BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES: ARTICLE 7

Telkom Economics and Business School is an institution with various experience of changes, started from the initial status as independent institution under the Education Foundation to the part of Telkom University. As the consequence, there has been a transformation process in management as well as in leadership. Due to these changes, the style of leadership in Telkom Economics and Business School can be categorized as transformational leadership style. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of transformational leadership style in Telkom Economics and Business School towards the factors of Lecturers’ intellectual capital. The intellectual capital is the most important thing that should be owned by the lecturers. The sampling technique used in this study is saturated sampling method with 68 permanent lecturers in Telkom Economics and Business School who already have a service life of more than two years as the respondents. The analytical method used is a simple linear regression. The results show that transformational leadership style according to the judgment of the faculty is in the good category with the score of 63.95%, while the intellectual capital factors perceived by the lecturers are in good category as well with the score of 67.34%. Meanwhile, the results of the analysis indicate that transformational leadership style in Telkom Economics and Business School has a significant influence on the lecturers’ intellectual capital factors of 40.3%.

1. Bailenson, J. N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A., & Noveck, B. (2006). Courtroom applications of virtual environments, immersive virtual environments, and collaborative virtual environments. Law & Policy, 28(2), 249-270.
2. Bhatt, J. K. (2005). Role of information technology in the Malaysian judicial system: Issues and current trends. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, 19(2), 199-208.
3. Bettina, B. P. (2007). The nuts and bits of technology in the courtroom. URL: https://goo.gl/Q2pBBx.
4. Contini, F., & Cordella, A. (2007). Information system and information infrastructure deployment: the hallenge of the italian e -justice approach. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 5(1), 43-52.
5. Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector: European studies in the making of e -government. London, UK: Macmillan.
6. Cranfield School of Management (2011). Innovation in justice new delivery models and better outcomes. Cranfiled University, UK.
7. Fabri, M., & Contini, F. (2001). Justice and technology in Europe: How ICT is changing the judicial business. Kluwer Law International.
8. Galves, F. (2000). Where the not-so-wild things are: computers in the courtroom, the federal rules of evidence, and the need for institution al reform and more judicial acceptance. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 13(2), 165-178.
9. Hall, D. J. (2009). Journey towards Court Excellence: Trends and Practices to Meet the Future, The. S. Tex. L. Rev., 51, 935.
10. Ibarrola, C., & Liz, R. (2012). Analysis of ICT in the strategic modernization programme of the paraguayan Supreme Court. Master thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch: ZA. URL: https://goo.gl/nsbUfr.
11. Lanzara, G. F., & Patriotta, G. (2001). Technology and the courtroom: An inquiry into knowledge making in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 943-971.
12. Lederer, F. I. (2004). Courtroom technology: for trial lawyers, the future is now. Crim. Just., 19, 14.
13. Lederer, F. I. (1999). The road to the virtual courtroom? A consideration of today’s–and tomorrow’s–high-technology courtrooms. South Carolina Law Review, 50, 799-819.
14. Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit (2012). URL: https://goo.gl/oZzgjE.
15. National Centre for State Courts (2009). Future trends in state courts 2009.
16. Quigley, M. (2010). Courtroom technology and legal ethics. Report submitted for fulfillment of king scholar program, Michigan C ollege University, Michigan, US. URL: https://goo.gl/WeIirj.
17. Reiling, D. (2010). Technology for justice. How information technology can support judicial reform (p. 310). Leiden University Press.
18. Saman, W. S. A. (2015). A framework for sustainable electronic court records management system’, CARE -RISK:UK- Malaysia partnership (capacity building to reduce disaster risk in the UK and Malaysia). Universiti Teknology Malaysia, Johor Bahru: MY.
19. Saman, W. S., & Haider, A. (2011). The implementation of electronic records management system: A case study in Malaysian judicia ry. paper no. 170. URL: https://goo.gl/7Zverf.
20. Saman, W. S., & Haider, A. (2013). E-Shariah: Information and communication technologies for Shariah court management. Leegal Information Management, 13(2), 94-106.
21. Schmidt, A. (2007). IT and the judiciary in the Netherlands – A state of affairs. Computer Law & Security Review, 23(5), 453-460.
22. Wiggins, E. C. (2006). The courtroom of the future is here: introduction to emerging technologies in the legal system. Law & Policy, 28(2), 182-191.

Mohd Saman, W. S. W., Abdullah, N. C., Baba, N., Shaifuddin, N., & Mokhtar, W. N. H. W. (2015).Sustainable electronic court records risk management: Conceptions and development of framework. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 1(1 ), 42-48.