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Belum. Kalau di sini kan Santi posisinya untuk di ladies baru.
PEWAWANCARA: Baru?
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, di ladies udah berapa lama?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Baru mau jalan lima bulan.

407
PEWAWANCARA: Lima bulan?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Tapi belum ada pembicaraan kayak gitu ...
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, belum ada pembicaraan. Sekarang, kita tanya tadi yang sudah ya.
Enggak apa-apa, mau siapa dulu? Mau Arum atau Nisa dulu? Oke, kalau tadi ngomongnya
sudah ya? He-eh, itu kapan terakhir?
NARASUMBER 2 (NISA): Sering sih, kemarin juga... Waktu dua hari yang lalu jadi kayak
“Kamu di sini harus gini, gini, gini.” Kayak misalkan... Ya kebanyakan sih memang
masalah barang gitu kan, buat area ngerapihin barang, terus kayak kenaikan harga juga.
“Ini nanti juga dicek ya,” kata dia gitu. Terus, misalkan kita kalau datang itu masalah
kebersihan itu kan utama, katanya. Pokoknya kebersihan itu harus dijaga, kayak gitu-
gitu deh. Ngasih tahunya juga ya buat toko juga sih gitu. Buat kebersihan, terus barang,
kerapihan.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau Arum?
NARASUMBER 3 (ARUM): Sama aja sih, Bu, sebenarnya. Buat kayak tiap weekend .gitu-
gitu sih, untuk area-areanya.
R
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi seminggu sekali ya Tadi yang sudah, siapa?
NARASUMBER: Kalau supervisor agak jarang sih, jarang ngasih feedback”.
P
NARASUMBER: Kadang juga justru feedback buruk partner saya ke saya gitu.
Maksudnya ngejelasinnya malah ke saya. Jadi ngga efektif saya kan ga enak sama
partner saya”.
S

Narasumber: Iya, bener, ngerti tapi nyasarnya beda”.

NARASUMBER: Kalau store manager aku sih jarang ya. Paling dari store manager ke
supervisor, nanti supervisor yang ngerembukin gitu. Harusnya langsung aja, jadi, biar
L

kita tahu dan biar langsung, soalnya kan dia yang komplain gitu kan
PEWAWANCARA: lainnya?
NARASUMBER (?): Saya.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, boleh silakan.
NARASUMBER (?): Ya paling kayak lebih merhatiin counter, kayak misalnya sales kita
turun. Kalau store manager saya baru kemarin sih ngerombak semuanya, supaya
display-display-nya itu... Kayak denim, itu kan denim banyak banget, cuma kan di
display-nya sedikit. Karena tempatnya juga minim kan? Jadi, akhirnya kemarin
ngerombak, terakhir kemarin ngerombak. Jadi, denim banyak udah keekspos semua
karena lebih milih ke sales target. Jadi, lebih produk ke barang sama counter-nya lebih
fresh aja biar kelihatan ... .
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, yang lain tadi? Mungkin yang sudah bilang sudah nih. Tadi siapa?
Sudah? Oke, boleh Dek Fitri.
NARASUMBER 4 (FITRI): Saya kan baru pergantian supervisor nih, Bu. Kalau untuk
sebelumnya sih memang kurang feedback orangnya.

408
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik jadi jarang ya. Ada lagi yang mau sharing?.
[14:30] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Sekarang saya mau nanya gimana leader kalian dalam
memberikan feedback, misal nyebutin hal2 apa yang harus diperbaiki atau apa yang
kalian sudah bagus. Dea mungkin? Enggak?
NARASUMBER: Sering nya sih bahas hal2 yang saya kurang, jarang bahas yang saya
udah bagus. Misalnya: kamu tuh harus gini, gini, gini. Kayak misalkan masalah barang
gitu kan, buat area ini kurang rapi, ini harga belom. Ini nanti juga dicek ya, kata dia gitu.
Terus, masalah kebersihan itu kan utama, katanya kamu kurang gini gini harus dijaga,
kayak gitu-gitu deh”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya juga ga pernah dikomen yang bagusnya saya sih seringnya
itu di-comment untuk back wall, Bu. Jadi kurang rapi, harus rapi, selalu rapi”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya misalnya ada kesalahan tetap aja semuanya dipanggil, kadang
kadang bingung kenapa kok saya dipanggil padahal saya kan ngga salah. Iya, dua-duanya.
Misalnya partner saya salah nih saya juga dipanggil, sebenernya ngga fair partner saya

PEWAWANCARA: Mahda? R
kan mikirnya elo juga salah elo kan juga dipanggil

NARASUMBER 7 (MAHDA): Kalau saya sih seringnya itu di-comment untuk back wall,
Bu. Jadi harus rapi, selalu rapi.
P
PEWAWANCARA: OK, kalau pas memberikan feedback biasanya leader kasih tau ngga
yang bener ngerjain tugas-tugas itu kaya gini… trus kasih evaluasi tentang pribadi
kalian yang berhubungan dengan perkerjaan gitu?
S

NARASUMBER: Ngga…
PEWAWANCARA: Satu satu ya.. Kian, mungkin
L

NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Kalau aku sih paling kayak kemarin, Bu. supervisor kasih
feedback sambil ngasih tau cara counter nya biar keliatan lega. Trus counter-nya baru
dirombak lagi tuh, jadi biarnya customer-nya lega gitu ya.
PEWAWANCARA: Dirombak apa lagi?
NARASUMBER: Jadi kan fixture-fixture nya tadinya menghadapnya beda-beda tuh,
sekarang udah disatuin; jadinya counter-nya lebih lega gitu sih. Untuk yang ke personal
masih kurang”
NARASUMBER: Cuma, sekarang sih kalau saya rasain masih belum sih. Terutama untuk
dari pribadi kita, bagaimana kitanya, itu masih kurang sih, masih kurang sekali. Bahkan
jarang deh. Mungkin setahun sekali kalau lagi PA aja”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau store manager saya baru kemarin sih ngerombak semuanya,
supaya display-display-nya itu lebih bagus jadi ngajarin harusnya gini. Kayak denim, itu
kan denim banyak banget, cuma kan di display-nya sedikit. Karena tempatnya juga
minim kan? Jadi, akhirnya denim banyak udah keekspos semua. Jadi, di feedback nya
lebih gimana ke produk ke barang sama counter-nya supaya lebih fresh aja biar
kelihatan”.

409
NARASUMBER: Iya di saya juga kurang kalo untuk evaluasi personal
PEWAWANCARA: kalau di feedback kalian terima ga sih? Trus kalian kerjain ngga apa
masukannya?
NARASUMBER: Sebenarnya kalau pas evaluasi trus kita dikasih contoh langsung sih
kita ngerti pasti kita ikutin, tapi seringnya Cuma diomongin tapi caranya yang benar
gimana ngga dikasih tau”.
NARASUMBER: Ya kalo kita dikasih tau yang bener sih pasti kita jadi lebih baik,
masalahnya kita seringnya belajar sendiri misal kalau untuk barang mah ya belajar
sendiri, jadi kalo salah pas difeedback Cuma dibilang salah yang bener gimana kita ngga
dikasih tau”.
NARASUMBER: Iya, benar. Otodidak. Jadi leader ngga ngasih tau yang seharusnya itu
gimana. Kalo kita dikasih contoh pasti kita akan ada perubahan yang lebih baik”.
NARASUMBER: Iya malah seringnya nanya ke kita jadi kita mau lebih baik yang gimana
juga bingung

R
NARASUMBER: Kita sih nerima kok asal cara feedbacknya bener”.
NARASUMBER: Iya betul”.
P
NARASUMBER: Kadang-kadang kalo feedbacknya sambil ngomel-ngomel kita juga ga
enak nerimanya, padahal sebenarnya lebih ngertian kita”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya sih malah yang suka ngejar leader nanyain follow up nya
gimana karena leader saya cuek banget
S

PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau menurut teman-teman, feedback yang dari atasan itu
seringnya dilakukan secara transparan jadi ya ngomong apa adanya, jelas, transparan...
Jadi, tahu ya transparan?
L

NARASUMBER (?): He he he
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, enggak yang... Maksudnya apa adanya gitu loh. Atau ya dia
mengada-ada atau bahkan kadang-kadang enggak adil. Misalnya, sama-sama nih
partner-an. Satunya melakukan hal yang sama, sama yang tadi kurang positif maksud
saya atau kurang baik gitu ya, kurang bagus. “Tapi kok saya mulu yang yang di-feedback?
Saya mulu yang diomelin? Kok partner saya enggak?” Pernah enggak? Atau selalu
melakukannya transparan adil begitu?
[15:51] NARASUMBER (?): Adil...
[15:52] NARASUMBER (?): Transparan...mmm kadang2 sih
[15:54] NARASUMBER (?): Dua-duanya sih.
[15:56] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, kadang transparan, kadang juga justru feedback buruk
partner saya ke saya gitu. Maksudnya ngejelasinnya malah ke saya. Jadi ngga efektif saya
kan ga enak sama partner saya.
[16:06] PEWAWANCARA: Iya. Nah, itu dia yang saya maksud. Maksudnya kalau
transparan kan misalnya saya tahu Ja’far ini enggak benar nih nge-display, tapi saya

410
ngomong ke Mahda “Mahda, gimana sih tuh Ja’far? Kasih tahu dong. Dia kan begini,
begini, begini.” Udah ngerti kan? Efektif tidak?
[16:31] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, ngerti, ngerti tapi nyasarnya beda
[16:32] PEWAWANCARA: Gimana tuh yang lain...Selain Dea, tadi kan Dea udah bilang
begitu ya. Kalau yang lain?
[16:41] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Kalau saya semuanya aja, Bu. Kalau misalnya ada
kesalahan tetap aja semuanya dipanggil, karena kekompakan.
[16:49] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Jadi, semua itu dua-duanya? Partner-nya...
[16:55] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Partner-nya aja, iya.
[16:54] PEWAWANCARA: Iya, berarti dua-duanya ya?
[16:56] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Iya, dua-duanya. Misalnya salah satu salah nih,
“Gimana? Kasih tahu atau gimana, gini, gini.” “Oh, iya. Lanjut aja.”
[17:03] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau Nisa?
R
[17:07] NARASUMBER 2 (NISA): Kalau store manager aku sih jarang ya. Paling dari store
manager ke supervisor, nanti supervisor yang ngerembukin gitu.
[17:16] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, kalau Nisa itu pengennya store manager juga harusnya
P
kasih tahu dong kan...
[17:20] NARASUMBER 2 (NISA): Iya sih, he-eh. Jadi, biar kita tahu dan biar langsung,
soalnya kan dia yang komplain gitu kan. Cuman keseringan supervisor dulu.
S

[17:29] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke.

[17:30] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Kalau Santi sih di sini memang masih baru ya? Jadi,
Santi juga belum paham betul. Yang Santi rasain kalau untuk ke Santi ini kurang , jadi
L

komunikasi dengan yang lama.

[17:45] PEWAWANCARA: Dengan yang lama. Oh, karena baru ya? ... .
[17:50] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Iya bu…Harusnya malah yang baru itu komunikasi...
kalau di sini Santi enggak ngerasain.
[18:04] PEWAWANCARA: He-eh, he-eh. Padahal sebenarnya pengennya begitu ya?
[18:08] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Betul, pengennya begitu. Rosalina?
[18:07] NARASUMBER 9 (ROSA): Kalau supervisor agak jarang sih, jarang.
[18:09] PEWAWANCARA: Jarang ya?
[18:10] NARASUMBER 9 (ROSA): Iya.
[18:11] PEWAWANCARA: Tapi kalau ngasih feedback jelas ga mereka?
[18:12] NARASUMBER: Ya kalau langsung jelas sih….tapi kan seringnya ngasih tau
tentang partner saya ke saya bu suruh saya nyampein kan saya ngga tau masalahnya apa,
jadi itu yang suka ngga jelas
[18:15] NARASUMBER: Kadang2 maunya apa suka ngga jelas bu kan dari Store Manager

411
minta nya ini terus supervisor kasih tau kerjaan kita kurang ini… ternyata pas Store
Manager liat kita masih disalahin. Jadi ngga tau yang bener sperti apa
[18:25] PEWAWANCARA: O gitu ya?
[18:26] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Diba?
[18:28] NARASUMBER 10 (DIBA): ... satu unit MDS. Jadi, paling dari store manager
misalnya kayak harus ngerubah ini, ngerubah ini, dia lebih milih ke supervisor dulu.
Paling nanti supervisor baru ngasih kekita ... .
[18:44] PEWAWANCARA: Tapi tadi Diba bilang justru supervisor-nya yang jarang
ngasih feedback ya?
[18:45] NARASUMBER 10 (DIBA): Iya.
[18:46] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau menurut teman-teman, feedback yang diberikan
itu sudah efektif atau belum? Kan menurut teman-teman “Harusnya dia ngasih tahunya
begini, kenapa dia begini sih?” Begitu loh.

R
[19:06] NARASUMBER (?): Belum efektif sih.
[19:06] PEWAWANCARA: Belum efektif ya? Belum ya?
[19:09] NARASUMBER (?): ... .
P
[19:09] PEWAWANCARA: Kalau menurut Dea dulu deh. Kan rata-rata belum efektif ya?
Kalau menurut Dea, yang efektif itu yang gimana?
NARASUMBER 6 (DEA): Yang efektif itu jadi kayak misalkan sales nih, Bu, sales kita kan
S

misalkan lagi down. Kebanyakan itu sih dari atasan komplainnya “Kok bisa kayak gini?”
Tanpa solusi. “Kok kayak gini sih? Kok bisa kayak gini sih? Emang kamu ngapain aja di
counter?” Padahal kita stay di counter, bisa lihat di CCTV, kalau ada customer kita servis.
Cuman kan memang... Tanpa solusi.
L

PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, enggak ada solusi?

NARASUMBER 6 (DEA): Enggak ada solusi.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Santi?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Sama sih, paling kalau Santi perubahan sedikit di counter tapi
tetap aja... Apa ya, Dek... Maksudnya tetap enggak jalan, cuma ya maksudnya sama sales
lagi down juga kan di ladies. Kita udah pindah-pindah nih, udah ganti display-an. Ya udah,
maksudnya mau Santi tuh supervisor “Gini kali ya, San? Digini-ginian kali ya atau
gimana.” Tapi itu sih enggak gitu maksudnya. Jadi, kita itu kayak mikir sendiri.
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, jadi bingung.
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Iya, jadi bingung. Cuman punya ide......Punya ide mau
dikeluarin, tapi takut nanti dibilang ... .
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Iya, iya. Berarti emang solusinya enggak ada ya? Harusnya
enggak cuman ... .
NARASUMBER : Tapi harus ada solusinya juga.

412
NARASUMBER : Kalau kita tanya enaknya bagaimana.. suka ngga dijelasin jadi
bingung…..
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, kalau ... .
NARASUMBER (?): Sampai atasannya juga ngasih saran ke kita gitu harusnya.
PEWAWANCARA: “Iya, coba diginiin gitu.” Jadi, enggak melulu kita yang mikir ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: jadi dalam menyelesaikan masalah bukan datang dari leader ya, trus
kalau dalam membuat keputusan leader ngajak kalian ga diskusi?
NARASUMBER: Ngga…
NARASUMBER: Kalau masalah toko hanya supervisor sendiri bu tapi kalau masalah
counter supervisor ngelibatin SA, contoh kalau penjualan salah satu brand sedang turun
supervisor minta solusi ke kita bagaimana supaya brand tersebut naik penjualannya,
apakah cara display dirubah atau minta discount ke MD

R
NARASUMBER: Saya sih jarang diajak rembukan, tau2 kita di tegur kalau ngga
nglaksanain. Atasan saya memang cuek kurang melibatkan trus besokannya tiba2 udah
berubah aja display nya. Pas saya tanya kenapa udah ikutin aja
P
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau untuk team suka dikumpulin ga buat di feedback missal
world kita kurang ini atau sudah gini
NARASUMBER (?): Nggak……
S

PEWAWANCARA Ngelanjutin yang tadi ya. Otomatis dalam pekerjaan itu seberapa besar
sih support atau bantuan supervisor dalam pekerjaan teman-teman? Teman2 rata-rata
kan pada bilang “Aduh, jadi kayak saya sendiri, mikir sendiri, apa sendiri.” Kecuali tadi
yang Kemang ya. Nah, seberapa besar bantuan atau support supervisor dalam pekerjaan
L

teman-teman?
NARASUMBER (?): Sama sih gitu, paling cuman ngomong doang gitu kan? Kita
terakhirnya ditinggal... Kita partner, paling yang lebih support itu sih paling partner kita.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, jadi diskusiin sama partner?
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh, “Kak, ini gimana ya, Kak?” “Nah, tadi mulainya gimana?” Terus,
akhirnya “Ya enggak tahu, tadi ngomong gini doang.... Jadi ya sama partner gitu loh
kerjain sendiri.
PEWAWANCARA: Termasuk manajer dan asisten?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, termasuk itu deh. Jadi, biasanya kalau asisten sama manajer itu
ke supervisor dulu kan, Bu...
PEWAWANCARA: He-eh, betul. Cuman kan kadang-kadang mereka datang nih, itu sama
ya kurang bantu ya?
NARASUMBER : Yah sama aja sih kurang
NARASUMBER : Iya kurang

413
NARASUMBER : He-eh.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau...
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Kalau di toko saya, Bu, sangat membantu ya supervisor.
Karena setiap saya ada solusi atau gimana selalu ditanggapi gitu. Misalnya penjualan
menurun nih, ada bazar kan? Jadi, saya promosikan barang khusus itu harus ada ke bazar
gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Maksudnya apa?
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Harus ikut bazar gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, bazar?
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Nah, kalau menerut kalian leader kalian tuh seberapa bisa kalian
deketin?

R
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya kebetulan supervisor-nya agak sedikit lebih cuek ya, Bu.
Jadi, ya kurang support dan open. Agak kurang komunikasinya. Enggak ada
bantuannya”.
PEWAWANCARA: Kurang ini ya? Jadi, bantuannya sama sekali enggak ada ya?
P
NARASUMBER 9 (ROSA): Enggak ada.
PEWAWANCARA: harapan teman-teman supervisor atau atasan tadi ya bisa manajer itu
bantuannya yang seperti apa? Tadi kan misalnya Ja’far sudah bilang “Pak, ini harus ikut
S

bazar dong.” “Ya udah deh langsung diikutin,” misalnya. Kalau yang lain mungkin... Dea,
Santi.
NARASUMBER 6 (DEA): Kalau saya sih lebih minta bantuannya kayak yang senior
L

karena supervisornya tuh kurang helpful, maksudnya dari segi nada suaranya mungkin
harusnya agak lebih merangkul gitu, jangan benar-benar yang nge-judge. Karena suka
nge-judge jadi, kita ngga berani takut di judge bodo lah ngga bisa lah. Kalau open dan
supportive kan kitanya jadi enggak takut untuk ngomong.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, jadi atasan open atau bisa diajak ngobrol masalah ga?
NARASUMBER 6 (DEA): Karena suka ngejudge jadi, kita ngga bisa dekat... Kalau open kan
kitanya juga enggak takut untuk ngomong...…kita kurang bisa open ke dia karena takut
ngomong. Dia juga karena ngga dekat ke kita ngga open juga bu”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya kebetulan supervisor nya agak sedikit cuek jadi kurang
deket”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya jarang ngobrol dengan supervisor karena ngga dekat juga
lebih dekatnya ke partner. Jadi ngga mungkin kita bisa saling sharing orang masalah
pekerjaan aja cuek gimana masalah pribadi”.
PEWAWANCARA: yang lain? Diba... Mungkin Rosa?
NARASUMBER 10 (DIBA): Kalau supervisor aku beda bu, dia selalu perhatian. Merhatiin
kaya sales, display dll. Koordinator aku apalagi baik banget

414
PEWAWANCARA: Wah ini ya beda..
NARASUMBER: Iya..Kalau aku sih supervisor aku ya baik lah. Dia enggak terlalu banyak
ngatur, cuman dia selalu perhatiin, merhatiin kayak sales, display. Dia selalu bilang
“Gimana nih supaya sales-nya naik lagi, naik lagi gitu.” Terus, aku lebih sering dibantu
sama koordinator juga. Kalau koordinator selalu membantu sih, kayak misalnya datang
barang selalu nanti display-display. Kalau emang udah enggak laku, ganti display-
display-nya, koordinator sama supervisor aku juga kayak kalau klop buat saling
membantu aja sih.
[24:25] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kian?
[24:25] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Kalau Kian kan emang selalu di-support sama mereka.
[24:30] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, iya. Yang tadi ya. Kalau Arum sama ya kayak Nisa tadi?
[24:33] NARASUMBER 3 (ARUM): He-eh kurang bu
[24:33] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kemudian... Nah, sekarang nih kita kan namanya

R
bekerja... Tadi kan kalau enggak salah Nisa yang ngomong. Kita kadang-kadang ada
konflik dengan teman, partner. Ketika kita ada konflik, supervisor mau enggak
mendengarkan kita?
[24:54] NARASUMBER (?): Mau sih, mau.
P
[24:56] PEWAWANCARA: Mau?
[24:57] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau untuk itu mau.
[24:58] PEWAWANCARA: Oke.
S

[24:59] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh, kadang kita yang ngomong kan ngadu gitu istilahnya
“Bu, ini gini, gini. Tolong dong di-meeting, habis itu dipanggil, terus dirembukinlah gitu.”
L

PEWAWANCARA: Nah, sekarang kalau teman-teman punya masalah pribadi nih

misalnya ya kita kan enggak tahu apakah lagi punya masalah dengan orang luar, punya
masalah dengan pacar, punya masalah apa pun, punya utang misalnya, kadang-kadang
kita pengen cerita nih. Mungkin enggak cuman cerita ke partner, ke teman, tapi kadang-
kadang mungkin pengen cari kepada orang yang lebih ngerti daripada kita. Kalau itu para
supervisor... Eh, sorry. Teman-teman bisa enggak ngobrol kayak gitu ke supervisor?
[25:45] NARASUMBER (?): Bisa.
[25:48] NARASUMBER (?): ... enggak bisa, kalau sekarang ... .
[25:49] PEWAWANCARA: Sekarang enggak bisa ya?
[25:50] NARASUMBER (?): Belum biasa.
[25:52] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, kalau Diba enggak bisa juga ya. Arum sama Nisa enggak
bisa ya? Ja’far juga enggak bisa ya. Nah, sekarang saya tanya kenapa enggak bisa?
Misalnya kayak gini... Atau kita tanya dulu deh. Misalnya, Kian sama Dek Fitri bisa.
Kenapa kok bisa?
[26:08] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Soalnya atasannya kayak supervisor sama
koordinatornya juga sering masalah-masalah pribadinya atau...

415
[26:12] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, ... sama-sama sharing?
[26:15] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Iya, ... .
[26:17] PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, secara personal, udah dekat. Oke.
[26:20] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): ... aja sih, Bu. Kita jadi sama dia, ... .
[26:23] PEWAWANCARA: Umurnya samaan ya?
[26:23] NARASUMBER (?): Jauh.
[26:23] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Jauh sih.
[26:25] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, jauh malah ya?
[26:26] NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): He-eh.
[26:25] NARASUMBER (?): Dia udah punya anak.
[26:27] PEWAWANCARA: Mungkin karena udah punya anak jadi sharing-nya dia

R
menganggapnya “Oke, ini kalau anakku begini, begini.” Mungkin ya.
[26:35] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh, jadi cerita anaknya.
[26:37] PEWAWANCARA: Nah, sekarang kalau teman-teman yang “Aduh, enggak bisa
deh, Bu.” Itu biasanya rata-rata karena apa? Tadi kalau ... … mana bisa saya ngobrol,
P
orang pekerjaan aja juga enggak didengerin. Kan begitu.
NARASUMBER (?): Cuek banget. Kayak saya kan punya partner, kebetulan dia udah
karyawan tetap. Dia itu sering banget Sabtu atau Minggu pasti mendadak enggak masuk.
S

Kan kita udah nyoba ngomong bareng-bareng berempat di shoes ladies: gimana sih kalau
semisal hari Sabtu atau Minggu enggak masuk, kasih kabar 1-2 jam sebelumnya jadi kita
nanti bisa yang shift middle. Eh tetep siang enggak masuk, jadi mau enggak mau yang
middle harus lembur kan. Tapi pas bolak balik ngadu ke supervisor harusnya sih kita
L

didengar, tapi kayak enggak pernah didengar dan si senior ini pun enggak pernah ditegur
gitu. Jadi, kayak enggak ada menyelesaikan masalah”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau aku sih sama partner kan berdua, aku masih kontrak cuman
partner aku udah tetap. Cuman dia kalau masuk suka seenaknya aja, misalnya masuk
Sabtu, dia kan jam 2:45 ya tapi jam 3:00 baru ada di area. Terus, kalau pas datang
barang dia enggak ngecek sama sekali pas sore, karena aku kan shift pagi. Jadi, dia tuh
seenaknya. Terus, udah ngomong sama leader. Tapi mereka juga udah pada tahu, jadi
bilangnya dia udah kayak gitu sih katanya dari dulu. Jadi, ya udah, aku juga diem aja.
kesel gitu”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya sih lebih kayak diskusi tentang partner sih sama yang lain,
soalnya kalau langsung ke supervisor paling jawabnya cuma iya-iya gitu doang ngga
ada solusinya. Percuma juga”.
NARASUMBER: Udah sistemnya kayak gitu, kalau datang barang kan kadang kita2 aja
Bu. Kalau yang senior-senior yang udah tetap suka nyuruh kita, ga mau beresin sendiri.
Atasan udah tahu tapi bilangnya udah kayak gitu suruh nerima aja”.
NARASUMBER: Kadang kalau ada komplain enggak ada yang datang bantuin. Ya paling
kita kita aja yang handle. Soalnya kita panggil, enggak ada yang datang. Kalau udah kelar,
biasanya baru datang. Makanya kata anak-anak: Ngapain sih? Kalau udah beres, ngapain

416
datang? Dalam hati kita”.
NARASUMBER: Iya sering begitu”.
NARASUMBER: Iya bener banget”.

PEWAWANCARA: Oke, oke. Ada mungkin yang bisa sharing mungkin sama kayak... Itu
tadi padahal hubungannya dengan pekerjaan ya?
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
NARASUMBER (?): Kayaknya gimana ya, susah aja gitu kayaknya dia juga jarang sharing
pribadi sih, lebih sering ke toko, paling sama temen doang gitu. Jarang ngobrol
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, mungkin karena enggak dekat ya?
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke.

PEWAWANCARA: Kurang ya. Diba mungkin.

R
NARASUMBER (?): Kurang kalau buat sharing kayak gitu.

NARASUMBER 10 (DIBA): Sama sih kurang untuk ber-sharing. Tapi kalau supervisor
P
atau koordinator aku suka cerita kayak misalnya kita lagi share-share bareng, cerita-
cerita. Tapi kalau aku kayak kurang aja mau cerita jadi enggak enak gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Iya, Arum sama ya?
S

NARASUMBER 3 (ARUM): Iya, kalau Arum karena supervisor sama koordinatornya juga
baru.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Nah, berarti kalau komunikasi antara teman-teman dan atasan
L

itu bagaimana?
NARASUMBER 3 (ARUM): Kalau Arum ya kaya tadi kurang bu
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, kalau saya juga kurang
NARASUMBER (?): Kurang sih karena dianya cuek ….. masa saya yang mulai bun anti
dibilang carmuk… atau sok akrab……
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau Mahda?
NARASUMBER 7 (MAHDA): Komunikasinya baik sih, Bu. Kita kalau lagi... Maksudnya
kalau target kita lagi di bawah, lagi turun, kita entar sama-sama ngomong bareng-bareng
gimana nih caranya buat bisa nyampe target lagi, turun-turunin diskon buat di bazar.
Gitu sering sih, Bu, kalau kayak gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Misalnya begini. Ada sesuatu yang baru dari perusahaan, kemudian
seringkali kan supervisor seringnya itu kadang-kadang dia enggak langsung ngomong ke
SA, dia simpen. Ketika nanti dari orang pusat datang, kemudian “Loh, kok ini enggak
diapa-apain?” SA-nya kan “Enggak tahu, Bu.” Maksudnya begitu. Nah, itu kan berarti
komunikasinya enggak nyampe.
NARASUMBER (?): Kurang.

417
PEWAWANCARA: He-eh, kurang. Nah, itu kenapa kira-kira? Atau sering supervisor
begitu? Ya karena dulu saya sering “Loh, kok enggak nyampe sih?” Padahal kan kita udah
kasih tahu gitu loh. Mau kasih tahu anaknya sebenarnya dia enggak salah, orang dia
enggak dikasih tahu. Iya kan? Mau dimarahin kan enggak bisa juga, emang dia enggak
tahu kok gitu. Nah, itu kira-kira kenapa sih penyebabnya?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Kalau Santi di sini sih Santi kurang paham dengan dengan
karakter, maksudnya gitu. Jadi, kalau menurut Santi, supervisor Santi itu lebih kaku.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, kaku?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): He-eh, betul.
PEWAWANCARA: Kurang fleksibel?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Contohnya aja kayak diskonan aging kan otomatis SA lebih...
Maksudnya pertama kali yang dikasih suratnya ya? Kalau ini mah enggak. Dia kayak
seperti nyimpen sendiri, dia cari sendiri dulu, kerjain sendiri. Jadi kan kalau urusannya
pribadi, “Diskon ya, Bu? Turun diskon ya?” “Enggak, belum.” Jadi, tahu-tahu entar

R
besoknya atau malamnya udah di-display itu barang, besoknya udah aging. Jadi kan Santi
pikir begini, “Kok enggak ngomong ya?” Ditanya “Ini diskon ya?” juga “Ya enggak tahu.”
Dia bilang gitu. Pokoknya lebih enggak terbuka aja, maksudnya kalau di toko sebelumnya
kan Santi dipanggil nih sama informasi, “Ini surat aging.” Jadi kan kita tahu nih, kalau ini
P
enggak gitu loh. Jadi, enggak tahu.
PEWAWANCARA: Nah, sekarang tapi... Misalnya nih hari ini pagi ya udah aging nih, udah
diskon, itu tahunya pas datang tiba-tiba udah begitu di situ atau dikumpulin “Ayo, ini kita
S

ini loh.”
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Enggak, sebelumnya sih enggak gitu. Misalkan sampai tanggal
15 nih tanggal aging, misalkan. Jadi, itu harus kita menerima nih tanggal 15, ini enggak
terima, pokoknya tahu-tahu besok udah ada aja, udah rapi aja gitu.
L

PEWAWANCARA: Yang ngerjain siapa?

NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Ya mungkin entah yang siang atau yang apa, tapi kan otomatis
kita yang pagi harusnya lebih tahu duluan gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Tapi sempat enggak misalnya pas pagi tahu-tahu ada “Oh, ini aging?”
Berapa persen atau apa, customer nanya... Sempat enggak yang menjadi korban
customer, maksudnya dia nanya “Diskon berapa, Mbak?” Begitu.
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Kalau itu sih enggak, soalnya udah ada...
PEWAWANCARA: Udah rapi?
NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Udah rapi semuanya, cuma kitanya aja yang bingung; kemarin
belum diskon kok sekarang udah diskon? Begitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, oke. ada lagi mungkin yang mau sharing?
NARASUMBER (?): Kalau di Kemang... Kalau koordinator aku sendiri sih, Bu, dia suka
lupa kalau misalkan ada aging. Jadi, dia udah diinfoin sama atasan, cuman dia lupa gitu.
Sampai asisten manajernya “Ini kok belum diganti sih acaranya?” “Oh, saya enggak tahu,

418
Bu.”
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, sering banget loh kayak gitu.
NARASUMBER (?): ... lupa. Makanya sekarang dia ngingetin “Kalau misalkan pagi saya
enggak ada, ya udah, setiap pagi ke informasi aja.” Begitu.
NARASUMBER (?): ... .
PEWAWANCARA: Berarti komunikasinya yang enggak itu ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Itu paling di-print sih, dikasih print-an. Jadi, misalkan malam ini nih
kan acara buat besok malam itu udah di-print-in gitu loh, udah ke informasi. Terus juga
kadang paginya juga diinformasiin acara untuk hari ini apa, apa, apa. Begitu. Jadi, enggak
ada yang kelewat.
PEWAWANCARA: Ada nih pernah nih misalnya nih saya waktu itu jalan dengan
marketing, kemudian waktu jalan ke toko “Loh, ini kan acara udah selesai? Kenapa masih
dipajang? Ini kan udah...” Saya perhatiin tanggalnya tapi enggak ada tanggal gitu kan.

R
“Enggak ada tanggal, berarti masih berlaku dong gitu?” “Ngaco, lihat nih.” Ditunjukin
email, “Ini dua hari yang lalu.” Ini kalau customer lihat ini kan tetap minta.
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, betul.
PEWAWANCARA: Begitu. Nah, kalau menurut teman-teman itu kenapa bisa terjadi?
P
Komunikasinya kok enggak nyampe gitu?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak sharing mungkin, Bu. Misalkan yang tahu yang satu nih, tapi
dia enggak share ke yang partner-nya gitu.
S

PEWAWANCARA: Kalau temen2 ada ide kemudian minta supervisor untuk usulin ke
Store Manager biasanya bagaimana?
NARASUMBER (?): Tergantung sih…. Kadang kadang nyampe kadang kadang ngga
L

PEWAWANCARA: Kalau ngga apa superisor kurang bias mempengaruhi Atasannya?

NARASUMBER (?):Mungkin kurang bisa mempengaruhi, jadi nungggu ditanya Store
Manager
NARASUMBER (?): Sering nya ngga nyampe entah supervisor takut sama atasannya atau
kurang Ngeyakinin mungkin. Kayaknya gitu ya….
NARASUMBER (?): Iya…..
NARASUMBER (?): Kurang meyakinkan
NARASUMBER (?):Iya, suka ngga nyampe, mungkin karena supervisor ngga ngerti bu
harus digimanain
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Sekarang, kalau misalnya nih teman-teman... Kalau teman-teman
memberikan kontribusi, leader menghargainya dengan apa?
NARASUMBER: gimana bu?
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau tadi feedback kan ada yang negatif, ada yang positif. Kalau kalian
melakukan hal yang baik sering mendapatkan penghargaan enggak dari atasan?

419
NARASUMBER (?):Kalau mendapatkan penghargaan dari atasan enggak sih bu
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Ada bilang terima kasih.
NARASUMBER (?):Iya Cuma bilang Terima kasih.
PEWAWANCARA: Iya, iya, sering?
NARASUMBER (?): Kalau saya sering. Maksudnya setiap habis selesai, “terima kasih ya”
gitu-gitu basa basi aja
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau Coaching bagaimana? Tau kan coaching?
NARASUMBER: Tahu…..
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi coaching kan ngajarin gitu, seberapa sering sih harusnya? Kian,
Fitri, sama DIba kan supervisor-nya udah sering. Yang lainnya kan belum. Nah, teman-
teman itu pengennya supervisor ngajarin seminggu sekali, sebulan sekali, atau setiap kali

NARASUMBER (?): yah seminggu sekali.

NARASUMBER: Bener seminggu sekali
R
ada sesuatu ya langsung aja gitu ngasih tahu ngajarin gitu?
P
NARASUMBER: Jarang sih, atasan ngga punya waktu bu sibuk mungkin”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau aku sih enggak di coaching waktu itu”.
NARASUMBER: Aku juga ngga ada coaching”.
S

NARASUMBER: Ngga bu”.

NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
NARASUMBER (?): Maunya langsung.
L

PEWAWANCARA: Pengennya kalau ada ya ngajarin gitu ya? Oke. kita kembali lagi
flashback lagi yang tadi ketika masih baru, temen2 belajar sendiri ala bisa karena biasa.
Apakah pengetahuan product diajarkan juga? Misal: “Ini loh denim.” Denim itu ada
sekian jenis, ada skinny, ada begini, ada begini. “Eh, sekarang coba kamu pisahin mana
yang skinny, mana yang itu.” Itu kan ngajarin. Teman-teman dulu digituin, enggak?
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak, oke. Iya, makanya berarti enggak ada yang diajarin gitu ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada yang diajarin. Nah, berarti apakah karena supervisor itu
enggak ada waktu atau memang dia cuek tadi? Karena apalagi?
NARASUMBER: Enggak ada bu, Cuek ngga peduli”.
NARASUMBER (?): Sibuk bu
NARASUMBER (?): Ngga ada waktu katanya suruh sndri
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau menurut teman-teman, anggap aja supervisor harusnya ada
waktu. Dia memberikan waktu enggak kepada teman-teman untuk ngajarin tadi?

420
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak sama sekali ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Sendiri.
NARASUMBER (?):“Iya enggak ada waktu”.
NARASUMBER: Apa2 sendiri”.
PEWAWANCARA: Kembali ke coaching, ketika dicoaching atasan kalian ada planningnya
ngga? “Saya mau ajarin kamu kurang lebih dalam waktu enam bulan, kamu harus bisa
begini. Minggu kedua, kamu tak ajarin ini. Minggu keempat, tak ajarin ini. Dikasih enggak
planning seperti itu?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak ada.

R
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Tapi kalau orientasi waktu awal masuk kerja itu semua dapat? Ya
tadi, waktu pertama kali masuk ada cuman satu nih tadi yang jawab. Kalau tadi kan Arum
sama Nisa kan enggak ada, dimasukin ke dalam ruangan, kemudian diorientasi “Matahari
adalah begini loh. Service itu harus begini loh. Kemudian, kalian harus menjual produk
P
Matahari produknya ini.” Nah, nanti biasanya setelah itu langsung ke lapangan. Kayak
gitu. Nah, itu enggak ada?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak ada.
S

PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada ya.

NARASUMBER (?): Aku emang langsung ke area.
PEWAWANCARA: kalau coaching mentoring proses nya gimana di toko?
L

NARASUMBER: Karena disaya ngga ada jadi saya susah cerita prosesnya seperti apa
NARASUMBER: Mentoring itu sperti apa saya juga belum pernah dapat bu, jadi ga bisa
jelasin
PEWAWANCARA: Ok masih coaching mentoring nih ya.. biasanya leader nge coach atau
mementor nya gimana sih sendiri-sendiri atau barengan satu team gitu?
NARASUMBER: Kalau mentoring itu sepertinya blm pernah bu saya”
NARASUMBER: Mentoring seperti apa saya kurang paham adanya briefing counter bu
jadi rame-rame pas pagi sebelum buka toko
PEWAWANCARA: ngomong2 tentang kebiasaan belajar ya kalau di MDS bagaimana?
Apakah leader kalian sudah mengembangkan kalian?
NARASUMBER: Pribadi atau karir?
PEWAWANCARA: Bisa dua duanya
NARASUMBER: Kalau pengembangan diri untuk kita sih ngga ada bu”.
NARASUMBER: Iya dari dulu sampai sekarang ya kita tetep seperti ini ngga

421
berkembang”.
NARASUMBER: Kan kalo temen saya cerita dibantu dalam waktu dua tahun misalnya kita
sudah harus jadi apa gitu biar berkembang tapi kalau di tempat saya ngga begitu ngga di
ajarin didampingi gitu atau kalau istilah ibu tadi di mentor
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Nah, sekarang kita balik ke coaching ya. Kira2 supervisor kalian
sebenarnya punya knowledge untuk meng-coach ngga? Contoh Whiteberry. Harusnya
supervisor lebih tahu daripada...
NARASUMBER (?): SA.
PEWAWANCARA: SA-nya toh? Dia harus paham betul, baru ngajarin. Kalau supervisor
enggak paham, bagaimana ngajarin? Jadi, enggak bisa “Banyak-banyakin nonton Disney
ya.” Nah, kira-kira kalau pengetahuannya mereka sendiri...
NARASUMBER (?): Ha ha nggaa…..
NARASUMBER (?): Ngga ada bu malah sering nanya ke kita…
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
R
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada ya? Enggak pernah ... kalian?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya kurang bu
P
NARASUMBER (?): .SA-nya justru yang tau.
PEWAWANCARA: Sebenarnya memang SA harus tahu karena dia tiap hari, tapi dia harus
lebih tahu. Misalnya stok “Oh, enggak bisa begini. Stoknya kamu kan begini, begini.” Jadi,
S

enggak...
NARASUMBER (?): ... enggak. Jadi, ya udah kita yang lebih tau.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Saya rangkum ya: leader enggak ada waktu untuk meng-coach.
L

Seringnya leader atau supervisor itu memberikan feedback yang negatif daripada yang
positif karena jarang sekali yang memberikan penghargaan kan tadi ya? Hanya dua yang
mengucapkan terima kasih. Oke. Jadi, itu setuju ya. Kemudian, kalau teman-teman punya
masalah ada yang supervisor-nya cuek, tapi enggak pernah ada solusi, Tapi ada dua
orang yang leadernya kasih solusi. Nah, sekarang masalah dalam menangani konflik
pendekatan konstruktif masih banyak yang belum ya selain cuek seperti leadernya
Rosalina, Dea, dan Santi ada lagi ngga?
[51:19] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Ya cueknya sih enggak cuek banget, kalau untuk
masalah... kemarin beberapa masalah SPG lain maksudnya ada miss sedikit gitu, tapi sih
dia mau bantu tapi ya agak cuek.
[51:38] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau yang lain bagaimana? Kalau Fitri memang tadi
sudah info banyak membantu ya leadernya. Kalau yang lain?
[51:55] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau untuk masalah itu sih tadi langsung...
PEWAWANCARA: Hebat. Oke. Kemudian, kalau kita... Tadi kita dari atasan, sekarang dari
perusahaan. Kalau 361 saya yakin sudah ada training-nya ya? Whiteberry...
NARASUMBER (?): Udah ... .

422
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, waktu itu... Coba deh sekarang, Whiteberry yang ngasih training
siapa?
NARASUMBER (?): Ibu Friska.
PEWAWANCARA: Supervisor?
NARASUMBER (?): Bu Friska.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, CMD?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
PEWAWANCARA: Yang kemarin itu ya?
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Terus, Disney?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak ada sih, Bu.

NARASUMBER (?): He-eh. R

PEWAWANCARA: Enggak ada training sama sekali?

PEWAWANCARA: Lah, kan Pak Manajer sudah saya training waktu itu.
NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
P
PEWAWANCARA: Pak Manajer-nya enggak training ke timnya?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
S

PEWAWANCARA: Kamu belum pernah di-training?

NARASUMBER (?): ... baru.
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, belum pernah.
L

NARASUMBER (?): ... cuman disuruh “Banyak-banyakin nonton film Disney aja.”
NARASUMBER (?): ... Disney.
PEWAWANCARA: Coba yang new initiative 361, Disney, Whiteberry, sama... Apa lagi nih?
Udah?
NARASUMBER (?): Udah, itu aja.
NARASUMBER (?): ... .
NARASUMBER (?): Tapi dia kan enggak ada...
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak, maksudnya yang ada di sini nih. Enggak ada lagi ya? Oke. Nah,
ya sudah deh. Sekarang, karena harusnya yang new initiative itu memang ada training
program-nya. Kalau yang lain nih? Yang new initiative aja enggak, apalagi... Oke, jadi,
teman-teman udah mendapatkan training apa nih? Sudah cukup belum training-nya?
Udah dikasih training cukup belum oleh perusahaan? Belum?
NARASUMBER (?): Ya paling kalau untuk barang mah ya belajar sendiri.
NARASUMBER (?): Iya, benar. Otodidak.

423
PEWAWANCARA: Oke deh begini. Selama teman-teman masuk kerja di Matahari, sudah
pernah di-training atau belum?
NARASUMBER (?): Pernah.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, kita tanya udah pernah kan? Yang belum angkat tangan dulu,
karena ada yang enggak jawab nih.
NARASUMBER (?): Yang belum...
NARASUMBER (?): Udah training belum?
PEWAWANCARA: Pokoknya kalau training itu di dalam kelas.
NARASUMBER (?): ... waktu itu kan, Bu?
PEWAWANCARA: Iya.
NARASUMBER (?): ... langsung ke area. Hari itu juga masuk, ke area.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, itu berarti tadi di-coaching ya. Diajarin. Beda, kalau training kan
di dalam kelas. Ini belum pernah?
R
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh. Kalau training doang sih pernah, tapi kalau untuk training
yang kayak product knowledge gitu sih belum pernah.
P
PEWAWANCARA: Berarti training apa?
NARASUMBER (?): Kayak pas mau masuk ke MDS.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, di-training sama HRS? Oke. Kian?
S

NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Kian pernah di-training waktu pas mau masuk.

PEWAWANCARA: Masuk. Pas mau pembukaan toko?
NARASUMBER 5 (KIAN): Pembukaan toko.
L

NARASUMBER (?): Emang cuman ya paling ditanya sama HRD doang sih.
PEWAWANCARA: HRD? Training apa?
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak, maksudnya pas baru mau masuk. Tapi kalau misalkan buat
product knowledge itu enggak.
PEWAWANCARA: Training kan enggak harus produk doang ya, Bu. Training itu macam-
macam. Nah, pas yang sama HRD waktu masuk itu di-training apa?
NARASUMBER (?): Ya paling cuman ... kayak kita dikasih tahu gitu.
NARASUMBER (?): Aku belum...
NARASUMBER (?): Seingat saya belum bu…. Paling dikasih tau sama HR aja bu…
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, yang di dalam kelas?
NARASUMBER (?): Oh, kalau di dalam kelas enggak.
PEWAWANCARA: Enggak pernah. Nisa?
NARASUMBER 2 (NISA): ... kemarin, Bu.

424
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, iya. Selain Whiteberry ya.
NARASUMBER (?): Belum pernah, Bu.
PEWAWANCARA: Belum pernah.
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Saya belum.
PEWAWANCARA: Belum pernah. Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang kalau teman-teman boleh
memilih, teman-teman itu pengen sebenarnya dikasih training seberapa sering sih kan
untuk kerja harus ada knowledge ya
NARASUMBER (?): Sering bu seminggu sekali supaya ilmunya banyak
NARASUMBER (?): Dua bulan.
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau teman-teman yang lain? Seberapa sering harusnya?
NARASUMBER : Sebulan sekali.mungkin…
NARASUMBER (?): Sebulan sekali.
NARASUMBER (?): ... tiga bulan.
PEWAWANCARA: ... harusnya ya?
NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
R
P
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi menurut temen2 training nya saat ini sudah cukup belum?
NARASUMBER (?): Belum…..
NARASUMBER (?): Iya belum
S

PEWAWANCARA: Iya, oke. Sekarang atasan kalian gampang di approach ngga? Gampang
L

enggak dicarinya ?
NARASUMBER (?): Tergantung sih.
NARASUMBER (?):Suka susah dicari kalo pas kita butuh
NARASUMBER (?): Lama bu kadang2 nyarinya
NARASUMBER (?): Iya tergantung sih. Tapi kalau kita udah tahu tempat-tempatnya mah
langsung, dia di sini nih gitu. Jadi, mungkin ada beberapa supervisor itu, Bu, yang ada
kegiatannya sendiri. Jadi, di saat kita nyari terus udah tahu titiknya di sini pas besok kita
nyari lagi di sini ada di situ. Jadi, dia punya kegiatan sendiri
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, maksudnya kok dia di sini itu gimana?
NARASUMBER (?): He he he semua tau bu kalau leader yang ini suka ngga ada di tempat
susah nyarinya
NARASUMBER (?): Kadang di informasi gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau di informasi ngapain?
NARASUMBER (?): Gituin data sih, enggak tahu di komputer juga lagi gituin omzet.
Biasanya target, dia gituin target.

425
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. terus, jadi, kalau itu...
NARASUMBER (?): Kadang ... .
NARASUMBER (?): Jadi, mungkin ada beberapa supervisor itu, Bu, yang ada kegiatannya
sendiri. Jadi, di saat kita nyari terus udah tahu titiknya di sini pas besok kita nyari lagi di
sini ada di situ. Jadi, dia punya kegiatan sendiri.
[54:15] NARASUMBER (?): Kegiatan sendiri kayaknya di situ.
[54:18] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke.
[54:19] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau enggak dia pesan sih, Bu, misalnya “Kalau mau nyari
saya, saya ada di sini.” Begitu.
[54:24] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Yang lain?
[54:27] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau untuk dicari sih dia tergantung, kayak misalnya kan
kalau supervisor suka dipanggil di kasa-kasa. Dia kayak pindah-pindah kasa. Jadi, kalau
dicari kadang kalau emang ketemu ya udah langsung ngomong gitu. Tapi aku enggak

R
pernah nyari sih, paling kayak nungguin di sini aja, di area counter. Karena juga kan shift-
shift-an, jadi enggak ada yang jagain counter. Jadi, ya udah, nungguin supervisor ada di
situ aja.
PEWAWANCARA: Oh, suka lama jadinya ya?
P
[54:53] NARASUMBER (?): Suka lama. Jadi kan karena bolak-balik ... .
NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Iya itu tadi bu, kadang kalau ada komplain customer enggak
ada yang datang. Kita panggil, enggak ada yang datang. Kalau udah kelar, biasanya baru
S

datang. Tapi ngapain juga dating kalo udah kelar ya

[55:01] NARASUMBER (?): Enggak ada yang datang ya?
L

[55:02] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Iya, ... .

[55:04] NARASUMBER (?): sering
[55:08] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Terus, jadi, kalau ada komplain gimana meng-handle-
nya?
[55:11] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Ya paling kita kita aja yang ngomong kayak gitu. Kita
panggil, enggak ada yang datang. Kalau udah kelar, biasanya baru datang.
[55:22] NARASUMBER (?): Iya bener banget
[55:24] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Makanya kata anak-anak “Ngapain sih? Kalau udah
beres, ngapain datang?” Dalam hatinya.
[55:31] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, triknya begitu. ... .
[55:36] NARASUMBER (?):Iya betul, seringnya begitu. Enggak ada yang datang ya kalo
ada komplain. Dihitung sama leader mungkin: Dikit lagi kelar nih, gue datang
NARASUMBER: Iya masih kurang di area nya. Kalau satu sampai lima, saya nilai di angka
dua”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya satu setengah

426
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi leader menurut temen-temen mau membantu kalian sukarela ato
kalian harus minta-minta dulu baru dibantuin?
NARASUMBER: Karena waktu leader kurang di area ya sama aja mereka-mereka kurang
mau membantu kita”
NARASUMBER: He eh. Jadi lebih semangat aja sih kalau misalkan ada supervisor. Kalau
enggak ada kan kadang kita malah ngapain gitu ngga fokus. Kalau ada supervisor kan
kita jadi semangat”.
NARASUMBER: Iya supervisorku juga jarang ke area. Padalah kita jadi lebih tahu aja gitu,
“Gue harus kayak gini, harus kayak gini.” Begitu”.
NARASUMBER: Sama, Bu, leader saya juga kayak gitu, jarang. Kalau bisa dia lebih ada di
area aja, supaya nanti kalau kita mau minta saran atau apa “Ini benar enggak, Pak? Kalau
ini salah, diperiksa.” Misalnya gitu”.
NARASUMBER: Sama kaya yang laen, paling cuman ngomong doang gitu kan? Kita
terakhirnya ditinggal. Paling yang lebih support itu sih paling partner kita”.

bantu gitu
R
NARASUMBER: Cuman kan kadang-kadang mereka datang nih, tapi itu sama ya kurang

PEWAWANCARA: Oh, gitu ya? Oke. Nah, sekarang kalau menurut kalian leader itu sudah
P
menjadi pendengar yang baik belum?
NARASUMBER (?): Ya lumayan sih, karena kalau masalah pekerjaan masih mending.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, jadi... Oke, tapi kalau tentang masalah pribadi...
S

NARASUMBER (?): Kurang.

L

PEWAWANCARA: Kurang ya. Bisa dipercaya enggak leader? Kita misalnya bilang “Bu, ini
kadang-kadang kita mau cerita yang rahasia, mau curhat, atau mau cerita rahasia tentang
pekerjaan juga misalnya kita mau cerita aja udah bagus karena kita enggak ... [56:43]
“Jangan-jangan nanti diomongin.” Begitu kita ngomong, eh, benar diomongin. Nah, itu
kan berarti kurang bisa dipercaya. Nah, kalau menurut teman-teman, leader teman-
teman bagaimana?
NARASUMBER (?): Biasanya habis cerita masalah kadang kita pesan, “Bu, jangan
dibilang siapa-siapa ya”. Karena kalau di MDS kan dari satu pasti bisa nyebar. Eh taunya
nyebar. Gampang banget nyebar, jadi kurang bisa dipercaya”.
NARASUMBER (?):
PEWAWANCARA: Terus, dia enggak bilang?
NARASUMBER (?): Karena kalau di MDS kan dari satu pasti bisa nyebar...
NARASUMBER (?): Gampang banget nyebar... kurang bisa dipercaya
NARASUMBER (?): Tahunya sih dari situ. Kalau misalkan dia ngebocorin, pasti kita
dengar dari orang lain juga.

427
PEWAWANCARA: Pasti itu.
NARASUMBER (?): Kurang bisa dipercaya.
PEWAWANCARA: Kurang bisa dipercaya. Yang lain?
NARASUMBER (?): ... percaya sih.
NARASUMBER (?): Tapi kalau untuk pribadi kan saya enggak pernah cerita. Jadi, paling
kayak masalah di counter aja langsung ... .
PEWAWANCARA: Berarti kalau tadi merekam apa yang dikatakan Ja’far, berarti leader
di sini ketika ada konflik, ada masalah ya tadi komplain dan segala macam, dia tidak
menyelesaikan, tidak melakukan langkah-langkah penyelesaian tapi dia menghindar.
Kalau udah selesai, baru .... Begitu ya? Oke. Kalau leader menurut kalian sudah
berwibawa? Cukup?
[58:19] NARASUMBER (?): Cukup.
[58:20] NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.

R
[58:20] PEWAWANCARA: Ada yang cukup, ada yang enggak ya? Oke. Kalau dari sisi
keadilan, sudah adil? Perlakuan kepada kalian.
[58:28] NARASUMBER (?): Belum.
P
[58:30] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, banyak yang belum ya? Kalau kejelasan pekerjaan teman-
teman itu didapat bukan dari supervisor?
[59:30] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
S

[59:30] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.

[59:31] PEWAWANCARA: Betul ya? Oke. Kemudian, apakah teman-teman komit dalam
bekerja? Kembali lagi misalnya begini. “Sebenarnya saya komit, Bu. Tapi atasan saya
L

begini, ini kadang-kadang yang membuat saya enggak komit.” Begitu loh yang saya
maksud.
[59:46] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[59:47] PEWAWANCARA: Ada enggak rasa seperti itu?
[59:49] NARASUMBER (?): Ada.
[59:49] PEWAWANCARA: Ada. Oke. Jadi, supervisor itu kadang-kadang menentukan
membuat kita jadi enggak commit dalam bekerja. Oke. Apakah teman-teman dalam
pekerjaan saling bantu entah dengan parter atau dengan sesama misalnya dalam shoes
ada satu ... [60:20] itu ada empat. Karena tadi kalau orang Jawa bilang, dijarke, ya kan?
akhirnya ya udah udahlah kita putuskan berempat aja. Begitu ya?
[60:31] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[60:33] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Sekarang, kalau menurut teman-teman dalam bekerja itu
sudah kompak atau belum?
[60:47] NARASUMBER (?): Kompak.
[60:48] NARASUMBER (?): Belum.

428
[60:49] PEWAWANCARA: Belum?
[60:49] NARASUMBER (?): Belum.
[60:50] PEWAWANCARA: Coba yang sudah bilang kompak angkat tangan. Oke, yang
sisanya enggak kompak ya. Sekarang kita tanya dulu yang tidak kompak kira-kira
penyebabnya apa?
[61:05] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Kalau Santi, komunikasi.
[61:06] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, komunikasi nomor satu itu ya. Biasanya enggak
kompaknya gimana?
[61:11] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Kan santi bertiga. Jadi, kalau yang satu ini kayak yang
enggak mau gabung aja gitu loh. Kalau Santi sama yang satunya selalu komunikasi.
Meskipun dia siang, Santi pagi, dia tetap WA gitu kan “Kak, ini udah ya? Ini barang gini,
gini, gini.” Tapi kalau yang satu keep banget, sendiri banget. Jadi, kita mau sharing atau
apa juga susah. Dia enggak enggak terbuka, enggak mau ngebuka diri gitulah.

tidak tahu?
R
[61:40] PEWAWANCARA: Tapi leader-nya enggak tahu itu atau tahu atau pura-pura

[61:45] NARASUMBER 1 (SANTI): Ya sama seperti leader-nya juga seperti itu.

[61:48] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, oke. Tadi yang tidak lagi...
P
[61:50] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau aku sih sama partner kan berdua, aku masih kontrak
cuman partner aku udah tetap kan di situ. Cuman dia kayak kalau masuk suka kayak
seenaknya aja sih, kayak misalnya kan kalau masuk Sabtu, dia kan jam 2:45 ya? Tapi jam
S

3:00 baru ada di area. Begitu. Terus, kalau misalnya lagi masuk siang, aku pagi, suka
datang barang kan kalau pagi. Itu tuh kadang suka datang barang banyak banget, tapi
kalau partner aku itu enggak pernah mau ngecek. Jadi, selalu kalau datang barang aku
yang ngecek, aku yang ngecek, tapi kadang dibantuin sama koordinator, kadang sama
L

supervisor aku sendiri dibantuin. Tapi kemarin sih pas datang barang dia enggak ngecek
sama sekali pas sore, karena aku kan shift pagi. Jadi, dia tuh seenaknya
[62:44] PEWAWANCARA: Mengandalkan.
[62:45] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh, kayak masuk siang. Dia masuk siang, aku masuk pagi
misalnya. Terus, udah datang barang, saya keluarin barang semua, tapi mungkin masih
ada beberapa yang berantakan, dia cuma kayak ngelipet-ngelipet. Itu aja. Terus, udah
ngomong sama leader. Tapi mereka juga udah pada tahu, karena kan setiap datang
barang aja mereka koordinator kadang suka supervisor aku yang bantuin
[63:16] PEWAWANCARA: Terus, leader enggak melakukan sesuatu?
[63:17] NARASUMBER (?): Enggak sih. Dia udah kayak gitu sih katanya dari dulu. Jadi, ya
udah, aku juga diem aja. kesel gitu. Ini datang barang banyak banget. Kadang aku masuk
pagi, datang barang banyak banget. Itu ... sampai aku jam setengah lima aku pulang itu
belum selesai. Tapi dia enggak pernah kayak ngecek ke gudang atau membantu gitu.
Enggak.
[64:05] PEWAWANCARA: Yang lain?

429
[64:06] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau saya sih lebih kayak diskusi tentang partner sih sama
staf yang lain, soalnya kalau langsung ke supervisor paling jawabnya cuma iya-iya gitu
doang. Percuma juga
[64:14] PEWAWANCARA: OK. Tadi kompak atau enggak kompak?
[64:16] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Kurang kompak.2
[64:17] PEWAWANCARA: Kurang kompaknya kenapa?
[64:19] NARASUMBER 8 (JA’FAR): Dalam sistemnya kayak gitu, kalau datang barang kan
kadang kita2 aja Bu. Kalau yang senior-seniornya yang udah tetap kan jadi suka nyuruh
kita.. Iya, kadang atasan udah tahu... Iya, kayak gitu suruh nerima aja
[64:29] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Nah, berarti kalau tadi ini... Sekarang yang bilang kompak
tadi berapa orang? Oke, kita dengerin dulu yang kompak ya. Boleh, silakan siapa yang
mau sharing? Kompaknya bagaimana?
[64:38] NARASUMBER 2 (NISA): Ya kompak sih, kadang kalau datang barang “Sa, ini gue

R
udah keluarin. Lu rapihin ya?” “Oh, iya, Kak.” Begitu.
[64:49] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, kalau DeFitri?
[64:52] NARASUMBER 4 (FITRI): Komunikasinya. Terus juga dari satu ... itu datang
barang dibantu, benar-benar dibawa dibantu semua. Pokoknya kayak gitu sih, Bu. Kira
P
sering bantu.
[65:04] PEWAWANCARA: Oke.
[65:05] NARASUMBER (?): Kompak sih. Jadi, semisal ya kayak datang barang kita yang
S

berdua di dalam gudang ngurusin barang, terus nanti yang satunya... Yang kompak itu
kan bertiga, Bu. Yang satu tadi itu...
[65:15] PEWAWANCARA: Berarti enggak kompak dong.
L

[65:17] NARASUMBER (?): Karena kita menganggap dia itu ya udahlah anggap aja
enggak ada gitu. Toh ada atau enggaknya dia enggak berpengaruh. Kayak gitu, kita
mikirnya kayak gitu. Jadi, kalau ada apa-apa... Kalau misalnya satu masuk siang, satu
masuk pagi, nanti “Eh, ini belum dikerjain ya. Besok dilanjutin.” Kayak gitu. Jadi, dua di
gudang, nanti satu di area. Saling bantu. Kalau saya sama temen saya kompak tapi kalau
satu tim ngga kompak
[65:55] PEWAWANCARA: Kalau leader suka kasih tau ancaman2 dari kompeitor
misalnya atau kesempatan2 yang bisa diambil buat naikin sales ngga? Trus monitor
gimana ancaman2 dan kesempatan2 yang bisa dilakuin?
NARASUMBER: Belum ngasih tau gimana ancaman itu. Kita kan ngga tau bu di luaran
itu seperti apa, pengennya sih leader ngasih tau ini competitor begini, jadi kan kita bisa
siapin ancaman2 itu. Tapi selama ini sih belum ada omongan, paling pas istirahat ada
yang bilang eh disitu ada buka transmart”.
NARASUMBER: Anak2 SPG suka cerita kalau di counter ato di dept store lain barang2
nya suka beda lebih baru dari pada yang di MDS, harusnya kan supervisor yang
ngusahain bisa masuk ke kita”.

430
NARASUMBER: Kalau saya pengennya supervisor ngasih tau barang yang sedang trend
apa karena banyak customer nyari tapi dikita belum ada. Jadi kan sayang ngga ada
penjualan. Tapi ngga pernah dikasih tau”.
NARASUMBER: Saya justru yang suka minta, bukan leader yang ngeliat kalo ada
kesempatan: ikutan bazaar dong pak, nah nanti baru diikutin”.
NARASUMBER: Kalau leader belum pernah kasih tau ancaman2 dari kompeitor.
NARASUMBER: Biasanya kalau ada kesempatan ikut bazaar misalnya saya yang info sih
bu, atasan saya ngga pernah info gimana nih kecuali memang S1 yang suruh”.
NARASUMBER: Iya leader saya juga ngga pernah kasih tau ancaman itu gimana
[66:15] NARASUMBER (?): Ngga pernah
[66:16] NARASUMBER (?): Ngga
[66:17] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau hungan dengan pihak lain atau networking
bagaimana atasan kalian
NARASUMBER (?): Enggak ngerti sih.
R
NARASUMBER (?): Dengan supplier? Kayaknya lumayan bu
NARASUMBER (?): Iya. Ada yang deket sih bu
P
[66:26] NARASUMBER (?): Ada yang deket sih bu
NARASUMBER: Iya tapi ngga semua leader gitu”.
[73:28]PEWAWANCARA: Oke, bagus. Kemudian, sekarang seringnya kalau leader itu
S

melakukan komunikasinya dua arah atau cuman satu arah? Dua arah itu berarti kalian
bisa usul gitu. Atau “Eh, kamu begini ya, kamu begini.” Itu searah. Jadi, teman-teman
cuman bisa bilang “Oke, Pak. Iya, Pak.” Kalau dua arah “pak harusnya ini diginiin aja lebih
bagus look nya”
L

[73:58] NARASUMBER (?): Dua arah sih, dua arah.

[73:59] NARASUMBER (?): Dua arah.
[73:59] PEWAWANCARA: Sudah dua arah ya? Oke. Kalau empati leader sudah cukup
menurut... Empati tahu? Empati itu adalah kalau teman-teman punya masalah
meletakkan posisinya pada posisi kita, jadi ada empati. Sudah empati belum?
[74:21] NARASUMBER (?): Belum.
[74:22] PEWAWANCARA: Belum ya. Kemudian, sudah hangat atau... Iya, hubungan
dengan itu kan harus hangat ya. Belum ya?
[74:33] NARASUMBER (?): Belum.
[74:34] NARASUMBER (?): Udah.
[74:34] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, udah. Cuman dua doang ya.
[74:39] NARASUMBER (?): ... .
[74:42] PEWAWANCARA: Kemudian, berusaha leader... Teman-teman berusaha untuk

431
menjalin hubungan baik atau tidak? Maksudnya berusaha untuk menjalin... Bukan
hubungan... Sudah ya?
[74:58] NARASUMBER (?): Sudah.
[74:57] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kemudian, leader teman-teman sudah Mens-support
untuk melakukan inovasi-inovasi? Inovasi tahu ya? Hal-hal yang baru gitu. Atau ya sama
, cuek.
[75:15] NARASUMBER (?): Biasa aja sih.
[75:17] NARASUMBER (?): Biasa aja.
[75:19] NARASUMBER (?): Udah sih, cuma jadi lebih dia ngerjain sendiri.
[75:22] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, jadi, dia tidak melibatkan?
[75:23] NARASUMBER (?): Enggak.
[75:24] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Apakah komunikasi yang dilakukan oleh leader tadi

R
mempengaruhi performance kerja teman-teman? Performance tahu? Hasil teman-teman
dalam bekerja ya atau kinerja. Pengaruh enggak?
[76:18] NARASUMBER (?): Pengaruh.
[76:18] PEWAWANCARA: Pengaruh?
P
[76:21] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh banget
[76:20] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi, kadang-kadang kalau komunikasinya kurang ya...
S

[76:26] NARASUMBER (?): Jadi kurang ... .

[76:29] PEWAWANCARA: Berpengaruh ya. Kalau menurut teman-teman, perilaku
leader yang mempengaruhi performance teman-teman itu mana yang paling penting dan
paling berpengaruh buat teman-teman? Itu mana yang paling penting buat teman-teman
L

dalam mempengaruhi performance?

[77:35] NARASUMBER (?): ... .
[77:34] PEWAWANCARA: Yang mana?
[77:35] NARASUMBER (?): Pendengar yang baik.
[77:36] PEWAWANCARA: Pendengar yang baik?
[77:38] NARASUMBER (?): ... curhatan-curhatan.
[77:39] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, kalau kayak gitu kan pasti dia feedback balik, dia ngasih
saran gini-gini atau ngasih solusi.
[77:46] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Itu aja ya yang lebih ke... Yang paling penting itu ya?
[77:52] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[77:54] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, yang terakhir...
[77:54] NARASUMBER (?): Komunikasi.
[77:55] PEWAWANCARA: Kenapa?

432
[77:55] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, komunikasi sih.
[77:58] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Sekarang, kalau... Nih, teman-teman disuruh memilih ya.
Supervisor support (support dari supervisor), coaching, kemudian memberikan
feedback, kemudian menjelaskan tentang goal perusahaan, tujuan perusahaan, tujuan
teman-teman dalam bekerja. Oke, ada empat berarti ya. Mana yang paling penting yang
berhubungan dengan performa (performance)? Diulang ya. Supervisor support,
kemudian yang kedua coaching, yang ketiga feedback, yang keempat itu adalah tentang
penjelasan mengenai tujuan perusahaan dan tujuan teman-teman dalam bekerja. Mana
yang paling penting?
[79:01] NARASUMBER (?): Feedback.
[79:02] PEWAWANCARA: Feedback?
[79:03] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
[79:03] PEWAWANCARA: Berarti feedback itu yang paling penting?
[79:05] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
R
[79:06] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik. Terakhir, pertanyaannya kalau keberadaan leader
di toko/di area saat ini teman-teman rasa sudah cukup atau masih kurang? Karena
seringnya ada di gudang, seringnya ada di back office. Sudah cukup atau belum?
P
[79:34] NARASUMBER (?): Kurang.
[79:34] PEWAWANCARA: Kurang ya? Di area kurang ya?
[79:35] NARASUMBER (?): He-eh.
S

[79:37] PEWAWANCARA: Apakah kalau keberadaan leader di area itu mempengaruhi

performa teman-teman dalam bekerja juga?
L

[79:42] NARASUMBER (?): Iya sih...

[79:43] PEWAWANCARA: Kenapa?
[79:44] NARASUMBER (?): Jadi lebih semangat aja sih kalau misalkan ada supervisor.
Jadi, kita enggak... Kalau enggak ada kan kadang ngapain gitu. Kalau ada supervisor kan
kita jadi... Bukannya mau Cari muka...
[79:59] NARASUMBER (?): Lebih tahu aja gitu, “Gue harus kayak gini, harus kayak gini.”
Begitu.
[80:02] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, karena nanti dikasih tahu?
[80:04] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[80:05] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Mahda?
[80:07] NARASUMBER 7 (MAHDA): Sama, Bu, kayak gitu. Dia lebih ada di area aja, supaya
nanti kalau kita mau minta saran atau apa “Ini benar enggak, Pak? Kalau ini salah,
diperiksa.” Misalnya gitu.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, selama ini soalnya masih kurang ya?
NARASUMBER (?): Iya.

433
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Kalau satu sampai lima, di angka berapa?
NARASUMBER (?): Tiga.
NARASUMBER (?): Tiga.
PEWAWANCARA: Tiga mah cukup itu sudah. Tiga itu di angka cukup, bukan kurang.
NARASUMBER (?): Dua...
PEWAWANCARA: Kalau dua itu kurang, satu itu kurang sekali.
NARASUMBER (?): Satu setengah.
PEWAWANCARA: Jadi, kalau tiga itu cukup; cukup di area. Kalau dua itu kurang, kalau
satu itu kurang sekali.
NARASUMBER (?): Satu setengah.
PEWAWANCARA: Satu setengah?
[81:00] NARASUMBER (?): Dua.
[81:00] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, iya, dua.
[81:02] PEWAWANCARA: Iya, dua.
[81:03] NARASUMBER (?): Iya, dualah.
R
P
[117:38] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang, Teman-teman sudah tahu service
excellence itu apa? Santi?
[117:55] NARASUMBER (SANTI): Servis yang memberikan kepuasan lebih kepada si
S

customer.
[118:10] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Ada lagi, mungkin?
L

[118:21] NARASUMBER (?): Memberikan ... sehingga memberikan kesan baik sama
customer, sehingga menjaga customer tetap kembali, dan menghasilkan sales yang
bagus, Bu.
[118:34] PEWAWANCARA: Oke.
[118:50] NARASUMBER (?): Di atas ekspektasi ya.
[118:52] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi, .... apa aja, ayo, unsur-unsur service excellence,
Jafar?
[119:14] NARASUMBER (JA’FAR): Service passion, delight, personal touch...
[119:21] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Jadi, ada lagi yang mau nambah? Ada yang mau nambah?
Jadi, unsur-unsur service excellence, Extra mile.... Tadi ... tadi ngomongnya personal
touch ya?
[119:22] NARASUMBER (JA’FAR): Iya…
[119:23] PEWAWANCARA: Selain personal touch ada delivering the promise, extra mile,
dan dealing with problem & quiries. Satu2 ya…. personal touch. Apa itu?
[119:30] NARASUMBER (?): sentuhan pribadi bu

434
[119: 34] PEWAWANCARA: Personal touch itu otomatis kita memberikan servis itu
secara personal. Misalnya Lita adalah customer saya. Saya tau Lita itu kalau dia belanja,
dia maunya ga mau nyari. “saya mau cari itu dong, kemeja putih”. Dia mau kemeja putih,
kita punyanya berapa, mau lima, mau enam, dia diam trus kita yang ambilin semua
[121:23] Kita yang aktif. Kemudian, Lita enggak suka barang diskon. Dia maunya
pokoknya barang yang new arrival, misalnya. Nah, jadi, ketika Lita datang, saya sudah
harus bisa memberikan personal touch: saya ambilin kemeja putih sebanyak2 nya trus
ngga ada yang diskon semua new arrival.
[122:41] PEWAWANCARA: Oke, iya. ... kemudian adalah delivering the promise.
Memberikan sesuai janji, Matahari misalnya nih ya, Matahari sudah bilang, Pak, Bu, ayo
belanja di Matahari ya. Servis di sepatu kita berapa? Dua menit...
[123:08] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau itu iya sudah bu dua menit dua pasang
NARASUMBER: Yang delivering itu kita sudah memberikan apa yang dijanjikan”
NARASUMBER: Kita selalu memberikan sesuai dengan apa yang kita janjikan.

R
Contohnya pun ada waktu itu masih ada kartu Star Wars yang dapat reward iya kan.
Nah selain itu ada customer bule. Bule itu dia beliin buat anaknya banyak bangetsupaya
dapat reward yang Star Wars yang gold itu Bu, iya kan. Nah tapi karena kita udah
pasang ternyata waktu dia mau klaim barangnya sudah habis dan engga ada lagi, tapi
P
kita tetap akan berikan. Karena sesuai dengan janji, kalau dia sudah kumpulkan kita
akan kasih sesuai dengan klaimnya itu. Kita berikan replikanya. Setelah replikanya dia
ngga mau kita berikan yang pertanyakan ke HO. Setelah ke HO tenyata masih ada satu
sisa punyanya MD. Nah dari MD itu dikasih ke customer.
S

NARASUMBER: Iya kita sudah jalankan

PEWAWANCARA: Tadi ini delivering the promise, apa yang kita propagandakan jangan
sampe customer datang, enggak ada. Contoh, tadi udah dikasih contoh produk. Kalau
L

Matahari itu... tadi kan yang jawab mengenai visi misi, siapa? Visi misi ya. Kalau enggak
salah antara dua ini. Bahwa kita memberikan... visi dari Matahari adalah product ...
quality kan?
PEWAWANCARA: Dua pasang. Itu yang sudah kita announce. Ketika customer itu datang,
kita memberikan servis dua menit dua pasang jadi sesuai janji kita tapi kalau satu
pasang, itu bukan service excellence. Tapi kalau dua menit dua pasang, itu namanya
delivering the promise, sesuai dengan apa yang kita janjikan., OK? Sekarang kita bahas
yang kedua Personal Touch
PEWAWANCARA: Oke? Jadi, apa tadi?
NARASUMBER: Personal touch.
NARASUMBER: Personal touch.
PEWAWANCARA: Ok siapa dulu?
NARASUMBER: Kalau di toko saya kurang personal touch nya
NARASUMBER: Kalau personal touch belum sih

435
NARASUMBER: Belum
NARASUMBER: Untuk sentuhan individu belum konsisten kadang iya kadang ngga
PEWAWANCARA: Pada saat kita memberikan tiga atau empat sepatu dalam waktu dua
menit atau memberikan dua pasang sepatu tapi hanya dalam satu menit, itu namanya di
atas, exceeding. Itu namanya extra mile diatas standard seharusnya
NARASUMBER: Kalau extra mile kami juga sudah memberikan extra mile untuk
customer. Kalau customer minta, mba tolong carikan yang ini, kita berusaha nyari
eskipun itu barangnya segunung, tumpuk2an gitu bu.
NARASUMBER: Tapi kalau extra mile belum sih bu.
NARASUMBER: Dan kalau untuk extra mile ya seperti sama sih belum kalau saya.
NARASUMBER: Terus kalau untuk melayani lebih kayaknya sih masih belum ya bu masih
kurang

R
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Sekarang Dealing with problems and quiries. Misalnya customer,
oke? Mbak, saya mau itu dong, mau buat acara nih.. acaranya enggak terlalu resmi sih.
Acaranya cuma ya jam 4 sore. Dress-nya apa ya kira-kira ya? Oh, sebentar. Saya carikan.
Oke? Cariin. Yah, kok warnanya kayak gini? Saya mau yang warna kuning aja deh, Mbak.
Ada enggak? Wah, enggak ada, Bu. Selesai. Itu belum dealing with quiries. Tapi kalau “oh,
P
sebentar, Bu. Di kita enggak ada, saya coba cari di toko lain ya, Bu. Siapa tahu ada. Saya
tanya dulu sama supplier-nya ya, Bu. Siapa tahu ada. Jadi, enggak ada kata tidak”.
Sekarang kalau dealing with problems, customer pasti punya masalah dulu, komplain
S

dulu. Oke? Baru kita handle. Begitu sudah win-win, itu sudah service excellence. Tapi
kalau dia belum, ya enggak bisa disebut dengan service excellence. Pokoknya intinya
tidak ada kata tidak aja. Gitu. Jelas ya?
NARASUMBER: Jelas
L

PEWAWANCARA: ayo siapa?

NARASUMBER: Queries, kalau untuk permintaan sih kami meskipun belum bisa
memenuhi customer, mungkin dari size nya contohnya customer minta size xl untuk
kemeja, tapi kita engga punya. Akhirnya kita berinisiatif tanya ke pejaten. Jadi
customernya menunggu, terus kita telponin ke pejaten. Di pejaten ada ngga, kalau ada
customernya ke pejaten.
NARASUMBER: Apa customer inginkan, kalau engga ada kita carikan di toko lain. Ada
kita engga akan pernah bilang engga ada.
NARASUMBER: Itu tergantung anaknya sih bu kalau saya saya cariin dulu tapi ada anak
yang males nanya ke toko lain ribet soalnya
NARASUMBER: Iya terkadang sih anak2 baru kalau customer nyari apa ngga ada ngga
mau nyari dulu pake langsung bilang engga ada, eh akhirnya customer complain karena
pas dia ubek2 sendiri eh ketemu gitu bu
PEWAWANCARA: Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang, di antara empat ini.... Mana yang menurut
Anda paling penting? Menurut Anda loh. Yang paling penting, yang mana? ...?

436
NARASUMBER (?): Yang memberikan solusi tadi.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. ...?
NARASUMBER (?): Kalau saya sih kayaknya delivering the promise deh, Bu.
PEWAWANCARA: Delivering the promise. Silakan.
NARASUMBER (?): Delivering the promise.
PEWAWANCARA: Delivering the promise. Next.
NARASUMBER (?): ... with problems... sorry, apa tadi yang problem?
PEWAWANCARA: Inquiries and problems.
NARASUMBER (?): Yes.
PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Dealing with queries dan problems. Next?
NARASUMBER (?): Delivering the promise.

NARASUMBER (?): Extra miles.

PEWAWANCARA: Extra mile.
R
PEWAWANCARA: Delivering the promise. Lanjut?
P
[147:56] NARASUMBER (?): Personal touch.
[147:57] PEWAWANCARA: Personal touch.
[147:58] NARASUMBER (?): Personal touch.
S

[147:59] PEWAWANCARA: Personal touch.

[147:59] NARASUMBER (?): Extra mile.
L

[148:00] PEWAWANCARA: Extra mile.

[148:01] NARASUMBER (?): Personal touch.
[148:01] PEWAWANCARA: Personal touch. Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang, kalau nilai service
excellence berapa tadi saya bilang harus ada empat. Gitu. Nah, sekarang silakan nilai.
Dengan tadi empat unsur, ternyata, oh, iya iya, ini enggak ada, ini enggak ada. Jadi,
sekarang nilainya berapa? Oke? Kita mulai dari ..., bisa?
[163:44] NARASUMBER (?): Bisa.
[163:44] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Berapa nilainya?
[163:47] NARASUMBER (?):3.
[163:48] PEWAWANCARA: Turun, 3. Tadi 4 ya. Lanjut?
[163:51] NARASUMBER: Dengan konteksnya empat unsur tadi, turun sih, Bu.
[163:54] PEWAWANCARA: Jadi berapa? Jadi 3 ya. Lanjut.
[163:56] NARASUMBER (?): Tiga setengah, Bu.
[163:57] PEWAWANCARA: Tiga setengah. Oke. Silakan.

437
[164:01] NARASUMBER (?): Kalau saya, jadi 4.
[164:02] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, jadi 4.
[164:02] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[164:03] PEWAWANCARA: Malah naik?
[164:03] NARASUMBER (?): Iya.
[164:04] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, oke. Yang lain?
[164:07] NARASUMBER: Tetap 3 sih, Bu.
[164:08] PEWAWANCARA: Tetap 3.
[164:09] NARASUMBER: Kalau ada empat unsur tadi ya saya naik sih, Bu, 4.
[164:13] PEWAWANCARA: Hah? Enggak. Maksudnya, kan ada empat unsur-unsur.
Ternyata yang ini belum ada, ini belum ada. Pas sebelum awal tadi, kan kita sudah
menilai, disuruh menilai. Nilainya berapa. Tadi 3 kan nilainya? Ternyata setelah kita

masih tetap 3?
[164:36] NARASUMBER: Tetap 3 sih, Bu.
R
bahas lebih dalam, oh, iya ya, ternyata ini aku enggak ada, ini aku enggak ada. Apakah
P
[164:37] PEWAWANCARA: Oh, tetap 3.
[164:45] NARASUMBER (?): 4, Bu.
[164:46] PEWAWANCARA: 4.
S

[164:47] NARASUMBER (?): Sama, 3.

[164:48] PEWAWANCARA: 3.
[164:49] NARASUMBER (?): Tetap 3.
L

[164:49] PEWAWANCARA: Oke. Baik, kalau begitu, terima kasih atas waktunya, sudah
selesai kita...

Transkrip Wawancara Alex

Pewawancara : Oke. Terima kasih Pak Alex untuk waktunya.

Alex : Sama-sama
Pewawancara : Ee jadi ee saya interview ini tujuannya adalah untuk melengkapi
penelitian saya untuk mendapatkan data untuk tesis, ya, dimana topik ee
tesis saya adalah mengenai communicative leadership karena saya ee
apa kuliah saya adalah di bidang corporate communication

438
Alex : Oke.
Pewawancara : Nah, ee karena ini berhubungan dengan ee communicative leadership
jadi lebih kepada komunikasi nanti intinya dan otomatis leadership. Nah,
jadi ee nanti saya akan tanya beberapa pertanyaan ke Bapak, Bapak
santai saja ee ini gak ada hubungannya sama PA, Pak
Alex : [tertawa] Hehehe
Pewawancara : Jadi saya butuh informasi apa adanya, ee kalo nanti saya menggali
misalnya ada sesuatu yang mungkin saya akan ee bertanya lebih detil ee
Pak Alex ee saya mohon untuk apa ee apa terbuka karena ini apa
namanya transkrip itu hanya untuk..untuk saya, saya gak akan ee share
ke Pak Yoseph ke siapapun gitu.
Baik sekarang yang pertama:
Goal & Expectation setting ya pak. Nah, Pak Alex ee kalo ee boleh tau ya

Alex
R
Pak, ya, di tempat Bapak bekerja, untuk saya […] di tempat Bapak bekerja,
apakah bapak tau ee tujuan perusahaan ato company goals?
: ee itu ada di visi misi bu. Jadi tujuan perusahaan atau visi misi ee.. tidak
harus persis ya bu.. tujuan ato mis perusahaan adalah menyediakan
P
produk2 fashion yang berkualitas dan terjangkau ee..dengan pelayanan
yang ramah dan memberikan pengalaman berbelanja yang indah ee..
sehingga dapat meningkatkan kualitas hidup bagi pelanggan kita ee
kurang lebuhnya seperti itu bu.
S

Pewawancara: Baik jadi sekalian yang ketiga:

Company mission definining ya pak. Bagaimana tujuan tersebut
L

dirumuskan pak?
Alex : ee… biasanya sebelum raker, management mengadakan meeting untuk
membahas tujuan tahun ini apa. Biasanya untuk operation ee..para RM,
NM, dan SOHO merumuskan itu.
Pewawancara: Untuk leader bagaimana pak mereka merumuskannya?
Alex : Nah dari raker itu setiap regional mengadakan meeting meeting lagi dan
nanti setiap store manager akan diberikan target2 tujuan apa yang ee…
harus dicapai. Dan mereka harus menyampaikan ke bawah.
Pewawancara: Apakah e…hanya tujuan toko atau e apa itu… tujuan perusahaan yang
dishare pak?
Alex : Dua2 nya harus bu
Pewawancara: Apakah tujuan itu Bapak rasa sudah dijelaskan ke tim dari level staf
manajer sampe ke

439
 bawahnya? Ee itu sudah dijelaskan atau belum? Bagaimana sih mereka
menjelaskannya?
Alex : Kalo sampe ke level ee staf kemungkinan iya, tapi kalo ke bawah ee
mungkin belum terlalu clear visi misi itu.
Pewawancara : Ee kemudian kalo begitu yang di bawah yang front liner itu ee tau
tentang visi misi dan tujuan perusahaannya mereka mengira-ngira atau
bagaimana Pak?
Alex : Ee sebenarnya sosial..ee sosialisasi untuk visi misi itu kan ee ada di..di
mading, di toko-toko itu ada semua. Maksud saya mereka..mereka kalo
ee melihat iya, tapi mungkin untuk ee paham secara ee detil, nah itu saya
bilang mungkin hanya sampe level staf, tapi untuk level bawah mungkin
hanya sebatas membaca saja, ya. Mungkin seperti itu Bu, kira-kira seperti
itu. Sedangkan tujuan perusahaan sama perlakuannya.
Pewawancara : Ee dan menurut Bapak apakah kondisi seperti ini Bapak sudah cukup

Alex
puas?
R
: Hmm…ya kalo puas..puas sih belum, Bu.
Pewawancara : Belum. Kalo Bapak pengennya bagaimana?
P
Alex : […] saya gini Bu, ee visi misi ini harusnya clear sampe ke bawah. Nah
harusnya ini di..disosialisasikan dengan cara bukan hanya
mengkampanyekan dengan menempel di mading misalnya, ya tapi paling
S

tidak ada mungkin ada video kah, atau mungkin dari ee staf toko yang
sudah pernah dibekalin untuk ee menyampaikan itu mungkin bisa
menyampaikan dengan detil ini ke [umum], nah mungkin seperti itu
jadi..jadi biar ee ke bawahnya itu clear.
L

Pewawancara : Baik, baik. Sekarang yang kedua ya pak. ee..

Task planning pak ee gimana sih leader baik store manager maupun
supervisor ee.. menjelaskan ee.. dan merencanakan task atau tugas2 tim
nya?
Alex : eemm… mereka biasanya langung menjelaskan saja, mungkin dalam
planning belum dilakukan sempurna.
Pewawancara: Sekarang yang keempat ya pak ee..:
Coaching, mentoring training execution. Baik. Kalo ee mentoring,
coaching atau training, itu kalo menurut Bapak di tempat Bapak
bagaimana?
Alex : Ya kalo kita kan biasanya Bu, semua ee sesuai dengan metode-metode
training, panduan training dari head office.
Pewawancara : Kalo coaching sendiri, bagaimana leader di toko memberikan
ee..coaching?

440
Alex : Nah kalo coaching ya mungkin tergantung..tergantung casenya ya, tetapi
yang seperti ini saya kira bukan hal baru, ini tugas rutin sebenarnya kita
lakukan kalo untuk di MDS. Sangat sering dilakukan. Karena kalo saya
lihat temen-temen di toko selama ini ya pasti menyempatkan waktu
untuk itu, pasti menyempatkan waktu. Sebenarnya Bu, kalo yang saya
lihat teman-teman di toko selama ini untuk tugas coaching itu ya sudah
semacam tugas rutinlah bagi mereka itu karena kan mereka melihat
misalnya SA, atau SPG yang di timnya mereka yang tidak sesuai dengan
apa yang seharusnya mereka lakukan, misalnya ada standar apa yang
seharusnya dilakukan tetapi tidak dilakukan, itu otomatis langsung
mereka lakukan coaching hal-hal seperti itu
Pewawancara : Dan sudah dilakukan ya Pak, ya, seberapa sering?
Alex : Sering, sangat sering
Pewawancara : Kalo coachingnya ya?
Alex
R
: Iya, sangat sering dilakukan
Pewawancara : Oh, jadi itu secara reguler sudah diberikan ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Iya, iya
P
Pewawancara : Dan waktunya itu juga sudah dialokasikan ee misalnya supervisor
dalam sehari itu sekian jam, ‘kamu sekian jam harus mengcoaching’, itu
dialokasikan atau tidak Pak?
S

Alex : Harusnya. Tapi mungkin ee.. belum ada penentuan kesepakatan waktu
seperti itu.
L

Pewawancara : Harusnya ya Pak, ya. Kalau mentoring bagaimana?

Alex : Iya, karena kalo saya lihat temen-temen di toko selama ini ya pasti
menyempatkan waktu untuk itu, pasti menyempatkan waktu.
Pewawancara : Oke. Ee jadi ee ‘seharusnya’ tadi Bapak bilang begitu
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Tapi apakah yang realitinya itu tidak terjadi. Kalau proses coaching
mentoring bagaimana pak?
Alex : Kalo selama ini saya lihat itu sudah otomatis, tidak ribet otomatis
berjalanlah. Karena kan kadang dari training itu ada tugas2 khusus yang
harusnya mereka langsung lakukan di toko dan harusnya otomatis store
manager mementori itu dan mengevaluasi dari situ. Biasanya seperti itu
Pewawancara: Jadi apakah terplanning atau tidak pak coaching mentoring nya?
Alex : ee.. saya kira belum ya bu. Masih sesempatnya saja jadi belum komit
untuk ee waktu tertentu begitu, dan lebih sering ke coaching daripada
mentoring.

441
Pewawancara: Jadi simple ya pak?
Alex : ee sangat simple seperti tadi saya katakan begitu teman2 melihat ada
SPG yang di timnya mereka yang tidak sesuai dengan apa yang
seharusnya mereka lakukan, langsung kok mereka di coaching.
Pewawancara: Dimana pak coaching nya?
Alex : Langsung di lokasi bu jadi skalian nanti kalau ada anak2 SA SPG biar
mereka belajar
Pewawancara: Jadi ee satu coaching buat semua orang ya pak bukan ee one to one
begitu?
Alex : ee tergantung siatuasi sepertinya.. Biasanya tergantung case nya bu,
untuk yang intens mentoring bisa kita lakukan one to one tapi kalau
coaching secara umum itu biasa saja di area bisa dilakukan

Alex
R
Pewawancara: Kalau di MDS itu bagaimana sih ee.. kebiasaan belajar nya atau learning
habit?
: Cukup bagus ee relative sebenarnya.. kadang2 kita masih kalah dengan
anak2 SPG
P
Pewawancara: Kalau ee.. leader baik store manager maupun supervisor bagaimana sih
mereka menjalankan ee personal development atau ee..
mengembangkan timnya?
S

Alex : Itu ee tergantung store managernya sih bu.. ada ee yang bagus dalam
mengembangkan sehingga banyak ee anak buahnya naik tapi ada juga
yang kurang apa ya ee peduli mungkin tidak mementori dengan baik jadi
L

ee timnya sedikit yang naik.. itu penilaian leadership mereka.

Pewawancara : Ee dalam waktu ee misalnya dua tahun saya akan ngajarin supaya nanti
dia naik, jadi ada plan, dia harus dicoaching dimentori begini-begini-
begini
Alex : Iya, betul
Pewawancara : Seperti itu, Pak?
Alex : Ada juga yang kita persiapkan, ada Bu. Ya sama dengan kayak sekarang
Bu, untuk sekarang ini ya saya juga harus melihat satu-dua orang store
manager yang mungkin saya bisa persiapkan untuk naik ke jenjang
regional, ya
Pewawancara : Oke. Baik. Nah sekarang, kalo tadi Bapak katakan ee di tempat Bapak
kan trainingnya bagaimana??
Alex : Sudah cukup berjalan dengan bagus ya.
Pewawancara: Kalau learning habit di perusahaan bagaimana pak? terutama dalam
mengembangkan ee.. personal development tim?

442
Alex : Iya itu kembali kembali kepada manager masing2 Bu. Jadi sebenarnya
gini kalo seorang supervisor misalnya diberangkatkan untuk ikut
training yang tujuannya untuk pengembangan diri mereka, nah
seharusnya saat kembali dari sana seharusnya ini tugas manager untuk
bagaimana caranya supervisor ini bisa share, merapkan ilmu yang dia
dapatkan sehingga dia skill akan lebih. Nah harusnya itu tugas dari
manager yang bersangkutan untuk mengingatkan untuk menerapkan
apa yang dia sudah dapatkan dari training kemudian membantu dengan
mementor sehingga menjadi lebih matang lagi untuk berkembang
Pewawancara : Sudah ya. Apakah ee di perusahaan Bapak itu ketika karyawan sudah
ditraining, kemudian ketika mereka kembali ke pekerjaannya, ilmu yang
diterima tadi yang didapat bisa diterapkan, atau kadang-kadang malah
ilmunya bagus, tapi kadang-kadang terhambat dengan entah itu sistem,
entah itu keadaan. Itu bagaimana opportunity to apply nya?
Alex : Ya itu kembali kepada manajer masing-masing Bu. Seperti tadi saya

R
katakan ee kalo seorang supervisor misalnya diberangkatkan untuk ikut
training, nah seharusnya saat kembali trai..kembali dari sana seharusnya
ini tugas dari manajer untuk bagaimana caranya supervisor ini bisa share
ilmu yang dia dapatkan ke tim di toko
P
Pewawancara : Oke
Alex : Nah, ya harusnya itu ee tugas dari manajer yang bersangkutan untuk
mengingatkan untuk menerapkan apa yang dia sudah dapatkan dari
S

training itu. Tapi kalo selama ini saya lihat itu sudah otomatis, otomatis
berjalan lah, karena kan kadang dari training itu ada..ada tugas-tugas
khusus yang harusnya mereka langsung ee lakukan di toko dan biasanya
L

itu ada evaluasi dari situ. Biasanya seperti itu.

Pewawancara : Oke. Baik. Ee kalo di MATAHARI sendiri untuk para front liner ataupun
supervisor ee job aids atau alat bantu dalam bekerja, menurut Bapak
sudah cukup, sudah bagus?
Alex : Saya kira kalo untuk alat bantu sudah..sudah sangat..sangat memadai ya,
kalo untuk seorang katakanlah pramuniaga atau SPG, mereka bukan
bekerja yang butuh ee alat bantu khusus untuk melakukan itu
Pewawancara : Iya
Alex : Yang reguler paling apa, paling ya alat tulis mungkin, ya ndak..ndak
terlalu rumitlah saya kira kalo tentang alat bantu
Pewawancara : Kalo untuk ee alat bantu ee dalam menjalankan tugas misalnya
mengenai product knowledge alat bantunya
Alex : Ooh..
Pewawancara : Apakah itu up-to-date, Pak?

443
Alex : Kalo untuk itu saya kira Bu, ee ya up to date lah, up to date karena itu
juga rutin dilakukan oleh orang
Pewawancara : Oke, baik. Nah, sekarang kalo kita ngomong leader lagi Pak, kalo
menurut ee Bapak ee leader di MATAHARI mau supervisor ataupun store
manager apakah mereka sudah ee punya knowledge untuk mengcoach
ee mentraining gitu?
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Ee apa, knowledge nya ada?
Alex : Harusnya iya, karena kan sudah dibekali semua
Pewawancara : Oke, ini sedikit ya Pak, ini sharing, Bapak gak usah mencari tau nih dari
toko mana ya. Menurut ee FGD kemarin, ee supervisor ee yang diatas
ataupun atasnya lagi itu bahkan dari sisi tentang produk, itu lebih jagoan
mereka, mereka bilang. ‘Itu percuma ada leader, tauan kita’ gitu Pak. Itu

Alex : Ya..
R
jadi menurut Bapak bagaimana fenomena ini, Pak?

Pewawancara : Bahkan ada yang bilang begini waktu itu ee apa namanya ‘leader saya
P
yang ikut training ke pusat, tapi sampe ke..’ bapak kan tadi cerita ya, kalo
sudah kan harus melakukan training gitu kan ke bawah
Alex : Iya, iya
S

Pewawancara : Jadi sampe sekarang anak ini belum ditraining, Pak, gitu. Sementara dia
harus katanya ada..ada brand yang dari […] istilahnya begitu
Alex : Iya, iya
L

Pewawancara : Jadi dia belajar sendiri akhirnya, dia belajar sendiri ee dia baca-baca
sendiri. Nah, jadi apa yang didapat, dia juga bilang ‘saya juga gak tau. Yang
saya tau ini, ee yang saya ketahui ini apa bener apa tidak’ karena gak ada
nih Pak, gitu. Bagaimana ini Pak?
Alex : Ya ya itu yang saya bilang tadi Bu, harusnya ini kan ditransfer, transfer
knowledge ini kan harusnya jalan. Ya itu yang saya bilang tadi harusnya
setiap ada training, siapa yang di..ditugaskan untuk itu, nah harusnya
setelah itu harus dipastikan oleh..oleh atasannya bahwa ini bisa sampe
ke bawah transfernya, jangan sampe gak jalan.
Pewawancara: Sekarang kelima ya pak, kalo sekarang performance feedback.
Performance feedback. Jadi, kita bukan bicara tentang performance
appraisal ya Pak, ya.
Alex : Iya. Iya.
Pewawancara : Performance feedback. Kalo di tempat Bapak ee di organisasi Bapak
seperti apa performance feedback itu diberikan?

444
Alex : Ini untuk performance yang mana ini, Bu?
Pewawancara ; Performance feedback yang ee
Alex : Store, tim?
Pewawancara : Tim..tim, toko, baik dari level staf manajer sampe ke front liner. Ee jadi
bukan, kalo kita bicara performance appraisal itu kan yearly
Alex : Iya, iya.
Pewawancara : Iya kan? Nah, kalo yang performance feedback itu kan sebenernya
sebelum yearly, sebelum setahun itu kan ada yang reguler
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo yang..itu kan kita bicara mengenai idealnya.
Alex : Iya.

Alex
feedbacknya? R
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo yang di organisasi Bapak itu seperti apa performance

: Ini kan lebih banyak ee evaluasi terhadap kinerja tentang areanya

P
masing-masing, tanggung jawab masing-masing, jadi kalo kita mau
evaluasi mereka ya yang kita evaluasi adalah ee areanya mereka
bagaimana ee hasil dari pencapaian kuotanya misalnya. Nah, itu itu yang
kita evaluasi, jadi performance dari ee secara keseluruhan bagian yang
S

dia bawahi.
Pewawancara : Oke. Kan saat ini Bapak kan ee apa membawahi sekian banyak toko
Alex : Iya
L

Pewawancara : Nah, Bapak melakukan kalo performance feedback ke kepala toko atau
staf manajer itu, itu seberapa sering dan bagaimana sistem yang ada
sekarang ini?
Alex : Ee Kalo kita ke kepala toko ya tetap kita lihat performance tokonya. Nah
seperti apa pencapaiannya, mungkin dari segi salesnya, termasuk
customer service, nah mungkin kita lihat disitu. Nah, mana-mana yang
kita anggap kurang, misalnya dari sales, dari sales kita lihat ‘oh ada yang
bermasalah disitu’ apakah area beli putusnya mungkin atau
konsinyasinya. Nah kita infokan ha-hal yang masih kurang bagus atau
yang perlu diperbaiki.
Pewawancara : Oke
Alex : Nah, kalo memang kita anggap apa yang mereka lakukan itu belum
tepat. Nah kita coba ee sama-sama sepakati bahwa hal seperti inilah yang
seharusnya dilakukan toko, begitu. Seharusnya dilakukan sering ya tapi
ee..memang tergantung dari leader atau store managernya

445
Pewawancara : Oke. Nah, kalo tadi Bapak kan berarti ee melakukan anggap aja toko itu
tidak capai target tadi, ya.
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Bapak berarti melakukan evaluasinya ee melihat ‘Oh sebulan ini gak
capai target.’
Alex : Iya jadi sebulan di ee feedback.
Pewawancara : Bapak langsung atau biasanya kan kalo sudah 3 kali berturut-turut
biasanya ada yang dipanggil
Alex : He’eh, iya
Pewawancara : Misalnya
Alex : Iya

Alex
R
Pewawancara : Nah, Bapak melakukan tadi ee menganalisa terus mencari jalan
solusinya itu sebulan sekali atau nanti pas tiga bulan sekali?
: Nah, kalo selama ini yang saya lakukan malah day to day malahan
P
Pewawancara : Oh, day to day?
Alex : Iya karena kan kita terima ee dari apa kuesioner yang data..data sales
harian by store ee mana yang growth mana yang minus, nah itu. Nah dari
situ biasa, ya kayak kemarin saya ke Kalibata, salah satunya untuk
S

evaluasi itu karena Kalibata salah satu toko yang ee datanya dia masuk
posisinya sudah ungrowth, nah saya sharing disana kira-kira kenapa bisa
seperti ini.
L

Pewawancara: Jadi isi feedbacknya seperti apa?

Alex : Nah, jadi mereka kadang, ya kalo saya bilang sih Bu harus diingatkan
harus di guide lagi tentang tugas-tugas mereka yang ada di action plan-
nya seperti apa begitu, dan secara pribadi evaluasi saya lebih ke
semangat mereka karena ada yang sudah merasa tidak mungkin capai
jadi tidak maximal. Banyak hal-hal yang seharusnya toko bisa lakukan,
tetapi tidak dieksekusi, mereka tau masalahnya tetapi mereka tidak
eksekusi masalah itu ee.. Jadi tergantung situasi. Tidak harus setahun
sekali. Hanya PA yang kita lakukan setahun sekali dimana ada langkah2
dalam pengisiannya karena kita harus mendokumentasikan PA tersebut,
jadi sedikit berbeda dengan feedback yang harian ato sesuai kebutuhan.
Kita lakukan langsung tidak perlu kita isi form dsb
Pewawancara : Oh, jadi Bapak memberitahukan kepada mereka
Alex : Iya. Ini kenapa dikerjainnya malah begitu kan seharusnya begini.
Pewawancara : ‘Ayok ini dikerjain kan kamu udah tau, kenapa gak dikerjain?’, jadi lebih
ke hal2 yang harus diimprove ya pak?

446
Alex : Yes, betul
Pewawancara : Baik. Nah sekarang, kalo menurut Bapak, mereka tidak mengerjakan itu
kan berarti kan karena tidak ada dorongan dari kepala tokonya atau staf
manajernya
Alex : iya, iya
Pewawancara ; Atau ada faktor lain kenapa mereka tidak melakukan itu
Alex : Ya, bisa jadi Bu. Jadi Bu, menurut saya bukan mereka tidak mau
melakukan tapi mereka masih apa ya, masih perlu didorong kayaknya.
Nah, pertanyaannya ‘kenapa tidak dilakukan hal yang sama?’ kan
minimal harus sama, justru harus lebih dari yang lalu. Nah itu saat yang
kita tanya begitu, mereka juga kayak kaget ‘Oh, iya ya, ternyata harus
diini lagi.’ Biasanya kalau udh di feedback begitu performance nya akan
lebih baik lagi, kalo saya lihat sih mereka tau Bu, mereka tau. Jadi saat
sharing itu biasanya mereka tau masalahnya ini, ‘kenapa bisa ungrowth?’,

R
‘oh ini masalahnya’. Tahun lalu kita bikin ini, tahun ini enggak. Nah, jadi
mereka kadang, ya kalo saya bilang sih Bu, ee harus diingatkan tentang
ee action plan-nya seperti apa begitu, mereka kadang ee iya mungkin
bekerja tiba masa-tiba akal, nah itu yang kurang..kurang cocok karena
P
mereka kadang kurang paham dengan historicalnya mereka, ee itu apa
saja yang..yang mereka lakukan begitu. Ada leader teman2 di toko yang
ee betul2 kasih guidance tentang ee pekerjaan timnya tapi ada juga
memang yang ee cuek
S

Pewawancara : Nah, kalo tadi kan berarti mereka belum ee mereka sebenarnya tinggal
dipush untuk melakukan action plan
L

Alex : Iya, iya

Pewawancara : Yang sudah action plan itu tinggal dilakukan, jadi Bapak kan nge-push.
Nah, ee apakah sebenarnya masalahnya mereka membuat action plan itu
karena mereka sebenarnya juga tidak tau cara melakukannya, atau
mereka ee lupa atau mereka ee apa biasanya sampe itu tidak dilakukan,
Pak?
Alex : Hmm apa ya, mungkin mereka terperangkap dengan pekerjaan rutinitas
kayaknya gitu.
Pewawancara : Baik
Alex : Jadi apa yang menjadi ee jobdesknya mereka tiap hari, misalnya seorang
kepala toko ya terjebak dengan itu, tiap hari harus crosscheck cuman
crosscheck ini crosscheck ini, supervisor lakukan ini tiap hari akhirnya
yang seperti ini terabaikan
Pewawancara : Oke
Alex : Padahal justru ini yang..yang jauh lebih penting yang perlu dieksekusi

447
Pewawancara: Biasanya apakah e leader juga membahas e masalah pribadi timnya yang
tentu e berhubungan dengan pekerjaan?
Alex : ee seperti saya bilang e tergantung leadernya ada yang detil membina
sampai ke e masalah probadi tapi ada yang cuek. Ini tergantung ee
hubungan antar leader dan tim juga bu.. kalau dulu saya ketika masih
menjadi Store manager ee saya ee cukup dekat ya dengan tim jadi mereka
ketika saya beri masukan mereka terima saja.
Pewawancara: Biasanya bagaimana reaksi tim ketika difeedback pak?
Alex : E.. rata2 mereka terima sih kalau ee saya perhatikan jadi ee..menurut
saya, tim menerima kok feedback yang diberikan”.
Pewawancara: Oo begitu ya? Tidak ada yang ee protes pak? ee kenapa bisa begitu ya?
Alex : Setahu saya anak2 itu baik ee mereka menerima, tapi ee tergantung
leader juga. Tapi yang tidak terima pasti ee sedikit.

Alex
mereka?
: O iya jelas
R
Pewawancara: Apakah mereka menganggap feedback penting untuk ee improvement
P
Pewawancara: Setelah di feedback apa mereka ada ee perubahan begitu?
Alex : ee tergantung anaknya ee rata2 mereka berubah, tapi yang tadi saya
bilang ada juga sampai tiga kali feedback tetap tidak berubah.
S

Pewawancara : Oke, oke. Sekarang yang ee keenam.

Employees engagement in problem solving. Harusnya ya Pak ya.
L

Betul, betul, betul. Kalo engagement leader dengan ee apa namanya ee

timnya, kalo menurut Bapak tadi kan leader sudah..sudah lumayan lah ya,
ee tadi saya sempet tertarik dengan perkataan Bapak begini ‘Oh, tim
boleh menghubungi saya asal tentang pekerjaan ya, itu silakan. Tapi asal
jangan pribadi.’ Nah, dari FGD kemarin mereka mengatakan kadang-
kadang mereka mempunyai masalah pribadi
Alex : Ya betul
Pewawancara : Yang mereka mau sharing
Alex : Yes
Pewawancara : Karena ee ini kan kita bicara anak milenial nih Pak, jadi menurut mereka
yang milenial, mereka itu lebih suka ee apa leader yang cool, yang sharing
dia juga cerita masalahnya, kita juga bisa cerita, ini menurut mereka.
Alex : Iya, iya

448
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo ada leader yang ee menjaga (jaim) dia mereka gak akan bisa
cerita, dan itu yang..yang terjadi apa ter… Bagaimana leader dalam
solving problem?
Alex : Setuju Bu, setuju.
Pewawancara : Setuju ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Setuju, Bu. Oke. Leader itu harus dekat dengan tim dan melibatkan tim
dalam mencapai ee kesepakatan e misalnya ada masalah harus dirembuk
supaya nanti hasilnya bisa untuk bersama. E itu tergantung e leader
menurut saya kalau dia mau timnya menjalankan sungguh-sungguh dia
harus melibatkan.
Pewawancara : Iya, iya. Jadi timnya diajak ato bagaimana pak
Alex : Iya, sangat penting harus dilibatkan tapi ee belum semua leader seperti
itu. Ee itu sama bu, sangat penting kita e mendapat e trust dari anak buah.

R
Begitu kita dapat akan mudah tim itu bergerak. Tapi masih adalah
teman2 yang kurang bisa percaya ke leader nya nah ini karena e sikap e
jaimnya tadi. E tidak mau atau susah diapproach jaga jarak e jadi tidak
dekat. Padahal kalau dekat kita bisa menjadi teman mereka dan e enak
P
ketika mereka punya masalah e kita bisa menjadi pendengar mereka.
Karena kalau e mereka punya masalah pasti e akan pengaruh ke
pekerjaan. Itu yang sering saya e tekankan ke store manager. Yah semoga
e kalau store manager begitu pasti supervisor akan mencontoh juga.
S

Pewawancara: Jadi sekarang e belum e good listener ya pak?

Alex : Sepertinya belum semua tapi saya harap e rata-rata e sudah
L

Pewawancara : Baik, sekarang kita bicara e.. Ke tujuh: Openness

Menurut bapak ee leader di MDS itu approachable tidak?
Alex : Saya kira e iya. Tapi e tergantung dari masing2 orang juga, ee ada yang
leader nya jaim tapi ada juga yang dekat. Saya selalu tanamkan ke tim
supaya jangan jaim.
Pewawancara: Bagaimana tentang trustworthiness nya pak?
Alex : Kalo saya istilahkan ke..ke tim bahkan ke ee store manager yang saya
bawahi sekarang, saya ingatkan mereka bahwa kita itu butuh membina
hubungan emosional ke tim. Kenapa sekarang banyak hal-hal yang ya
boleh dibilang hal remeh temeh bisa sampai ke komite, bisa bikin surat
kaleng, bisa masuk ke suara MATAHARI, cuma karena apa? Cuma karena
menegur orang dengan tidak bener, cuma karena dicolek misalnya, itu
kan sebenarnya hal yang tidak hm apa ya, mungkin karena hubungan
dengan timnya kurang bagus, saya bilang saya juga, jangankan colek, saya
tepuk begini juga kadang perempuan mereka tidak masalah karena
mereka anggap tepukan saya itu sekalipun keras, cuma mereka anggap

449
 tepukan sebagai teman, tepukan orang tua kepada anak karena ya ada
hubungan emosional itu. Nah, saya ingatkan ke tim—ke store manager
bagaimana caranya membina itu. Aa kalian harus membuka, buka diri,
saya bilang di saat ke area, ke area jangan..jangan gayanya kayak store
manager yang butuhnya hanya mau dihormatin, ya ndak begitu saya
bilang. Kita harus kita perlu sampaikan ke tim bahwa ee kita siap
melayani mereka, menampung apa yang menjadi keluh kesah mereka. Ya
ajaklah ngobrol, ajak sharing di area, bahkan mungkin kalo setelah
ngomong masalah sales, ngomong masalah artikel mana yang laku, ya
sekali-kali mungkin tanya tentang bagaimana keluarganya, dia tinggal
sama siapa, yang seperti itu ya sangat..sangat membuat tim kita itu
menjadi respek terhadap pimpinannya karena merasa bahwa ee leader
ini memperlakukan mereka dengan seperti teman, seperti sahabat. Ya
jujur Bu, saya ini ee sudah 10 tahun waktu itu jadi store manager—gak
usah dihitung sampe asisten lah, tetapi satu pun tidak pernah ada
masalah-masalah yang misalnya saya dilaporkan, diceritain bagaimana

R
ke pimpinan, ya karena itu yang saya lakukan. Jadi tim itu merasa ya sama
Ibu bilang, tidak ada jarak, kita ndak jaim sama anak-anak, kita bisa
guyon sama mereka. Jadi di saat mungkin kita tidak sadar, kita buat
kesalahan, ini tanpa kita sengaja ada kesalahan yang kita lakukan—
P
katakanlah mungkin karena saat itu kita lagi emosi, kita menegur dengan
kasar, mereka masih bisa terima karena mereka melihat kita suka
berbeda, bukan lagi sebagai atasan tapi sebagai teman, gitu. Dan saya
tidak satu-dua kali Bu menegur karena dalam keadaan marah, ya kadang
S

marah..marah asli..asli betul tapi mereka ndak..ndak tidak keberatan

diperlakukan begitu, mereka bisa terima, dan malah mereka minta maaf.
Jadi memang sangat penting Bu untuk membina itu
L

Pewawancara : Iya, iya. Eee.. ya apa leader, ya bisa..intinya adalah dia bisa dipercaya,
seperti Bapak gitu, apakah sudah begitu atau Bapak saja?
Alex : Kalo faktanya Bu, faktanya tidak semua saya lihat temen-temen kepala
toko itu melakukan ee hal yang seperti itu, karena faktanya masih ada
kadang store manager atau asisten yang dilaporkan oleh timnya ke atas.
Pewawancara : Hmmm, Itu biasanya di level supervisor ya yang..yang dilaporkan, bukan
store manager atau dua-duanya?
Alex : Semua, level store manager, level asisten kan sampe level supervisor
pun.
Pewawancara ; Oh, oke. Jadi kesimpulannya masih ada yang belum supportive dan open
ya pak
Alex : Nah, itu terjadi karena itu tadi, mungkin ee mereka ada yang tersumbat
komunikasinya. Jadi intinya…ee…Tapi memang ya hal-hal kurang bagus
bisa terjadi, misal anak buah sudah tidak percaya lagi dengan atasan,
atasan dianggap terlalu cuek tidak mendengarkan anak buah, biasanya

450
 mereka bawahan jalan sendiri karena ya mungkin salah satu case yang
seperti tadi Bu, ada masalah yang dibiarkan akhirnya tim ini jadi tidak
percaya lagi ke atas, dan itu kadang terjadi seperti itu di toko. Sehingga
saya istilahkan ke tim juga ke store manager yang saya bawahi sekarang,
saya ingatkan mereka bahwa kita itu butuh membina hubungan
emosional ke tim. Kenapa sekarang banyak hal-hal yang ya boleh dibilang
hal remeh temeh bisa sampai ke komite, bisa bikin surat kaleng, bisa
masuk ke suara Matahari, ini karena cara store manager dalam membina
hubungan salah. Mereka belum membuka diri, kita harus siap melayani
mereka, menampung apa yang menjadi keluh kesah mereka. Ya ajaklah
ngobrol, ajak sharing di area, tidak jaim sehingga anak buah bisa
approach pada saat mereka membutuhkan

Peawawncara: Delapan sekarang supportive. Kalo sekarang menurut Bapak, support

leader terhadap bawahannya bagaimana kalo di tempat Bapak?
Alex : Apanya, Bu?
Pewawancara : Support..support leader
R
P
Alex : Support?
Pewawancara : Iya. Ee apakah bantuan sudah..sudah bagus atau mungkin masih harus
ditingkatkan?
S

Alex : ee…
Pewawancara: Apa leader mau bantu timnya. Support leader itu misalnya kalo ee
supervisor bantu ke front liner, store manager ke supervisor, gitu ya.
L

Alex : Kalo supportnya seorang manager kepada timnya di toko, nah itu
sebenarnya mereka sudah jelas semua …. kalo sistem kita di Matahari tuh
jadi kepala toko itu, sudah pasti setiap hari itu selalu berbicara dengan
tim, komunikasi dengan tim, bagaimana caranya supaya apa yang jadi
target, apa yang jadi goalnya mereka itu bisa tercapai. Nah rata-rata
mereka juga kalo di toko untuk seorang manajer itu di saat melihat
kondisi toko, apa yang mungkin sudah tidak standar, tidak sesuai dengan
standar operasional, nah mereka biasanya langsung evaluasi dan saat itu
juga seorang kepala toko biasanya langsung membantu mengeksekusi itu
sampai pada saat pekerjaan itu harus selesai betul-betul. Jadi ya boleh
dibilang support untuk hal-hal seperti ini di operasional ya mereka
harusnya full lakukan itu
Pewawancara : Baik. Jadi leader harus bersedia membantu ya pak.
Alex : Iya harus itu.

451
Pewawancara: Kalo tadi bapak bicara tentang komunikasi, ee komunikasi antara front
liner dengan supervisor, supervisor dengan staf manager, itu menurut
Bapak bagaimana?
Alex : Kalo yang saya lihat selama ini, itu hampir setiap hari, kalo untuk
seorang supervisor itu selalu melakukan ee meeting kepada timnya,
begitu juga dengan ee kepala toko terhadap staf toko, itu biasanya rutin
tiap minggu kita lakukan, itu diluar dari meeting..meeting yang ee
keseluruhan tim ikut. Nah itu lain lagi dengan meeting staf. Jadi
seharusnya setiap toko itu ya masalah komunikasi sebenarnya tidak ada
masalah seharusnya, nah cuman kadang mungkin ya ada hal-hal yang
karyawan merasa mungkin itu ee bertentangan dengan apa yang menjadi
keinginan mereka, nah itu-itu yang..yang mungkin mereka tidak bisa
ungkapkan di meeting, ya ini ya ya yang jadi..jadi PR-nya seorang kepala
toko biasanya, harusnya mereka bisa membuka saluran itu. Nah, kalo
saya dulu waktu di toko biasanya saya pakai ee nomer handphone saya

R
itu saya share ke mereka semua, jadi supaya tidak ada saluran yang
tersumbat itu. Jadi mereka bebas mau..mau sms, mau telepon ke saya, itu
mereka bebas kapanpun. Nah saya sudah ingatkan setiap meeting, ‘kalian
terserah, kalo ada masalah toko boleh ganggu saya.’ Kecuali masalah
pribadi, dan itu terbukti Bu, terbukti. Jadi kadang saya kadang dapat info
P
dari anak-anak itu, info-info tentang karyawan yang ee melakukan
kecurangan, ada supervisor yang mungkin secara etika kurang apa ya
menegur bawahannya kurang ya kurang etis lah, nah itu mereka info ke
S

saya biasanya Bu.

Pewawancara : Tapi bukan, maksudnya bukan yang mengada-ada hoax gitu, hoax
enggak ya?
L

Alex : Bukan, jadi pernah..pernah juga yang seperti itu, saya anggap itu ee
cuma mau menjatuhkan orang. Dan betul terbukti Bu, karena setelah
saya cross check, apa betul koordinator itu melakukan itu, setelah saya
minta dibagian editing coba dicek semua transaksinya, ternyata ndak
betul. Jadi juga yang memang
Pewawancara : Oooh, yang menjatuhkan
Alex : Iya, betul. Dan dia pakai nomor..nomor bukan yang ini
Pewawancara : Bukan nomornya dia? Dia beli yang cuma sekali aja.
Alex : Bukan nomornya dia, dan dia tidak mau sebut identitasnya, dan
biasanya yang seperti itu saya ndak gubris karena saya yakin itu sudah
tujuannya sudah lain
Pewawancara : Beda
Alex : Iya

452
Pewawancara : Baik, baik, baik. Ee kalo dari sisi value contribution atau penghargaan ya
Pak, ya, selain dari perusahaan ya. Biasanya kan perusahaan ada
program-program penghargaan, kalo di tim Bapak itu penghargaan
leader ke bawahan seperti apa?
Alex : Ya biasanya ee untuk hal-hal tertentu, di saat-saat meeting umum ya kita
pake momen itu untuk memberikan apresiasi ke anak-anak misalnya dia
melakukan apa, atau mungkin dia hmm apa membuat suatu ee prestasi
yang ee membawa nama toko, ya atau mungkin ee dari perusahaan ada
kompetisi apa, tetapi tidak..mungkin ee dia tidak diberikan ee reward
sesuai dengan apa..apa yang dia inginkan mungkin katakanlah seperti itu,
ya mungkin ya di toko harus ee memperhatikan hal-hal seperti itu, jadi
ya kita lakukan di meeting umum, kita memberikan reward, ya
sebenarnya kan mereka juga butuh pengakuan di depan..di depan teman-
temannya, di depan orang banyak, ya intinya sih disitu Bu.
Pewawancara : Pengakuan ya, Pak, ya? Penting ya.
Alex : Iya R
Pewawancara: Kalau hasil FGD kemarin leader dianggap belum ee….menghargai atau
belum e.. value kontribusi tim, menurut bapak bagaimana
P
Alex : Memang ee belum semua leader begitu karena mungkin beda persepsi
antara ee..beda generasi mungkin.
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo menurut Bapak sekarang keberadaan leader di toko itu
S

bagaimana, Pak?
Alex : Ya harusnya setiap saat harus ada
L

Pewawancara : Setiap saat harus ada?

Alex : Setiap saat harus ada.
Pewawancara : Ini mohon maaf ya, Pak, ee kebetulan saya ee apa namanya ada ee
mendapatkan data
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Keberadaan leader (manajer) on duty itu masih belum sesuai
standarnya MATAHARI. Nah, itu biasanya penyebabnya apa, Pak?
Alex : Sebenarnya kalo ee operasional yang biasa
Pewawancara : Mungkin saya sedikit sharing waktu saya FGD kemarin ee apa saya kan
tanyakan kepada ee front liner ya
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Tapi gak usah ditanya siapa yang ngomong gitu, ya
Alex : Iya, iya

453
Pewawancara : Tapi ini cuma sharing saja, jadi mereka cerita ee seringkali mereka itu
mencari leadernya mereka itu gak ada. Ee padahal kebetulan mungkin
mereka harus mendapatkan otorisasi, otorisasi dalam bukan ee di kasir
bukan, misalnya ada..ada customer dia belum complain tapi ee dia
meminta perlakuan khusus. Nah dia tidak—si front liner ini tidak bisa
memutuskan, dia harus minta atasannya, dia bisa nyari kemana-kemana-
kemana-kemana bisa setengah jam, mereka ketemunya di gudang, ini nih
cerita, atau nanti ee kemana-kemana-kemana ternyata ee apa ngetik di
informasi. Nah ini sekedar ee curhat, jadi seringkali mereka ee
mengatakan susah untuk menemui leader, gitu. Terus waktu itu ada yang
cerita juga, ee ada komplain dari customer, customer sebenernya hanya
mau minta tukar atau apa mungkin sepele, tapi waktu dipanggil, udah
dipaging ee 5 menit […]-nya gak datang, 10 menit tidak ada, sampe 30
menit, Pak. Sebenarnya masalahnya sangat sepele, tapi karena dia harus
menunggu 30 menit, itu yang membuat dia marah akhirnya yang di apa
ee dimaki-maki itu adalah si apa front liner tersebut, nah itu cerita. Nah,

Alex
R
kalo menurut Bapak ini bagaimana fenomena seperti ini?
: Ya sebenarnya itu kalo kejadian kayak gitu, itu sudah pasti dari tim toko
khususnya manajernya itu berarti sudah tidak melakukan standar yang
sebenarnya. Sesuai standard kita leader harusnya setiap saat harus ada.
P
Tapi kalau tidak ada di area baik kepala toko ato staff ya sebenarnya itu
sudah pasti dari tim toko khususnya manajernya itu berarti sudah tidak
melakukan standar yang sebenarnya. Karena antara store manager
S

dengan asisten, ini kan mereka lakukan shift. Supervisor pun begitu.
Karena mereka harus ada tidak hanya secara operational membantu
customer tetapi juga mensupport anak-anaknya misal kalau butuh
bantuan apa, contoh item correct untuk staff atau masalah lain yang
L

membutuhkan wewenang kepala toko

Pewawancara : Tapi ini mereka ngomongnya gak cuman ee apa itu leader juga, ee tidak
hanya level manajer dan asisten, bahkan supervisor juga
Alex : Supervisor pun, nah itu. Itu berarti memang terlalu fatal kalo seperti itu
masalahnya. Tetapi ee saya ndak tau ya, kalo yang saya jalani selama di
toko, apalagi selama pernah jadi store manager ya..ya ndak pernah lah hal
seperti itu terjadi, itu terlalu ekstrim kalo betul-betul staf satu pun tidak
ada di toko, waduh..
Pewawancara : Bukan, maksudnya ee MOD..ee contoh tadi ya yang MOD dipaging
Alex : Betul, betul
Pewawancara : Itu gak ada yang datang, kalo ada, ada, cuman lama nyarinya, mereka
harus mencari dulu, yang kasus ee tadi yang dia minta perlakuan khusus
ee jadi akhirnya yang sebenernya customer-nya gak komplain cuman
mau minta, mau nanya akhirnya jadi marah, atau customer yang maunya
hanya tuker barang jadi marah. Jadi sebenarnya menurut mereka

454
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Ee apa namanya ee leader itu ya kalo bisa seperti mereka, kemanapun
mudah ee dicari gitu, jadi bukan mereka yang kesulitan gitu. Tapi kalo
menurut Bapak keberadaan leader itu pengaruh gak dengan ee apa
performa mereka di lapangan?
Alex : Ya sangat pengaruh.
Pewawancara : Pengaruh, ya?
Alex : Sangat pengaruh
Pewawancara : Pengaruhnya dimana, Pak?
Alex : Jadi gini Bu, ee ini kan kita ini bekerja dengan banyak orang, taruhlah ya
istilahnya padat karya ini kan MATAHARI ini padat karya, dengan banyak
kepala ini kan ee sangat susah dan mungkin hampir kita bilang tidak bisa

R
dikatakan bahwa sistem ini bisa jalan dengan sendirinya tanpa adanya
leader di ee area. Nah mereka selama ini, ya mungkin ya, ya mungkin ini
karena kondisi masyarakat Indonesia juga ya, sama halnya kalo kita di
jalan, orang di jalan itu kalo liat ee lalu lintas mungkin ‘oh, tertib di jalan’,
tetapi saat tidak melihat satu orang pun lalu lintas, wah bisa amburadul
P
mereka, mau tertib mau apa ya ndak..ndak perlu Bu.
Pewawancara : Budayanya masih seperti itu soalnya ya Pak, ya
S

Alex : Iya. Di toko itu setau saya, pengalaman saya, memang masih seperti ini
juga, jadi tetap harus ada tugas kontrol dari leader masing-masing untuk
memastikan bahwa operasional ini bisa jalan sesuai dengan standar
karena memang sangat..sangat riskan kalo seorang leader atau
L

katakanlah supervisor saja tidak ada di area, sementara operasional ini

sangat membutuhkan kehadiran mereka bahkan sistem yang jalan itu
kan membutuhkan mereka misalnya untuk otorisasi, itu kan
butuh..butuh supervisor semua. Jadi sangat..sangat parah kalo memang
di saat itu dipanggil sampe [dipackaging] berapa kali pun mungkin ndak
ada, waduh itu sudah sangat—dengan kondisi.. mungkin kondisi tokonya
sudah sangat parah kalo sampe seperti itu.
Pewawancara : Karena katanya waktu itu abis dari back office, dari back officenya lama.
Alex : Nah itu..itu yang gak boleh, apapun alasannya itu ndak boleh kosong.
Pengalaman saya kalo meeting staf, tetep harus ada yang standby di area,
tidak boleh semuanya ikut meeting.
Pewawancara : Oh, gitu ya Pak, ya
Alex : Iya, itu..itu solusinya karena tetap pelayanan di arena harus jalan, tidak
boleh tidak

455
Pewawancara : Karena memang sosok ee apa leader itu tetep harus hadir ee di area
supaya para front liner itu melihat ‘oh, disini ada leader’
Alex : Iya, betul. Untuk memastikan kan ini bukan robot yang bisa kita setting,
mereka itu kan tetep butuh seorang figur leader didepan mereka. Nah, itu
masalahnya.
Pewawancara: Kalau kemauan leader membantu bagaimana pak?
Alex : Kalo supportnya seorang manager kepada timnya di toko, nah itu
sebenarnya mereka sudah jelas semua …. kalo sistem kita di Matahari tuh
jadi kepala toko itu, sudah pasti setiap hari itu selalu berbicara dengan
tim, komunikasi dengan tim, bagaimana caranya supaya apa yang jadi
target, apa yang jadi goalnya mereka itu bisa tercapai. Nah rata-rata
mereka juga kalo di toko untuk seorang manajer itu di saat melihat
kondisi toko, apa yang mungkin sudah tidak standar, tidak sesuai dengan
standar operasional, nah mereka biasanya langsung evaluasi dan saat itu

R
juga seorang kepala toko biasanya langsung membantu mengeksekusi itu
sampai pada saat pekerjaan itu harus selesai betul-betul. Jadi ya boleh
dibilang support untuk hal-hal seperti ini di operasional ya mereka
harusnya full lakukan itu
P
Pewawancara: Baik.. kalau ee menurut bapak kepedulian leader ditoko terhadap
kebaikan anak buahnya bagaimana?
Alex : ee.. maksudnya?
S

Pewawancara: Bagaimana ee.. kedekatan leader dengan tim misalnya

Alex : Ya itu tadi bu.. ee tergantung tipe store manager mungkin bu, kalau
mereka jaim biasanya mereka tidak dekat dengan timnya, sehingga
L

terkesan tidak peduli dan terbuka sehingga timnya pasti juga menjaga
jarak. Ada beberapa store manager seperti itu
Pewawancara: Baik sekarang yang ke sembilan: Constructive approach on conflict-
full issue. Bagaimana sih leader ditoko ee.. menyelesaikan konflik
internal?
Alex : Issue yang ee seperti apa bu?
Pewawancara : Misal ya pak pas FGD kmrn, ketika saya tanya kenapa tidak kompak,
karena kadang-kadang mereka punya masalah ee masalahnya itu antar
teman tapi itu pasti pengaruh dengan pekerjaan, ya leader hanya
mendengarkan saja, mereka udah bolak-balik cerita ‘Pak, ini begini. Bu,
ini begini’ tapi ya gak pernah ada solusi. Ambil contoh ee yang simpel,
sesama teman misalnya kita sama-sama front liner nih Pak.
Alex : He’eh, he’eh
Pewawancara : Pak Alex maunya masuknya siang, maunya siang terus gak pernah ee
mau pagi.

456
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Nanti ee tiba-tiba Sabtu nih, ee aku gak masuk, kalo menurut si anak ini,
kalo tau ee dia gak masuk gak dadakan, kan tadi temen yang harusnya
pagi dia bisa shift tengah, misalnya begitu. Jadi ee malam masih ada
yang..masih ada, gak sampe apa namanya kalo pagi kan cuma sampe
setengah lima misalnya, shift tengah kan bisa agak maleman. Nah itu
udah sering, nanti dia selalu ngambil weekend, Sabtu entah Minggu itu
pasti gak masuk, sudah dilaporkan berkali-kali, leader cuman
mengatakan ‘ya sudah dia memang orangnya begitu, mau apa dikata’
Akhirnya terjadi keirian kan
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Kecemburuan gitu lho. Nah akhirnya gak kompak. Ada lagi yang
sekelompok lagi, ya si A ini senior, dia paling tidak mau ngecek kalo
terima barang, gitu. Pokoknya kalo barang dateng, mau itu pas dia

Alex
R
shiftnya dia, ya dia tidak akan ngecek. Barang dateng pagi, si anak yang
baru-baru ini shift dua, ya shift dua nanti yang akan ngecek
: Iya, iya
P
Pewawancara : Nah ini udah lapor ke atasan berkali-kali, itu juga tidak dikerjakan cuma
dibilangin
Alex : Memang seperti itu
S

Pewawancara : ‘ya memang seperti itu orangnya. Udah kamu gak usah itu aja, emang ee
apa gak usah dimasukin ke hati. Memang begitu orangnya.’ Nah itu adalah
benih-benih yang membuat tidak kompak.
L

Alex : Iya, iya

Pewawancara : Menurut Bapak bagaimana?
Alex : Ya itu yang saya bilang tadi Bu ee beda-beda sih ya karena ini kan
lebih..lebih ke personal bagaimana seorang leader itu ee memperlakukan
bawahannya. Jadi agak kalo kita mau men-generate secara ini
MATAHARI, ya..ya saya bilang kembali ke personal masing-masing, tetapi
itu bukan hal yang ee baru Bu, memang sering seperti itu. Kadang ada
seorang leader memang yang tidak tidak berani atau memang
membiarkan hal-hal seperti itu terjadi, dan tanpa dia sadari ya itu akan
membuat timnya jadi tidak solid lagi, ndak kompak, karena merasa
bahwa ‘oh pimpinan saya membeda-bedakan. Pimpinan saya
membiarkan kesalahan itu terjadi. Nah akhirnya yang muncul apa?
Muncullah ketidakpercayaan, akhirnya tim jadi seperti itu. Harusnya kalo
seorang leader tau bahwa anak buahnya melanggar dari ketentuan
perusahaan misalnya shiftnya tidak boleh satu shift terus, harus
bergantian tiap minggu misalnya, ya harusnya ini kan aturan yang baku
yang harus dilakukan seharusnya, tapi kalo dibiarkan ya itu berarti

457
 leadernya membiarkan kekompakan di timnya itu jadi hancur gitu, dan
itu banyak yang seperti itu. Tetapi kalo itu menurut saya S1 atau S2, ya
harus intervensi untuk kasus yang seperti itu karena itu kan sudah
membuat kebijakan yang berbeda diantara semua dan itu rawan.
Pewawancara : Betul, betul. Nah ee kira-kira ada gak Pak yang ee apa namanya yang apa
ya, yang ee membuat tidak kompak, kemudian yang menghancurkan lah
istilahnya menghancurkan ee solidnya karena kalo kita mau mencapai
target, entah itu target perusahaan atau tujuan perusahaan kan ini harus
bersama-sama
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo menurut Bapak sebenarnya harusnya bagaimana?
Alex : Ya harusnya le..leader di satu toko kalo itu di toko, harusnya kepala toko
ini bisa ee membawa timnya menjadi satu..satu visi satu tujuan supaya
tim ini betul-betul solid bisa mencapai goal itu, jadi jangan sampai di tim

R
ini justru ee tidak satu kata didalam karena kan kadang ada yang sengaja
mengadu antara stroe manager dan asisten, jadi disaat mereka
menemukan perbedaan antara asisten dan store manager, wah disitu
mereka biasanya memanfaatkan itu. Nah hal seperti inilah seharusnya
P
store manager jangan sampe hal-hal seperti ini terjadi. Jadi tugas seorang
kepala toko memang yang membawahi sekian banyak orang harusnya
bagaimana caranya bisa menyatukan ini pikiran-pikiran orang banyak di
timnya.
S

Pewawancara : Betul
Alex : Tapi memang ya hal-hal seperti itu bisa terjadi, biasanya mereka
L

bawahan jalan sendiri karena ya mungkin salah satu case yang seperti
tadi Bu, ada masalah yang dibiarkan akhirnya tim ini jadi tidak percaya
lagi ke atas, dan itu..itu pernah dan mungkin kadang terjadi seperti itu.
Pewawancara : Nah kemarin, tapi ini sekali lagi Bapak tidak perlu mencari siapa ya
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Ini cuman mungkin Bapak perlu tau, nanti kan Bapak bisa ee apa
namanya tinggal nanti diinikan aja, gausah sebut-sebut nanti ‘kemarin
FGD begini’ jangan lho Pak, ya?
Alex : [tertawa] Hahaha, iya
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo yang FGD level supervisor, memang ada yang mengatakan
supervisor ‘ya saya memang orangnya begini. Ya ee menurut saya begini
ee apa ee yang penting saya tidak melakukan negatif dan menurut saya
ini saya tidak ee apa namanya ee apa ya tidak me..
Alex : Merugikan perusahaan

458
Pewawancara : Merugikan perusahaan, gitu. Ya terima, ‘ya saya harus terima saya apa
adanya,’ gitu. Nah itu kan berarti menunjukkan kekakuan makanya
kenapa ini gak ketemu
Alex : Iya, iya betul
Pewawancara : Ini cuman masukan saja sih, Pak
Alex : Iya, iya

Pewawancara : Oke. Yang kesepuluh sekarang: upward influence. Kalau di MDS

bagaimana para leader mempengaruhi atasannya pak? Misal ee.. Bapak
mempengaruhi national manager ato pak kevin supaya usul bapak
tentang toko bapak dapat dijalankan.
Alex : E…kalau saya mengusulkan bisa waktu meeting bisa waktu visit kapan

Alex
R
saja ee tergantung situasi
Pewawancara: Apakah selalu disetujui?
: ee.. ngga… tapi kita coba lagi biasanya bu. Biasanya kalau memang bagus
pasti atasan mendukung.
P
Pewawancara: Kalau leader toko pak? Baik supervisor maupun store manager?
Alex : Saya rasa sama bu mereka bisa kapan saja datang kesaya info saya ee
S

ato ketika saya visit ee bisa bicara.

Pewawancara: Bapak e. selalu setuju?
Alex : e tergantung kasusnya mungkin. Kalau bagus pasti ee saya bantu ke atas
L

juga. Jadi Kalau saya biasanya akan bantu sampai batas wewenang saya
kalau diatas itu saya akan langsung bawa lagi ke management dan
memang kadang2 butuh waktu penyelesaiannya lama karena
menyangkut beberapa pihak di HO jadi harus rajin2 kita follow up
Pewawancara: Kalau opportunity and threat nya gimana pak? Kita lanjut ke sebelas ya:
active monitor. Biasanya leader di toko ee.. merespon nya gimana?
Alex : Kalau di management kan seminggu sekali meeting pasti bahas threat
apa aja yang akan kita hadapi misal ada competitor mau buka sehingga
kita bisa antisipasi dengan program. Biasanya saya langsung info ke store
manager untuk mengecek kondisi lapangan. Begitu juga ketika ada
kesempatan kita mau ada bazaar atau semacamnya biasanya kita
langsung follow up
Pewawancara: Kalau toko?
Alex : Harusnya mereka begitu juga ke timnya

459
Pewawancara: Selanjutnya yang ke sebelas: networking dan manage boundaries ya
pak. Para leader toko networkingnya bagaimana pak?
Alex : Networking dengan siapa nih?
Pewawancara: Networking atau hubungan dengan supplier, merchandiser, ee.. atau mall
misalnya
Alex : Kalau hubungan dengan pihak non SO saya rasa sudah bagus bu, baik
tim toko langsung dari level supervisor sampai manager maupun level
kami dan di HO. Secara formal kami sering melakukan meeting synergi
dengan para DMM dan GMM, pertemuan rutin dengan para supplier.
Sedangkan hubungan informal tergantung dari masing2 personel ya, ada
yang akrab sekali ada yang biasa tapi semuanya merujuk pada hubungan
yang baik. Kalau dengan pihak mall saya selalu ingatkan agar teman2
punya hubungan yang baik sehingga ketika membutuhkan bantuan tidak
melulu melakukan pendekatan formal tapi bisa juga informal

R
Pewawancara: ini agak menyimpang ya pak tapi ee untuk informasi tambahan saja
bagaimana Kesetaraan atau role congruity di MDS pak? Di tempat
P
Bapak ada berapa ee store manager pria dan store manager wanita?
Alex : Pria itu enam
Pewawancara ; Ada enam, wanita?
S

Alex : Perempuan lima

Pewawancara : Lima? Oh, jadi lebih banyak ee prianya, ya?
L

Alex : Iya. Iya.

Pewawancara : Oke, kalo menurut Bapak ee chance wanita ee untuk naik atau untuk
dipromosikan untuk ee mendapatkan karir yang lebih baik, itu
bagaimana Pak menurut Bapak?
Alex ; Ya sebenarnya peluangnya sama, Bu.
Pewawancara : Oh, peluangnya sama?
Alex : Peluangnya sama, cuma kan kadang kalo untuk ee wanita ini
masalahnya di faktor keluarga yang lebih berat, kayak misalnya ada..ada
asisten manajer yang berpotensi ee asisten wanita potensi, tetapi karena
pertimbangan keluarga saat mau dipromosikan ke ee store manager, nah
ini kadang agak..agak susah, nah begitu juga dengan di level supervisor
untuk ke asisten manajer, itu juga masalahnya, iya. Jadi kadang ee mereka
tidak menolak secara terang-terangan, tetapi kadang mereka ikutan ikut
tes itu hanya sekedar ikut saja, tetapi tujuannya bukan untuk..untuk lolos
padahal sebenarnya mampu, gitu. Aaa cuma karena kalo lulus, dia sudah

460
 tau kemungkinan besar akan ee keluar dari POH-nya dia, nah itu yang
masalah.
Pewawancara : Hmmm
Alex : jadi kadang itu jadi hambatan sehingga sampe sekarang mungkin
komposisi pria wanita untuk jabatan store manager itu ya masih jauh
lebih banyak yang..yang pria dibanding wanita.
Pewawancara : Oke, ee berarti sama dengan yang supervisor mau naik ke atas ya?
Alex : Iya, sama, sama
Pewawancara : Kalo yang front liner mau naik ke supervisor?
Alex : Ee kalo untu itu kan tidak terlalu bermasalah, jadi peluangnya sama
karena ee penempatan mereka setelah naik ke supervisor kan masih
rata-rata kan kembali ke kota asal, rata-rata sekalipun bukan di toko asal,

R
tetapi di kota yang sama.
Pewawancara : Oke. Tetapi rata-rata yang mereka yang ee naik itu adalah ee pria atau
wanita dari front liner ya, yang lebih mungkin mereka lebih entah
bertanggung jawab atau, kalo tadi kan kesempatan sama sebenernya
P
Alex : Iya, iya. Kalo selama ini yang saya perhatikan, kurang lebih hampir sama
kalo dari level front liner
Pewawancara : Baik.
S

Alex ; Hampir sama

Pewawancara : Ee kalo sekarang kita bicara mengenai sistem di perusahaan Bapak, ya
L

Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Kalo sistem di perusahaan Bapak itu ee apakah semua sudah
terdokumentasikan? Tadi kan Bapak contoh misalnya tadi bicara
mengenai ee visi misi
Alex ; Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Sekarang kan cuma..hanya ada ee yang ditempel
Alex : iya, iya
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo yang divideo belum ada. Nah sekarang sistem, kalo kita bicara
kan sistem itu kan banyak mulai dari mungkin untuk si front liner, front
liner dulu kita bicara, seorang front liner itu harus dia bisa ngapain,
tugasnya apa misalnya, itu apakah sudah terdokumentasikan sampe
dengan level ee store manager?
Alex : Oh, kalo itu iya, kalo itu iya Bu. Ee malah bukan cuman
terdokumentasikan, tetapi memang kalo dari pelatihan semua memang

461
 dari level bawah itu sampe ke atas sudah..sudah oke semua. Jadi kalo
boleh dibilang dari sisi itu sebenarnya sudah..sudah tidak masalah […]
seperti itu, Bu.
Pewawancara : Jadi sudah ada manual-manual ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Lengkap semua, lengkap

Pewawancara: Baik pak sekarang kita bahas tentang working environment ya pak. ee..
agak ada pengulangan sedikit ee.. tapi lebih detil beberapanya. Yang
pertama goal setting, ee menurut bapak goal MDS bagaimana? Cukup
jelas? Karyawan MDS bisa menjelaskan?
Alex : Menurut saya tujuan perusahaan, visi misi sudah clear tapi mungkin
belum clear sampe ke bawah. Seharusnya disampaikan dengan detil
supaya dimengerti

Alex
R
Pewawancara: Kalau sisi spesifik bagaimana?
: Saya rasa company goal kita sudah sangat spesifik, untuk yang non
angka tinggal kita jelaskan ke bawah. Untuk yang angka karena pasti dari
P
management atau direktur sudah fixed dan biasanya kita breakdown per
toko sehingga angka2 sudah sangat spesifik
Pewawancara: Kalau penerimaan tujuan perusahaan di kalangan karyawan bagaimana
S

pak? Mereka ee.. melaksanakan atau menolak? Ee.. komitmennya

bagaimana?
Alex : Karena company goal itu langsung dari management biasanya tim toko
L

menerima apa adanya dan mereka pasti akan berkomitment

melaksanakannya. Namun sekarang ini management sangat berbaik hati,
kadang2 usulan revisi untuk yang berhubungan dengan angka karena
sesuatu hal masih dipertimbangkan dan dikabulkan.
Pewawancara: Kalau tujuan perusahaan mudah dicapai atau sulit pak?
Alex : Menurut saya goal yang kita punya memang ada yang sulit dicapai untuk
sebagian toko tapi untuk toko yang lain mungkin lebih mudah
mencapainya. Misal ketika pencapaian toko sudah tinggi pada tahun
berikutnya kan harus ada growth nah ini yang sulit karena mendapatkan
target lebih tinggi lagi sementara banyak factor yang mempengaruhi
tidak tercapainya target.
Pewawancara: Seberapa sering sih pak ee direviewnya?
Alex : Apanya bu?
Pewawancara: e.. company goal

462
Alex : Seperti yang saya informasikan sebelumnya management kali ini sudah
sering melakukan review bahkan merevise target yang telah
diberlakukan untuk toko. Untuk secara global company goal setiap
tahunnya pasti akan ada perubahan tergantung dari management mana
yang akan difokuskan
Pewawancara: Baik… kita kembali ke performance feedback yang kedua ya pak.
Alex : Ya..
Pewawancara: Gimana sih pak ee.. biasanya feedback diberikan? Formalkah atau
informalkah
Alex : Kalau yang informal biasanya saya evaluasi dengan sharing kira-kira
kenapa bisa seperti ini. Nah ternyata banyak hal-hal yang seharusnya
toko bisa lakukan, tetapi tidak dieksekusi, mereka tau masalahnya tetapi
mereka tidak eksekusi masalah itu. Kalau yang formal itu annually

Alex
R
Pewawancara: Kita kembali ke support ya pak ee supervisor support. Seberapa besar
sih ee.. pimpinan peduli terhadap timnya?
: Tergantung tipe store manager mungkin bu, kalau mereka jaim biasanya
mereka tidak dekat dengan timnya, sehingga terkesan tidak peduli dan
P
terbuka sehingga timnya pasti juga menjaga jarak. Ada beberapa store
manager seperti itu
S

Pewawancara : Oke. Nah sekarang Pak, ee kira-kira ini kan tadi saya sharing dengan
L

Bapak ada beberapa faktor yang sebenarnya bisa mempengaruhi

performa ee kerja mereka, kinerja ee baik dia itu front liner maupun
supervisor. Nah, kira-kira kalo saya sebutkan ini ee Bapak bisa ee apa
jawab, ‘oh iya ini bisa mempengaruhi, oh ini tidak’ gitu ya. Tadi,
menetapkan goal setting atau ee tujuan perusahaan, itu penting gak,
mempengaruhi gak Pak?
Alex : Mempengaruhi
Pewawancara : Mempengaruhi ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Iya, mempengaruhi
Pewawancara : Kalo dalam performance feedback itu menurut Bapak ee tetep
mempengaruhi, penting? Ee mempengaruhi dulu deh.
Alex : Mempengaruhi
Pewawancara : Mempengaruhi, ya? Kalo ee pria-wanita?
Alex : Apanya, Bu?

463
Pewawancara : Mempengaruhi gak, ‘oh kalo ee pria cende.. ee dia pasti jelek, oh kalo
pria dia pasti bagus kinerjanya.’ Gak pengaruh, ya?
Alex : Ndak..ndak pengaruh, ndak pengaruh
Pewawancara : Kemudian ee tadi yang kalo saya bicara mengenai defined process
ataupun misalnya ee dokumentasi manual-manual itu ee mempengaruhi
gak?
Alex : Iya mempengaruhi
Pewawancara : Kalo support dari supervisor atau atasan, itu mempengaruhi Pak?
Alex : Sangat mempengaruhi
Pewawancara : Sangat mempengaruhi. Kalo coaching atau mentoring, itu pengaruh
Pak?
Alex : Pengaruh, pengaruh

Alex
R
Pewawancara : Kalo tadi ee opportunity kemam.. ee kesempatan untuk
mengaplikasikan apa yang sudah ditrainingkan, itu mempengaruhi Pak?
: Iya, iya. Sangat mempengaruhi.
P
Pewawancara : Alat bantu, Pak?
Alex : Yes.
S

Pewawancara : Oke. Sekarang kalo boleh kita pilih ya, Pak, ya.
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Oke. Kita..kita tadi kan ada..ada banyak nih Pak
L

Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Kita singkat ee apa lebih persempit lagi, ya, kalo goal setting ya tadi ya,
mengeset ee tujuan perusahaan supaya front liner itu tau, itu menurut
Bapak, kalo kita suruh pilih 4 saja
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Iya. Itu menurut Bapak, penting?
Alex : Penting. Iya.
Pewawancaar : Memberikan feedback supaya dia menjadi lebih baik lagi?
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Penting ya, Pak. Kalo tadi kan gender Bapak, gender enggak ya, ga
berpengaruh ya?
Alex : Enggak, gak berpengaruh

464
Pewawancara : Kemudian ee manual, pengaruh?
Alex : Eee
Pewawancara : Dibandingkan dengan supervisor support, lebih pentingan mana?
Manual atau supervisor support?
Alex : Oh lebih penting supervisor support
Pewawancara : Supervisor support ya?
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Kemudian coaching?
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Iya? Empat Pak, ya, kita pilih empat. Jadi yang lainnya ee apa kalo
menurut Bapak itu belum..bukan prioritas ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Ya..
R
Pewawancara : Kan kita disuruh milih empat nih, Pak
Alex : Iya, mungkin itu yang prioritas Bu
P
Pewawancara : Prioritas, ya? Yang lainnya itu bisa menjadi second priority ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Betul, betul
S

Pewawancara : Baik. Nah sekarang Pak, ee Bapak ee biasanya kan di toko itu ada Bapak
bertemu dengan bermacam-macam customer, ya.
Alex : Iya.
L

Pewawancara : Selama..mungkin Bapak menjadi store manager ee apakah pernah

bertemu dengan customer yang tidak happy atau complain yang parah?
Alex : OH, pernah
Pewawancara : Pernah?
Alex : Pernah.
Pewawancara : Bisa diceritakan, Pak?
Alex : Tapi itu sih, apa ya, ee masalah sensor matic sih Bu, masalah sensor
matic ya
Pewawancara : Oke, kenapa bisa terjadi ya Pak?
Alex : Nah itu customernya ada kayaknya dia memakai product luar negeri
yang belum..belum dimatikan sensornya kayaknya, jadi disaat dia
melewati pintu MATAHARI itu tetep bunyi
Pewawancara : Oh, iya

465
Alex : Begitu
Pewawancara : Apakah di MATAHARI tidak ada, Pak, ee ketika itu berbunyi harus
kemudian karyawan harus seperti apa, itu tidak ada standar Pak?
Alex : Ada sebenarnya
Pewawancara : Oh, ada
Alex : Ada, cuman kan kadang masyarakat tidak bisa terima kondisi itu
Pewawancara : Oh, baik
Alex : Padahal sebenarnya kan ya itu bukan..bukan kesalahan dari MATAHARI
sebetulnya karena itu memang ee alat yang ada di ee
Pewawancara : Biasanya di tas ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Iya bisa, kalo ndak salah waktu itu di..di ikat pinggangnya dia kalo gak
salah
R
Pewawancara : Oh, di ikat pinggang. Mungkin belum terlepas, ya?
Alex : Belum terlepas.
P
Pewawancara : Biasanya ada sensor kecil.
Alex : Dia bilang sih beli di luar negeri. Nah, sebenarnya itu bukan kesalahan
kita, tetapi ya kembali kesitu mungkin sudah bicara gengsi lah, bicara
S

apa, akhirnya apalagi si customer itu waktu itu ngakunya dia pengusaha
Pewawancara : Oke.
Alex : Ya itulah yang membuat dia sampai mengamuk di toko itu.
L

Pewawancara : Jadi waktu ee apa si customer ini marah-marah yang menghandle siapa,
awalnya Pak?
Alex : Ee awalnya security
Pewawancara : Oh, security?
Alex : Awalnya security yang ada disitu
Pewawancara : Security, tapi dia tidak puas?
Alex : Iya, cuma dia..dia ndak puas karena merasa bilang ‘oh saya dituduh lah,
kayak saya seorang pencuri aja’ Padahal yang security lakukan saat itu,
itu standar personal procedure sudah kita lakukan, jadi saat ada seperti
itu sudah dipersilakan untuk Bapaknya apa securitinya minta maaf
sampaikan ‘Pak, mohon maaf’ dan dipersilakan untuk ke apa ee kalo ada
belanjaannya waktu itu dipersilakan ke kasir.
Pewawancara : Oke.

466
Alex : Aaa tapi ternyata waktu itu bukan belanjaan yang masalah, ternyata
memang ee produk yang dia pakai.
Pewawancara : Oke, dan setelah dari security?
Alex : Setelah dari situ dia ndak puas, masih marah di lokasi, akhirnya ee
diarahkan oleh staf toko untuk ketemu manajer waktu itu, nah waktu itu
kebetulan saya yang handle.
Pewawancara : Oh, kebetulan Bapak?
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Oke.
Alex : Nah waktu itu ya sudah saya dengarkan dia, waktu itu apa yang menjadi
masalahnya dia, dia berbicara dengan nada keras dan kasar, ya sudah.
Pewawancara : Tuntutannya apa, Pak?
Alex
R
: Ya waktu itu sih dia bilang ee dia tidak terima diperlakukan seperti itu,
akhirnya saya panggil security, saya tanya ‘apa betul kamu perlakukan ee
Bapak ini seakan-akan kamu tuduh bahwa Bapak ini sudah ambil
barang?’ Tapi sebetulnya sebelumnya saya sudah atur dengan
P
securitinya, saya bilang ‘kamu siap-siap’ jadi saya persilakan dia
[customer] duduk, saya keluar panggil security, saya bilang ‘kamu saya
maki apapun, kamu diam.’ Ya supaya bapaknya emosinya bisa reda. Tiba
S

di ruangan, ya sudah, saya ancam sekuritinya, saya bilang ‘kalo kamu

betul tidak perlakukan Bapak ini dengan sopan seakan-akan kamu tuduh
dia mencuri, saya keluarkan kamu hari ini juga karena kamu sudah tidak
melakukan standar pelayanan kita dengan baik.’ Nah, singkat cerita
L

akhirnya Bapaknya yang malah ndak tega, hahaha. Malah Bapaknya

bilang ‘Pak, ee bisa sekuritinya keluar aja, Pak. Tugas dulu.’ Setelah
sekuriti keluar, malah dia yang pesen ke saya ‘Pak, sekuritinya jangan
diapa-apain ya. Kasian, Pak. Dia masih butuh kerja kayaknya.’ Hahaha.
Dia gak tau kalo kita sudah atur. Hehehe. Nah, seperti itu, Bu. Ya, banyak-
banyak kejadian lah, banyak kejadian.
Pewawancara : Berarti kalo gitu, kalo kebayang seandainya misalnya pas Bapak gak ada
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Iya, itu kan mentok ya Pak, ya? Ee misalnya kan si itu si sekuriti kan gak
bisa handle
Alex : Harusnya kalo store manager ndak ada, asisten manajer harusnya bisa
handle.
Pewawancara : Oh, oke. Iya, iya.
Alex : Sebenarnya di level supervisor juga harusnya bisa

467
Pewawancara : Oke.
Alex : Cuman waktu itu kebetulan Bapaknya ini sudah emosi, mintanya tetep
harus ketemu dengan manajer, ya sudah, kita temuin.
Pewawancara : Oke. Jadi kalo menurut Bapak tetep penting ya Pak, ya, ee dihandle oleh
ee leader?
Alex : Sangat penting
Pewawancara : Sangat penting, ya?
Alex : Sangat penting

R
P
S

Pewawancara ; Nah kan di ee apa behavior communicative leadership itu kan ada 3, Pak.
Alex : Iya.
L

Pewawancara : Ada initiating structure, ada facilitating work, ada relational dynamic ee
tadi ee kalo yang initiating structure itu seperti misalnya leader itu
menyampaikan ‘ini lho tujuan perusahaan seperti apa’ visi-misi supaya
ekspektasi ke timnya itu seperti ini.
Alex : Iya, iya.
Pewawancara : Kalo facilitating work itu adalah leader itu harus bisa melakukan ee
coaching, punya waktu untuk coaching, dia punya knowledge untuk
mengcoaching, memberikan positive-negative feedback, kemudian kalo
mengcoaching juga yang relevan ee apa namanya ee bukan yang pilih
kasih, kadang-kadang sama-sama melakukan kesalahan tapi—ini
menurut anak-anak—kalo yang disini didiemin, tapi kalo yang disini
dimarahin dikasih feedbacknya negatif, tapi kalo yang ditegur sama-
sama melakukan, gitu, karena yang disini senior dia gak berani katanya.
Terus yang ketiga itu relational dynamic itu adalah leader itu yang bisa
di-approach menjadi yang apa approachable tadi, ada..maksudnya ada
untuk mereka kemudian mau mendengarkan masalah, kemudian bisa
dipercaya. Nah, kira-kira di MATAHARI yang kurangnya itu mereka

468
 dimananya, Pak, yang di ada 3 [menunjuk seseuatu] ini-ini-sama ini, yang
mana kira-kira Pak?
Alex : Ini harus memilih nih?
Pewawancara : Enggak, maksudnya cari kekurangannya
Alex : Yang masih kurang ini
Pewawancara : Misalnya disini kurangnya mungkin yang mana boleh, yang disini
kurangnya mana. Ini..ini gak milih, ini kekurangannya aja.
Alex : Ee mungkin kalo yang..yang dianggap masih kurang ya?
Pewawancara : Iya. Kalo Bapak kan pengen ada leader itu ya mendekati ideal lah gitu,
idealnya kan 3-3nya semuanya dilakukan.
Alex : Sebenarnya Bu kalo yang saya lihat selama ini sih ketiga hal ini
dilakukan ya, cuman agak..agak susah saya menilai mana yang kurang ya

R
karena memang setiap ee tim apalagi kalo bicara kepala toko ya memang
beda-beda ya, beda-beda sih. Tapi kalo secara company, sebenarnya 3-
3nya ini sama dilakukan, sama. Cuma kalo fakta, fakta di lapangan ya
kalo..kalo yang masalah yang apa relational ya, nah ini..ini mungkin kan
P
lebih personal ya kayaknya ya, lebih ke personal
Pewawancara : Ee iya, karena kalo kita bicara mengenai apalagi kalo kita—tapi ini
sedikit menyimpang, ini gak ada hubungannya dengan tesis, kalo kita
S

bicara transformational leadership

Alex : He’eh
Pewawancara : Kan yang..yang ngetop itu adalah sebelum ada serving leader, ada
L

transformational, transformational itu kan dua arah.

Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Nah ketika ee leader itu tidak mau mende..ee apa tidak mendengarkan,
tidak..tidak ada untuk anak buah, nah dia belum menerapkan ee
transformational, jadi dia masih menerapkan leader yang searah, gitu.
Nah padahal kan itu udah zaman dulu nih Pak, leadership yang seperti
itu.
Alex : Iya, betul
Pewawancara : Ini masih belum serving leader lho, Pak, gitu.
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Nah, jadi sebenarnya kalo menurut transformational leadership ini-ini
penting. Nah, ini contohnya kemarin dari hasil FGD itu ada anak misalnya
begini ee mereka itu tidak kompak padahal dalam ee apa namanya
kekompakan itu adalah menjadi salah satu ee kinerja seorang leader itu
efektif atau tidak, tim yang kompak.

469
Alex : Iya, betul, betul.
Pewawancara : Ketika saya tanya kenapa tidak kompak, karena kadang-kadang mereka
punya masalah ee masalahnya itu antar teman tapi itu pasti pengaruh
dengan pekerjaan, ya leader hanya mendengarkan saja, mereka udah
bolak-balik cerita ‘Pak, ini begini. Bu, ini begini’ tapi ya gak pernah ada
solusi. Ambil contoh ee yang simpel, sesama teman misalnya kita sama-
sama front liner nih Pak.
Alex : He’eh, he’eh
Pewawancara : Pak Alex maunya masuknya siang, maunya siang terus gak pernah ee
mau pagi.
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Nanti ee tiba-tiba Sabtu nih, ee aku gak masuk, kalo menurut si anak ini,
kalo tau ee dia gak masuk gak dadakan, kan tadi temen yang harusnya

R
pagi dia bisa shift tengah, misalnya begitu. Jadi ee malam masih ada
yang..masih ada, gak sampe apa namanya kalo pagi kan cuma sampe
setengah lima misalnya, shift tengah kan bisa agak maleman. Nah itu
udah sering, nanti dia selalu ngambil weekend, Sabtu entah Minggu itu
P
pasti gak masuk, sudah dilaporkan berkali-kali, leader cuman
mengatakan ‘ya sudah dia memang orangnya begitu, mau apa dikata’
Akhirnya terjadi keirian kan
Alex : Iya
S

Pewawancara : Kecemburuan gitu lho. Nah akhirnya gak kompak. Ada lagi yang
sekelompok lagi, ya si A ini senior, dia paling tidak mau ngecek kalo
terima barang, gitu. Pokoknya kalo barang dateng, mau itu pas dia
L

shiftnya dia, ya dia tidak akan ngecek. Barang dateng pagi, si anak yang
baru-baru ini shift dua, ya shift dua nanti yang akan ngecek
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Nah ini udah lapor ke atasan berkali-kali, itu juga tidak dikerjakan cuma
dibilangin
Alex : Memang seperti itu
Pewawancara : ‘ya memang seperti itu orangnya. Udah kamu gak usah itu aja, emang ee
apa gak usah dimasukin ke hati. Memang begitu orangnya.’ Nah itu adalah
benih-benih yang membuat tidak kompak.
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Menurut Bapak bagaimana?
Alex : Ya itu yang saya bilang tadi Bu ee beda-beda sih ya karena ini kan
lebih..lebih ke personal bagaimana seorang leader itu ee memperlakukan
bawahannya. Jadi agak kalo kita mau men-generate secara ini

470
 MATAHARI, ya..ya saya bilang kembali ke personal masing-masing, tetapi
itu bukan hal yang ee baru Bu, memang sering seperti itu. Kadang ada
seorang leader memang yang tidak tidak berani atau memang
membiarkan hal-hal seperti itu terjadi, dan tanpa dia sadari ya itu akan
membuat timnya jadi tidak solid lagi, ndak kompak, karena merasa
bahwa ‘oh pimpinan saya membeda-bedakan. Pimpinan saya
membiarkan kesalahan itu terjadi. Nah akhirnya yang muncul apa?
Muncullah ketidakpercayaan, akhirnya tim jadi seperti itu. Harusnya kalo
seorang leader tau bahwa anak buahnya melanggar dari ketentuan
perusahaan misalnya shiftnya tidak boleh satu shift terus, harus
bergantian tiap minggu misalnya, ya harusnya ini kan aturan yang baku
yang harus dilakukan seharusnya, tapi kalo dibiarkan ya itu berarti
leadernya membiarkan kekompakan di timnya itu jadi hancur gitu, dan
itu banyak yang seperti itu. Tetapi kalo itu menurut saya S1 atau S2, ya
harus intervensi untuk kasus yang seperti itu karena itu kan sudah
membuat kebijakan yang berbeda diantara semua dan itu rawan.

R
Pewawancara : Betul, betul. Nah ee kira-kira ada gak Pak yang ee apa namanya yang apa
ya, yang ee membuat tidak kompak, kemudian yang menghancurkan lah
istilahnya menghancurkan ee solidnya karena kalo kita mau mencapai
target, entah itu target perusahaan atau tujuan perusahaan kan ini harus
P
bersama-sama
Alex : Iya, iya
S

Pewawancara : Nah, kalo menurut Bapak sebenarnya harusnya bagaimana?

Alex : Ya harusnya le..leader di satu toko kalo itu di toko, harusnya kepala toko
ini bisa ee membawa timnya menjadi satu..satu visi satu tujuan supaya
L

tim ini betul-betul solid bisa mencapai goal itu, jadi jangan sampai di tim
ini justru ee tidak satu kata didalam karena kan kadang ada yang sengaja
mengadu antara stroe manager dan asisten, jadi disaat mereka
menemukan perbedaan antara asisten dan store manager, wah disitu
mereka biasanya memanfaatkan itu. Nah hal seperti inilah seharusnya
store manager jangan sampe hal-hal seperti ini terjadi. Jadi tugas seorang
kepala toko memang yang membawahi sekian banyak orang harusnya
bagaimana caranya bisa menyatukan ini pikiran-pikiran orang banyak di
timnya.
Pewawancara : Betul
Alex : Tapi memang ya hal-hal seperti itu bisa terjadi, biasanya mereka
bawahan jalan sendiri karena ya mungkin salah satu case yang seperti
tadi Bu, ada masalah yang dibiarkan akhirnya tim ini jadi tidak percaya
lagi ke atas, dan itu..itu pernah dan mungkin kadang terjadi seperti itu.
Pewawancara : Nah kemarin, tapi ini sekali lagi Bapak tidak perlu mencari siapa ya
Alex : Iya, iya

471
Pewawancara : Ini cuman mungkin Bapak perlu tau, nanti kan Bapak bisa ee apa
namanya tinggal nanti diinikan aja, gausah sebut-sebut nanti ‘kemarin
FGD begini’ jangan lho Pak, ya?
Alex : [tertawa] Hahaha, iya
Pewawancara : Nah, kalo yang FGD level supervisor, memang ada yang mengatakan
supervisor ‘ya saya memang orangnya begini. Ya ee menurut saya begini
ee apa ee yang penting saya tidak melakukan negatif dan menurut saya
ini saya tidak ee apa namanya ee apa ya tidak me..
Alex : Merugikan perusahaan
Pewawancara : Merugikan perusahaan, gitu. Ya terima, ‘ya saya harus terima saya apa
adanya,’ gitu. Nah itu kan berarti menunjukkan kekakuan makanya
kenapa ini gak ketemu
Alex : Iya, iya betul

Alex : Iya, iya

R
Pewawancara : Ini cuman masukan saja sih, Pak

Pewawancara : Terakhir Pak, sekarang kita bicara mengenai service excellence ya Pak
P
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Karena service excellence adalah behavior performance salah satu ee
S

kinerja yang behaviour ee kan ee kinerja itu ada ee yang angka, ada yang
bukan angka. Nah, saya..saya tidak apa ee me..membahas mengenai
angka
L

Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Saya membahas mengenai yang behavioural saja. Nah, salah satu ee apa
namanya ee tugas dan tanggung jawab si front liner ee adalah
memberikan service, jadi behavior performance frontliner adalah ee
memberikan service yang diukur dengan service excellence
Alex : Iya.
Pewawancara : Nah, service otomatis kalo kita mau yang standar yang bagus ada service
excellence. Service excellence kan ada 4
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Kita delivering the promise berarti apa yang kita janjikan itu harus ee
apa harus ada, kemudian kita juga melakukan personal touch kepada
setiap karyawan. Kemudian kita juga ee extra miles berarti melebihi apa
yang ee seharusnya, dan kemudian terakhir adalah memberikan ee
istilahnya adalah dealing with problems and queries atau ee memberikan
solusi terhadap masalah ataupun pertanyaan ee atau permintaan
customer, misalnya customer minta ‘saya mau minta size ee yang S’

472
 ternyata size S-nya gak ada kan kita gak boleh bilang ‘oh, gak ada’ gitu ya
Pak, ya. Jadi ada 4. Ee kira-kira begitu Pak. Yang pertama ya pak, kalo di
tempat Bapak delivering the promise, apakah itu sudah ada?
Alex : Ya harusnya ada
Pewawancara : Harusnya ada ya, sudah ya?
Alex : Harusnya sudah ada. Kan salah satu yang informasi marketing external
internal itu kan harus clear. Mengenai acara2 yang disampaikan di iklan,
ya harusnya sesuai dengan apa yang kita lakukan di dalam. Harusnya nya
sih itu sudah terpenuhi. Sayangnya ada barang yang diiklan di toko ndak
ada begitu customer nanya ndak ada berarti itu tidak sesuai janji. Jadi
tugas toko di saat ada acara seperti itu memastikan bahwa di toko itu
harus jalan. Nah kalau dia sudah tahu barangnya ndak ada, harusnya ada
tindakan antisipasi sebelum itu. Kalau memang barangnya ndak ada ya
cari barang apa yang bisa memenuhi

Alex
diskon R
Pewawancara : Iya, karena kan suka kadang-kadang ee diskon sekian tapi ternyata gak

: Kayak iklannya R, salah satu iklannya R sekarang itu kan jadi..jadi apa
P
ya seakan-akan memojokkan MATAHARI bahwa kita itu tidak sesuai
dengan apa yang kita iklankan
Pewawancara : Yang kita iklankan
S

Alex : Nah itu, jadi ya saya gak tau apa..apa mereka bisa
Pewawancara : Karena mungkin begini kalo..kalo ini..ini ee apa saya sebagai orang luar
ya Pak, saya sebagai customer misalnya ada iklan, oh diskon nih di
L

MATAHARI barangnya ini-ini-ini-ini-ini, saya pergi ‘ah ini bagus nih’.

Saya pergi lah ke Pejaten misalnya, oh ternyata gak ada barangnya, nah
itu sebenarnya kan tidak delivering the promise.
Alex : Iya. Betul, betul
Pewawancara : Nah itu mungkin yang dipake oleh ee lawan
Alex : Betul. Tadi saya bilang Bu, harusnya sih itu sudah terpenuhi. Jadi
tugas..tugas toko di saat ada acara seperti itu, memastikan bahwa di toko
itu harus jalan. Nah kalo dia sudah tau barangnya ndak ada, harusnya ada
tindakan antisipasi sebelum itu. Kalo memang barangnya ndak ada, ya
cari barang apa yang bisa untuk memenuhi itu
Pewawancara : Sekarang gini Pak, kalo sistem di..tadi kita bicara marketing kan itu tadi
ya, promo. Kalo sistem di Bapak itu ketika dari HO memberikan email
bahwa akan ada misalnya ee besok atau 3 hari lagi misalnya akan ada
promo barang ABCD, sepatu misalnya
Alex ; Iya, iya

473
Pewawancara : Apakah ee supervisor itu langsung action dengan memberikan ‘ayo tim,
front liner siapin barang-barangnya’ atau pada hari H, misalnya diinfokan
di emailnya Senin ee programnya akan berjalan Jumat atau Kamis
misalnya, nah supervisor melakukannya kapan? Melakukan ee apa
informasi ke timnya?
Alex : Oh, itu biasanya tergantung Bu, jadi kadang kalo ee informasi dari MD
atau marketing itu mungkin 3 hari sebelumnya atau 1 minggu
sebelumnya, berarti kan banyak waktunya untuk toko mempersiapkan
itu atau mencari barang acaranya. Nah, kita kan kadang dadakan juga
acara-acaranya dari HO, marketing, kadang besok acara, hari ini di email.
Pewawancara : Masih ya Pak, ya, seperti itu?
Alex : Kan kadang begitu, jadi acara dadakan itu kan masih biasa ada, masih
biasa ada, masih biasa ada.
Pewawancara : Oke.
Alex R
: Jadi biasa kalo dianggap Bu ini perlu dilakukan seperti ini, nah ya sudah
buatlah acara tiba-tiba seperti itu, tetapi ee harusnya Bu kalo saya lihat
selama pengalaman saya di toko, toko itu tetep punya waktu sebenarnya,
P
punya waktu. Sekalipun itu besok acara, hari ini kan seharusnya banyak
waktu dan itu bisa dilakukan oleh orang toko untuk mempersiapkan
barangnya hari..hari satu hari sebelumnya masih bisa. Apalagi kalo satu
minggu sebelum sudah ada surat, email, 3 hari sebelum sudah ada email
S

harusnya itu bisa dipersiapkan. Nah tinggal itu yang tadi, kasus-kasus
misalnya barang ini yang kena acara tetapi faktanya di toko itu sudah
ndak ada barangnya, harusnya pihak toko bisa mengajukan mungkin
pengganti barang ini apa, ini yang ada di toko cuman ini, bisa gak kita
L

pake ini karena kalo ndak kan berarti di toko saya gak jalan dong acara
ini, nanti customer komplain. Nah harusnya yang..yang seperti itu pihak
toko lakukan biar tetep ini informasinya
Pewawancara : Oke. Jadi ee kalo dibilang sudah ada, ya ada juga yang belum, tapi
kebanyakan sudah ada Pak ya untuk delivering the promise
Alex : Iya, iya
Pewawancara : Kalo untuk personal touch, Pak?
Alex : Personal touch ke customer ya?
Pewawancara : Ke customer
Alex : Kalau selama ini tim toko lakukan Bu, bagaimana mereka membina
hubungan ke malah2 ada yang lebih ini lagi, beberapa SA dengan SPG itu
biasanya justru mereka bikin list customer loyalnya mereka, dan kadang
mereka kalo ada acara2 yang sifatnya itu acara yang benefitnya bisa lebih
besar kepada customer, mereka informasikan langsung ke customernya.

474
 Dan malah mereka memberikan apa ya, service itu sangat sangat berbeda
untuk memperlakukan customer yang seperti itu.
Pewawancara : Oke. Baik. Kalo untuk extra miles Pak, itu menurut Bapak bagaimana?
Alex : Ya ini yang kadang ee […] nah ini yang saya bilang, kalo untuk extra mile
ini memang kurang di..apa ya masih kurang difasilitasi mungkin Bu kalo
boleh dibilang, ya saya ndak tau apa karena MATAHARI ini toko yang
cabangnya sudah terlalu banyak sampe kalo mau bikin program seperti
itu mungkin membutuhkan juga budget yang besar, gitu. Ya kadang yang
seperti ini kadang ya mungkin inisiatif dari toko yang melakukan, bikin
program apa.
Pewawancara : Oke. Kalo tadi ee apa namanya memberikan solusi atau ee apa namanya
dealing with problems and queries
Alex : Iya, iya

R
Pewawancara : Itu sudah diberikan oleh toko, Pak?
Alex : E.. kalo yang seperti ini Bu, harusnya semua toko justru disinilah yang
menjadi poin terbesar, semua yang manjadi masalah, keluhan customer
harusnya saat itu harus ada solusi. Kenapa saya katakan Bu kayak gini,
P
kayak size, size yang dicari misal ndak ada di toko itu, ya carilah di toko
lain, kan bisa diini, Ibu minta nomer HP nya atau alamatnya, nanti kita
akan upayakan besok dihubungi, kita akan antar ke rumahnya Ibu
misalnyaNah yang yang seperti ini harusnya pihak toko harus..harus jeli,
S

jangan sampe hal-hal seperti ini, hal sepele tapi tidak diselesaikan, tidak
ada solusi yang bisa membuat customer merasa terpecahkan masalahnya
saat itu.
L

Pewawancara : Betul, betul

Alex : Tapi kalo saya lihat selama ini, Bu, orang toko sudah sangat sangat apa
ya kalo men..misalnya ada customer yang cari seragam size ini-size ini,
aa biasanya mereka berupaya nih Bu, berupaya untuk penuhi ini bahkan
sampe ke MD pun komunikasinya. Yang hal-hal seperti itu mereka sudah
lakukan sebenarnya
Pewawancara : Saya pernah nih, Pak. Saya waktu itu kalo gak salah MATAHARI ada call
center ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Iya. Betul.
Pewawancara : Iya, saya waktu itu pernah telepon Pak
Alex : He’eh
Pewawancara ; Saya mau minta tuker karena yang ee diberikan ternyata salah sizenya,
kadang-kadang kan kita cobanya apa, tapi nanti dikasihnya di kasir gitu,
ya. Saya telpon saya kan punya harapan ee saya udah ngomong bahwa

475
 saya komplain, saya barangnya salah, ee terus gimana nih, saya gak mau
ngambil di toko asal karena lebih jauh
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Saya mau ngambil di toko yang deket, tokonya adalah ini sama ini
misalnya. Saya punya harapan, saya nanti tinggal ditelpon ‘oh, iya
barangnya ada’ ee kemudian ee abis itu ‘Ibu bisa ngambil jam sekian’
misalnya. Ternyata sampe sehari itu saya gak..gak ada..gak ada apa
namanya gak ada telpon balik. Kemudian sehari itu gak ada, mau gak mau
kan saya telpon lagi
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Kemudian alasannya toko bilang, eh alasannya si call center karena
belum ada ee apa namanya belum ada informasi dari toko ee apakah
barang itu ada atau tidak. Bukankan kalo ee apa kalo customer komplain
atau apa itu ada batasnya ya Pak harusnya, ya?
Alex : Iya R
Pewawancara : Ee apa, ‘oh ini prioritas sekian jam harus mendapatkan solusi’ Itu ee jadi
akhirnya ee ya udah saya gak dapet. Jadi tadi untuk yang poin yang
P
keempat nih Pak, saya jadi gak dapet, Pak
Alex : Ya itu saya bilang Bu, harusnya hal-hal yang seperti ini kan tidak perlu
terjadi sebenarnya. Jadi pihak toko itu harusnya responnya harus lebih
S

cepet untuk hal-hal seperti ini, jadi tidak boleh membiarkan membuat
customer kecewa hanya karena ya kalo boleh dibilang ini kan hal sepele
Bu sebenarnya, tetapi karena tidak direspon dengan baik ya customer
bisa kecewa, tapi ya sekali lagi saya bilang ini..ini seharusnya tidak perlu
L

terjadi hal seperti ini.

Pewawancara : Nah sekarang kalo Bapak disuruh menilai nih Pak, service excellence di
toko Bapak tadi dengan pertimbangan 4 hal tadi ya, Bapak kasih nilai
berapa Pak? Satu sampe dengan 5 deh.
Alex : Empat
Pewawancara : Empat?
Alex : Iya
Pewawancara : Oke. Ee yang menurut Bapak kalo 1 sampe ee ada 4 faktor ya di service
excellence, saya ulang ya Pak ya, extra miles, dealing with ee apa,
delivering the promise (sesuai janji), trus extra miles, personal touch,
dealing with problems and queries. Mana yang menurut Bapak yang
paling penting?
Alex : Mungkin yang paling penting ya masalah apa yang dijanjikan ke
customer ya, karena itu..itu ee yang membuat mereka datang, gitu. Ee dan

476
 itu sangat besar dampaknya kalo tidak sesuai dengan apa yang kita
janjikan, karena ini biasanya kan sudah diiklankan lah, sudah
disampaikanlah dengan media yang ini mungkin, tapi faktanya berbeda,
nah itu..itu bahaya
Pewawancara : Itu sebenernya awal mula komplain bisa, awal mula orang kecewa bisa
Alex : Iya, betul, betul
Pewawacara : Kalo semua sudah sesuai dengan apa yang dijanjikan pasti semua sih
aman ya Pak?
Alex : Bayangkan kalo dibikin iklan heboh, orang jadi tertarik untuk datang,
tapi setelah datang faktanya lain, nah ini kan bahaya.
Pewawancara : Betul, betul
Alex : Nah itu..itu..itu yang paling ini kalo menurut saya.

Alex
menilainya bagaimana?
R
Pewawancara : Iya, iya. Oke. Baik, nah secara umum kalo menurut Bapak ee
communicative leadership di tempat Bapak ee, terakhir ya Bapak,

: Ee sebenarnya kalo secara kemampuan, terus apalagi ya mau

P
dihubungkan dengan knowledge apa semua, sebetulnya itu semua sudah
seharusnya seorang leader di MATAHARI itu sudah lengkap lah, boleh
dibilang mereka sudah dibekali lah untuk hal-hal seperti ini, cuman
S

memang masalahnya ini lebih ke personal

Pewawancara : Pelaksanaannya ya Pak, ya?
Alex : Yes, itu masalahnya.
L

Pewawancara : Implementasinya
Alex : Implementasinya. Kadang memang ada kita dengar satu-dua toko
bermasalah ya karena leadernya, tidak ada lain. Toko itu mau seperti apa
ya tergantung leadernya memang, tergantung manajer tokonya. Toko itu
bisa hancur bisa jelek ya karena kepala tokonya. Tapi selama kepala
tokonya bisa tetap bisa menjalankan tugasnya dengan baik, bisa
mengayomi timnya dengan baik saya kira no problem. Semua bisa jalan
dengan baik.
Pewawancara : Baik, terima kasih Pak Alex atas waktunya.
Alex : Oke Bunda sama-sama.

***Selesai***

477
 L
S

478
P
R