1. Introduction
Human resources play a key role in the existence of sports clubs and facilities, as they require specific certified employees (Mihaela, Veronica, & Dana, 2014). Especially, coaches are the most in demand and influential people for a given sport. Thus, it is critical for an organization to effectively develop and manage their coaches. Dulebohn, et al. (2012) argued that the majority of people believe that their immediate leaders influence the essence of their experience in the company. Therefore, it can be presumed that the relationship between a leader and a subordinate is important, particularly in relation to work outcomes.
Leader-member exchange theory suggests that a leader tends to develop different ranges of relationship quality with each subordinate (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). Further, Hooper and Martin (2008) argued that a favourable leader indeed handles the follower differently based on their needs, skills, and situations. This situation sometimes can be problematic because perceptions of unfairness may influence the degree of work performance. This research is aimed at investigating how the leader-member exchange relationship quality affects the work environment within an ice-skating rink in Indonesia.
The management of an ice-skating rink is a perfect case to study this issue because coaches are integral to the company and there is direct staff supervision from the head coach. First of all, the ice-skating business has been flourishing in South East Asia, especially Indonesia, indicated by some new rinks that keep popping out. Then, coaches are assumed to be the crucial resources because one of the ice rink’s primary incomes generated from the each class that coaches teach. Thus, this research can provide relevant information to aid management to improve their human resource management efforts.
This research consists of five chapters. The next chapter will discuss background literature related with this issue. The third chapter will discuss the chosen methodology to utilize the study of the LMX theory specifically implemented in the ice rink management. The fourth chapter will outline the data analysis and findings. The final chapter will offer concluding remarks, including implications and suggestion for future research.
2. Literature Review
Leadership is one of the broadest topics as it has been discussed in a variety of fields covering many different topics. Yukl (2010) argued that there are multiple leadership definitions and concepts from different literatures, but the researchers have tended to discuss it according their specific study fields and interests. Salomon, et al. (2010) argued that whatever the definitions are, there are three core elements in leadership: a leader to lead, a group of people who follow the leader, and a goal to be achieved together. Effective leadership is argued to help boost work performance in many ways (Bass, 2010), with one of the theories conceptualizing this being the leader-member exchange theory.
2.1. Leader-Member Exchange (LMX)
Leader-member exchange theory (LMX) is one of many leadership models, but the development of this particular theory was important for two reasons (Dublebohn, et al., 2012). First, it focused on separate relationships between a leader and each follower. Secondly, it specified that leaders do not develop the same type of relationship with each follower.
Generally, LMX describes differentiated relationships between managers and subordinates (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2006). LMX research focuses on studying the quality of exchange relationship between the leader and a member of an organization, a leader and a follower, or a supervisor and a subordinate (Dublebhon, et al., 2012). Gooty and Yammarino (2016) emphasized the definition of LMX as a dyadic model of the leader and followers’ relationship quality that develops based on social exchanges. Furthermore, Henderson et al. (2009) argued that the LMX model focuses on differentiated relationships and exchanges in work groups, which are defined as a leader and his/her followers that directly report to him/her.
LMX Theory is different from other well-known leadership models, including transformational leadership and servant leaders. The primary difference is that LMX emphasizes the assessment of relationships between leader and followers that may vary, whereas other transformational leadership models focus on how leader behaviour related to the needs of his/her followers enables them to reach their maximum potential. However, the quality of LMX is influenced by specific leadership behaviours: transactional leadership, transformational leadership, and contingent reward. By applying these leadership behaviours, it indicates that leaders are willing to invest extra effort into the relationship, which stimulates followers to reciprocate.
2.2. Antecedents, LMX as mediator, and outcomes
Uhl-bien, et al. (2006) argued that the premise of the LMX is the differential relationships between a leader and followers in a work group and it is initiated through social exchanges in which dyad members experience a set of interactions based on reciprocity and testing processes. Regarding this assumption, Henderson, et al. (2009) also argued that in LMX theory, leaders develop distinct relationships among their followers who have direct contact with them in their work groups to create LMX differentiation. At the group level, LMX differentiation is significant, as the members notice the different treatment, which subsequently affects their attitudes and behaviours. Additionally, there are some antecedents that influence the outcomes through LMX as a mediation (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Henderson, et al., 2009).
LMX theory suggests that a high quality relationship with a particular close supervisor tends to increase performance, satisfaction, commitment, and other outcomes from the employees (Randolph-Seng, et al., 2016). However, the factors that influence this process are complicated. Dulebhon, et al. (2012) and Henderson, et al. (2009) have framed the leader-member exchange antecedents and consequences theoretical framework from two different perspectives. Specifically, Dulebhon, et al. (2012) focused more on different factors that influence the LMX process and the outcomes, whereas Henderson, et al. (2009) argued the impact of multiple levels in organisations and how they may affect the LMX process.
It has been argued that there are prior elements that influence the LMX process, but these are interfered by the contextual variables, eventually resulting in different consequences, such as job performance (Dulebhon, et al., 2012).
Diagram 1. LMX Framework at the individual level perspective
Source: Dulebhon et al., 2012, p.1717.
The first antecedent is follower characteristics, such as competence, perceptions, and openness. This is important because primary perceptions are based on personal characteristics of the partner. Additionally, physical factors and personality determine the initial attraction. The second antecedent is comprised of leader characteristics, including contingent reward behaviour, transformational leadership, and supervisor’s expectations of followers. A leader’s behaviour is crucial because they dominantly apply more control in determining the LMX relationship. The last antecedent is interpersonal relationships, for instance, perceived similarity, affect, and leader trust. These variables bridge the relationship between leaders and followers and portray the stimuli that influence the LMX quality (Dulebhon, et al., 2012).
Previous literatures have argued that LMX plays a role as a mechanism between antecedents that affect consequences; in particular, it mediates the process (Dulebhon, et al., 2012). The mediation is indicated by work relationships, which are indicated by mutual interdependencies in social exchange relationships that are referred as “reciprocal interdependences”. When individuals’ outcomes are dependent on another person, it motivates them to be strongly aware of their partners’ personalities (Dulebhon, et al., 2012). This argument was related with relational leader theory that conceptualizes the relationships between leaders and subordinates that are urgently important in determining employee’s work experiences (Brower, et al., 2000). Furthermore, Uhl-Bien (2006) explained this argument in more detail by stressing that interactions between leaders and subordinates are more superior to individual personalities and perceptions in determining work consequences. Therefore, it can be concluded that LMX works as a mediator between antecedents and its consequences by emphasizing the work relationships created between leaders and followers through interactions and reciprocal interdependencies (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Brower, et al., 2000).
Eventually, the process results in various outcomes. Dulebhon, et al. (2012) classified these based on previous literatures into attitudinal measures and perceptual outcomes. Attitudinal measures include affective and normative commitment and pay satisfaction. Procedural justice, distributive justice, experienced empowerment, and perceptions of politics are allocated as perceptual outcomes.
In contrast, Henderson, et al. (2009) examined the multiple levels in organisations that influence outcomes through LMX differentiation. The majority of the research has attempted to analyse relationships between individual-level perception of LMX quality and individual-level outcomes, whereas initially, the LMX model sought to account for how leaders differentiate the treatment of numerous followers that consequently influences the activity in a group (Henderson, et al., 2009). Similar to Dulebhon, et al.’s research, Henderson, et al. (2009) also framed the LMX process by connecting the antecedents and placed LMX differentiation as a mediator in the model, eventually resulting in different types of outcomes.
Diagram 2. LMX Framework at the organisational level perspective
Source: Henderson, et al., 2009, p.518.
The antecedents that Henderson, et al. (2009) highlighted as influencing the outcomes included characteristics at the individual level (leader characteristics), group level, and organizational level. It was argued that some leadership behaviours (transformational leadership and servant leaders) are positively related with LMX quality, as they are similarly able to form high quality LMX and less differentiation. However, in the subordinates’ perspective, it is important to have personal desire to become a permanent/full-time employee. Hence, individual levels, both in followers and leaders perspectives, are important antecedents to be considered. Additionally, forming a high quality LMX relationship take time, effort, and resources. The larger a group is, the more likely it is to have diverse knowledge, skills, capabilities, demographic differences, culture, as well as similarities to the leader, which makes interactions within a group level complex. The next antecedent is characteristics at the organisational level, including organisational structure, organisational culture, and human resource practice. This organisational level affects LMX quality by shaping variability in values, culture, and structures within the employees, leading to LMX differentiation. To conclude, Henderson, et al. (2009) emphasized that individual level characteristics from both the follower and leader perspective, as well as at the group level and organisational level are crucial in determining LMX differentiation between the leader and followers, eventually resulting in different degrees of outcomes at different levels, such as turnover employee at the organisational level, work performance at the group level, and work performance at the individual level as a leader and a follower.
Both frameworks conceived LMX as mediator much in the same way. The primary point of this mechanism is the different degree of work relationships between the leader and followers through interactions and reciprocal interdependencies (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Brower, et al., 2000). Further, employees are aware of the different treatment among them and this particular perception is formed through communication. Although it sounds negative, it is argued that LMX differentiation is a practical and acceptable practice because successful leaders indeed do not treat all their followers the same according to their individual needs and motivations (Hooper and Martin, 2008). Even though this argument seems hold promise, it can be problematic because followers can be very sensitive to comparison and fairness. Consequently, these dynamic interactions between leaders and employees shape the employees’ behaviours and attitudes (Henderson, et al., 2009).
Henderson, et al. (2009) argued that work setting and culture is crucial because it affects the variability of LMX differentiation and eventually influences outcomes; for instance, collectivist culture focuses more on success of the whole than on individual results. Therefore, this becomes a limitation because it makes the majority of previous data incomparable. However, both of these literatures show similar patterns in framing the LMX process by classifying several antecedents, connecting them to LMX as a mediator, and classifying the outcomes. Furthermore, both of these literatures complete one another because Dulebhon, et al. (2012) focused on individual relationships and how they create LMX differentiation, whereas Henderson, et al. (2009) focused on the bigger picture of the whole organisation and how it copes with LMX differentiation. Furthermore, it was argued that LMX differentiation influences the relationship quality. This will be discussed in the next section.
2.3. LMX Quality
In consequence of the LMX differentiation, a leader may have low quality LMX relationships with some followers and higher quality with others (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Henderson, et al., 2009). There are many antecedents that may influence the LMX differentiation, but less differentiation among followers and the leader is what leads to higher quality relationships (Henderson, et al., 2009).
The qualities of LMX relationships seem to be influenced by a variety of factors. Although, leaders are dominant in determining the degree of the relationship, followers also take part and affect the process as well. Furthermore, the relationship is also influenced by the leadership behaviours shown by the leaders themselves, such as contingent reward, transformational leadership, and their expectations of followers (Dulebhon, et al., 2012). Henderson, et al. (2009) argued that LMX differentiation also affects the quality. Moreover, demographic effects, such as gender, age, and race, have been a concern regarding the quality of relationships since early research, but have led different findings. However, other previous literatures have successfully proven that demographic effects relate with LMX relationship (Robersons and Block, 2001; Tsui and O’Reilly, 1989).
Low LMX quality is characterized by restrictions of fulfilling contractual duty (Henderson, et al., 2009), whereas Dulebhon, et al.’s (2012) argument was slightly different. They mentioned that low LMX quality is indicated by economic exchange based on contractual agreement and balanced reciprocation of tangible assets, for instance, pay for performance. In contrast, high-LMX relationships lead to increased feelings of mutual obligations and reciprocity (Dulebhon, et al., 2012). Similarly, Henderson, et al., (2009) also argued that high LMX quality stressed more on social exchange patterns over contractual obligations. Likewise, Tepper, et al. (2006) argued that a high level of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty characterizes high quality relationships and when the level of trust is limited and more contractual, it reflects low quality relationships. Randolph-Seng, et al., 2016 stressed an increased subordinate job scope, scope of decision-making, open communication, and loyalty among the members as being reflective of high quality relationships. Specifically, Liden and Maslyn (1998) referred high quality relationship to greater exchange of valuable resources that can be physical things, such as materials, as well as more abstract, such as information and tasks. In addition, Uhl-bien, et al. (2006) expressed a metaphor to describe the quality of LMX. They argued that high quality LMX involved reciprocity that based on mutual interest compared with self-interest, low immediacy, and low degree on demanding exchange with the equivalent value and makes a follower a “trusted assistant” that is capable to cover for the leaders. On the other hand, low quality of LMX is indicated with low communication, lack of respect, and without sense of loyalty. This situation perceives the followers as only “hired hands” for the managers.
Beyond the ideas mentioned above to portray the quality of LMX, a multidimensional approach was developed to simplify it by considering them at the same “currencies”, allowing behaviours to be more easily understood. The multidimensional approach generally classifies the primary indicators of the quality. For instance, the degree of loyalty subordinates have toward their supervisor is conceptually different from the degree of respect they have, even though they may personally like their supervisor (Randolph-Seng, et al., 2016).
Liden and Maslyn (1998) argued that there are four dimensions of LMX quality: affection, professional respect, loyalty, and contribution. The first dimension is mutual affection among the members that are based primarily on interpersonal attraction rather than professional values, for instance, friendship. This kind of affection may influence the outcomes on a personal level. The next dimension is loyalty, which is defined as an expression of support that involves consistency of faithfulness from situation to situation for the aims and personality of the other member. The third dimension is contribution, which refers to the perception of the degree of work-oriented activity of the members. It is important to evaluate how members are responsible and complete the tasks beyond the formal description or contracts. Similarly, contribution can be considered from a supervisor’s view to provide resources and chances to support workplace activities. The last dimension is professional respect, which is the perception of the extent to which each follower has developed a reputation within and/or outside the organisation (Randolph-Seng et al., 2016; Liden and Maslyn, 1998).
The degree of LMX quality determines the outcomes that may be generated. It was argued that high LMX relationship quality results in increased satisfaction, performance, and other outcomes (Randolph-Seng, et al., 2016). Thus, the influenced outcomes are important to consider. In this research, the outcome is narrowed into one aspect: work performance.
2.4. Work Performance
There are multiple perceptions, measurements, and definitions regarding work performance. Koopmans, et al. (2011) argued that work performance is an abstract construct that cannot be measured or observed directly. However it consists of multiple elements or dimensions, which show some measurable indicators. Another widely known perception sees work performance as behaviours that align with the organisation’s objectives (Campbell, 1990). Following this definition, it shows that work performance is seen more as behaviours or actions rather than results that align with the objective of the organisation. Other literature argued further the emphasis of behaviour as the point of work performance by defining work performance as scalable actions, behaviours, and outcomes that come from the employee and are related with the organisation’s goals (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000).
Much of the literature regarding LMX conceptualize the outcomes differently; some have linked LMX qualities to positive results from the subordinates, such as job satisfaction, creativity, commitments, and turnover (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Liao, et al., 2010; Henderson, et al., 2009; Hooper and Martin, 2008). As discussed previously, Henderson, et al. (2009) focused on the outcomes operating in different levels of the organisation: individual, group, and organisation. In contrast, Dulebhon, et al. (2012) focused on attitudinal measures and perceptual outcomes at the individual level. Another different measurement of outcome is creativity as posited by Liao, et al. (2010). Regardless, the vast majority of the distinctive outcome measurements assess work performances through different perspectives (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Liao, et al., 2010; Henderson, et al., 2009).
To overcome these differences, previous literatures have argued that the multidimensional approach is essential to measuring work performance (Koopmans et al., 2011; Campbell, 1990). Additionally, there are four dimensions to measure individual work performance and each has specific indicators, as highlighted in the following diagram (Koopmans, et al., 2011).
Diagram 3. Multidimensional Approach of Individual Work Performance
Source: Koopmans, et al., 2011, p. 863
The first dimension is task performance, also called job-specific task proficiency or technical proficiency, and is understood as the competence of the individuals to fulfil their core tasks (Koopmans, et al., 2011). Some literature classify job quality, job knowledge, or productivity as other dimensions of work performance, but they can be included in the task performance (Viswesvaran and Ones, 2000; Campbell, 1990). However, the degree of job performance is different from one job to another. The next dimension is contextual performance, which is a personal behaviour that contributes to the organisational environment both socially and psychologically without forgetting the primary function (Koopmans, et al., 2011). These behaviours reach beyond contractual tasks, such as showing initiative. Koopmans, et al., (2011) included adaptive performance as the third dimension. However, some literatures have argued that it could be classified together with contextual performance. Adaptive performance is seen as the extent of an individual’s flexibility of embracing the changes in the work systems or roles (Koopmans, et al., 2011). The last dimension is in contrast with the other dimensions because it indicates negative behaviour, or counterproductive work behaviour. This is defined as any behaviour that harms or creates a negative environment within the organisation; for example, absenteeism, refusal of work, theft, and negative actions towards co-workers (Koopmans, et al., 2011). These frameworks provide us with a tool for measuring a large range of behaviours within the workplace and also the foundation for classification and understanding.
2.5. Research Question
The LMX theory suggests that a leader develops different degrees of relationships with each subordinate and further to this, the relationship quality affects the employees’ outcomes, such as work performance (Dulebhon, et al., 2012; Liao, et al., 2010; Henderson, et al., 2009; Liden and Maslyn, 1998). This argument can be problematic because various relationship qualities lead to various outcomes of work performance, one of the success indicators of an organisation (Lahoz and Camorotto, 2012). The higher the employees’ work performances are, the greater their contribution to their company’s achievement. This research addresses the dilemma between LMX relationship quality and employee’s performance. Thus, the research question guiding this inquiry is as follows:
How does leader-member exchange quality affect employee work performance in ice rink management in Indonesia?
3. Methodology
Maxwell (2005) argued that qualitative research designs must be a reflexive process through every step of the project. There are five structures of this research design, but they are flexible and interrelated: goal, framework, research question, methodology, and limitations. The aim of this research is to study leader-member exchange relationships; specifically, how they affect employee work performances in ice rink management in Indonesia. Furthermore, the result is expected to assist management in obtaining additional understanding regarding relationships with subordinates and the LMX differentiations.
The following section will discuss the research framework and why a specific management environment was chosen. This is followed by the research question and an explanation of how data was collected and sampling method was selected. Next, I will discuss how I collected my data through interviews and observations to allow for triangulation. The next section will describe the analysis of the data.. Finally, the last section will outline the limitations of this methodology and research.
3.1. Research Framework and Reasoning
This research is limited within the LMX framework and the research area is designated within ice skating management. The LMX framework focuses to frame the antecedents that influence the process, where LMX is a mechanism that mediates the process, and eventually generates consequences as a result.
This research was specifically designated to study ice rink management in Indonesia. The primary reason for the selection of this particular industry is because this sport is flourishing and the key is the existence of the coaches, as revenue is generated through entry tickets and the ice skating academy. Thus, it is essential to explore coaching while considering LMX relationships.
This argument is supported by numerous facts. One is the advancement in both ISI and ISU curriculums in ice skating in Indonesia. In the first week of August 2017, for the first time ever, one of the three rinks in Indonesia will host the largest ISI competition in Asia, Skate Asia. Another significant step for Indonesian ice skating is the acceptance of Indonesia as a permanent member in the world-class organisation: ISU. This news means that Indonesian skaters are eligible to join elite competitions, such as world championships. Additionally, ice rink business is thriving, as there is another ice rink being established to make a total of four rinks (bxrink, date; isu, date).
3.2. Research Question
Based on the theoretical framework, the research question can be formulated as follows:
How does leader-member exchange quality affect employee work performance in ice rink management in Indonesia?
Rooting from my research question, I focus on the leader-member exchange relationship theory; specifically, the quality and consequences/outcomes in work performance and how these two phenomenon are related in ice rink management. The data was analysed and compared with this theory, with the goal that it would eventually extend the theory and its consequences.
Furthermore, this research was conducted utilising a qualitative approach with a triangulation tool to collect primary and secondary data. As this research is based in qualitative research, the main focus was to identify themes from interviews, observations, and the secondary data and synchronize these to answer the research question (Hammersley, 2013). Primary data collected through triangulation of in-depth interviews and observation increases reliability (Punch, 2014). The secondary data is comprised of formally written job descriptions of the head coach and the assistant coaches. This data was included to strengthen the understanding of the company rules that pertain to coaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and focused on understanding and exploring individual complex behaviour regarding LMX relationships (Punch, 2014).
3.3. Data Collection and Sampling
In this research, I focused on gathering as much data as possible regarding three core variables: LMX relationship quality, interactions among the coaches and head coaches, and work performance. The LMX relationship quality and work performance were measured by unique indicators based on the previous literature frameworks. I utilised purposeful selection/sampling, which allowed for greater flexibility (Punch, 2014; Maxwell, 2005). I chose purposeful sampling because it is the most efficient strategy to use when faced with limited resources (Palinkas, et al., 2013). This research was intended to study the LMX relationships in ice rink management in Indonesia; therefore, the sample target was Indonesian coaches and leaders. For the aim of confidentiality of the rinks, coaches, and leaders, I refer to the first rink as Rink A and the second as Rink B.
Rink A is located in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, and it has 20 coaches under the supervision of a single head coach. The next layer of the supervisory is a rink manager who directly supervises the head coach. Rink B is located in Bandung, the capital city of West Java, and the rink employs 17 coaches under a head coach and a rink manager. Due to time constraints, I sampled eight individuals from Rink A, which included six coaches, one head coach, and one manager, and seven individuals from rink B, which included six coaches and one head coach/manager. All of the participants were chosen based on the snowball strategy, which asks key people to suggest individuals that may have something to contribute to the study (Palinkas, et al., 2013). In this case, the leaders were asked to suggest three names and chose one coach who was not mentioned to provide two additional names. The objective of this strategy is to obtain different perspectives and explore the relationships between the leader and the coaches. The focus on this research is the relationships between head coaches as leaders and coaches as subordinates, and the work performance of the coaches.
Table 1. Profile of Participants
Men Women Coach Head Coach Manager Age Total
Rink A 5 3 6 1 1 19-41 8 People
Rink B 4 3 6 1 27-38 7 People
3.3.1. Semi-structured Interviews
The purpose of the semi-structured interviews was to understand the phenomenon from the subjects’ point of view and provide an environment in which subjects are free to express their opinions, situations, and thoughts in their own words (Kvale, 2006). The interviews were conducted in face-to-face dialogues lasting approximately 20 minutes. The goal was to gather as many perspectives as possible and explore the coaches’ thoughts regarding their leaders and vice versa.
The interview questions were divided into three major topics. The first was LMX relationship quality. These questions aimed to reveal the quality relationships between the leaders and subordinates. The next section asked about interactions that usually happened in the work setting. The interactions between leaders and followers were investigated to study the mechanisms of LMX as a mediator. The last topic was work performance. This was addressed to measure the extent of LMX consequences.
3.3.2. Unstructured Observation
Punch (2014) argued that observation in qualitative methodology is unstructured, naturally unfold the behaviour and events, and is open ended. I received permission to conduct observations for one day in each of the rinks. The aim was to observe and witness the natural behaviours and interactions of the supervisors and subordinates that reflect the relationships between them. The focal point of the observation was to elaborate upon the results in the earlier interviews. Thus, the primary observations were the interactions between leaders and followers, and followers and their co-workers. I was in the rink from 10am until 1pm and observed the weekly meetings in Rink B and meeting preparation for Skate Asia in Rink A. The rest of the day I mostly joined the coaches in the coach room during their break time and I also observed the activities on the ice.
3.5. Data Analysis
The first step after gathering sufficient data was to understand the degree of the quality of LMX relationships and work performance. This was done through a comparison with the multidimensional approach to align the perspectives and put the understanding in the same “currencies”. The LMX quality was compared with the four dimensions of LMX quality by Liden and Maslyn (1998): affection, professional respect, royalty, and contribution. However, there were also further indicators from previous literatures to enrich the understanding of relationship quality. The next variable was work performance. A comparison was also used to understand the degree of work performance by looking at the multidimensional approach from Koopmans, et al., (2011). The pivots that were focused on were task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and counterproductive work behaviour (Koopmans, et al., 2011).
The next sequence was to analyse how LMX works to mediate the antecedents and the outcomes. To understand how LMX works, I looked at the interactions between the leaders and subordinates, LMX differentiations in the work settings, and interactions among the followers. Finally, I compared the analysis with the previous literatures and frameworks and extended the theories with my findings.
Coding and categorizing were conducted to compare the collected data and the indicators of each measurement. Additionally, to obtain more in-depth answers and hints, the interviews were focused into three different subjects: LMX relationship quality, work performance, and interactions between leaders and followers, and followers with their co-workers. Through these repeating topics with different subjects, I was able to classify the commonalities and differences and highlight the patterns accordingly. Additionally, observation aimed to find hidden
3.6. Limitation of the Methodology
The first limitation of this research is regarding the sample size. Due to time constraints, the sample size had to be small. Indeed, there is a probability of different results with a larger sample size. Secondly, the research is directly related with ice rink management in Indonesia. Therefore, future study is suggested on a larger scale within a different industry in Indonesia. As Dulebhon, et al. (2012) argued, the cultural dimension is a significant element that mediates leader trust and the LMX relationship. Similarly, Henderson, et al. (2009) also urged that the results of research depended on work setting and company culture. Therefore, future research with a different company or work setting may show differing results due to culture and work setting influences (Sias and Jablin, 1995).
4. Analysis and Findings
This section outlines the analysis of the data with the sequences discussed in the previous section. The analysis was performed with systematic text condensation (Malterud, 2012), which was compared with the indicators from existing theories. The analysis was comprised of four steps and sought to answer the question: “How does leader-member exchange quality affect employee work performance in ice rink management in Indonesia?” After the interviews, the first step was to tidy up the data by reading through all the interviews, consider how to sort the data, and begin to identify patterns. Then the next step was to organize all the data utilising Excel software. I organized the spreadsheet based on two elements: the interviewee’s name and the subjects of the conversations. Tagging the interviewee’s name with the answer was crucial because it allowed patterns between the relationship quality, interactions, and the work performance to become visible. Sorting out all the data was initiated by reading through the original data one more time and separating the data that contained meaning units and those that did not. Data that contained meaning units meant that it contained relevant information related to LMX relationship quality, work performance, or social interactions. It could be in the form of a sentence, a part of a sentence, and even a few sentences. Next, I started the coding by identifying, sorting, and grouping the meaning units under the main three headings. As the coding continued, another was found group relating to the research: antecedents or other factors that influence the outcomes. Thirdly, I evaluated each of the groups again and sorted them again based on their commonalities; thus, I obtained sub-groups. Tables 2 and 3 below describe the group and subgroup that I classified, as well as a sample of analysis in one group.