The Effect of
Physical Work Environment, Work Motivation and Compensation on the Performance
of Employees of The Directorate General of Human Rights
Desi Safitri1, Achmad Cik2,
Kumba Digdowiseiso3*
1,2,3* Fakultas
Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Nasional, Indonesia
Email: 1[email protected], 2[email protected],
3*[email protected]
Abstract
This
study aims to analyze the influence of the physical work environment, work
motivation and compensation on the performance of employees of the Directorate
General of Human Rights. This type of research uses quantitative techniques, descriptive methods and data analysis methods
using differential analysis of multiple linear regression and
uses primary data in the form of a closed questionnaire to 100 respondents
assisted by using the Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS) program
application version 23.0. The results of the analysis in this study prove that
the three variables of physical work environment, work motivation and
compensation have a significant influence on the defending variables, namely
performance in employees. From the results of this study, it is expected
that the Institute will pay attention to and evaluate employee performance in order to
improve employee performance in order to be good and effective.
Keywords: Physical work environment, Work motivation, Compensation and Employee Performance
INTRODUCTION
In
the era of digitalization or digital economy, the development of the business
world is characterized by increasingly fierce competition and a rapidly
changing environment And the more
difficult For predicted. Every company Good private and the government needs to display
innovation in the fields of human resources, technology and managerial. This is
done to face the demands of environmental change, so companies must be extra
selective in choosing human resources who are competitive, capable and have
high competitiveness. Company management, especially the HRD (Human Resource Development) department ,
must be selective in selecting prospective employees (Anita Chaudhari, Brinzel
Rodrigues, 2016).
Employee
performance is very necessary for companies or institutions, if employee
performance is less effective and efficient it will cause a decline in the
performance of the company or institution. As Siagian (2010) said, performance
is feedback about various things such as ability, fatigue, shortcomings and
potential which in turn is useful for determining goals, track, plan development career person That Alone specifically organization. Employee performance can be influenced by several
possible factors such as work environment, work motivation and compensation.
Regarding work environmental factors that can influence employee performance,
Nitisemito (2015) states that the work environment is everything that is around
workers and that can influence them in carrying out their assigned tasks.
According to Sedarmayanti (2017) stated that the physical work environment is all something Which
tangible or have form physique
Which around the workplace.
The
work environment is said to be suitable if employees can do their work ideally,
safely, healthily and comfortably (Al-Omari and Okasheh, 2017). To carry out
work effectively and efficiently requires a work environment Which conducive (Priarsono et al, 2019). Matter This in line
with study conducted
by Naa (2017) who stated that the physical work environment has an
influence significant to performance employee. Study This strengthened by Hanafi's (2018)
research results state that the physical work environment is simultaneously and Partial
influential to performance employee. Whereas results
study which is conducted by Stanley &
Remiasa (2022) state environment Work physique not significant to employee performance. Environment Work physique Which
conducive And comfortable make employee can communicate with Good And capable Work The
same, situation This make employees feel satisfied with the work
they do (Andreani & Petrik, 2016).
In reach the
goal company or institution need employee
loyalty. To achieve this, leaders are expected to be able to motivate their
employees. In completing work targets, employees certainly need motivation. Hasibuan
(2015) state motivation is giving Power a
driving force that creates enthusiasm for someone's work so that they want to
work together, work effectively and integrate with all their efforts to achieve
satisfaction. Motivation Work will push somebody For finish tasks even
surpass the target, Because motivation is activity which result in, channel, And look after behavior man Handoko
(2019).
This
is in line with research conducted by Rasfiani Damsjik (2017) state results study showing motivation Work influential positive and significant on employee
performance. The better work motivation is implemented for employees, the
better the impact will be on them to work even better. Strengthened by the
results of research conducted by Prabowo, Lindu Anwar (2018) which states that
work motivation influences employee performance. Meanwhile, the results of
research conducted by Luhur (2014) stated that work motivation No significant and
negative effect on employee performance.
When
an employee already has motivation, the employee can then strengthen that
motivation by providing compensation. Compensation is given on the basis of
cooperative ties, job satisfaction, employee stability, discipline, as well as influence
union laborer And government. So Employees increasingly
improve their performance to become productive and effective, and can help
companies or institutions achieve their goals.
According
to Mulyadi (2015), compensation is any form given to all employees as
remuneration for the contributions made to the office. According to Hasibuan
(2018) Compensation is all income in the form of money, direct or indirect
goods received by employees as compensation for services provided to the
institution. Supported by the results of research conducted by Masydzulhak
Djamil & Dadan Zaenudin 2 (2018) which states that compensation has a
positive and significant effect on employee performance. Which can help
employees become more active at work. Meanwhile, the results of research
conducted by Suhardi (2019) stated that compensation does not have a positive
and significant effect on employee
performance.
Apart
from that, performance, as stated by Adamy (2016), employee performance is how
much the employee contributes to the organization, which includes, among other
things, output quantity, output quality, output period, attendance. in place Work And attitude
cooperative. Agree with Which said by Kawiana (2020) In essence,
performance is the result of work achieved by someone in carrying out their
duties in accordance with the standards and criteria set set For work the. Performance is Wrong One The
total collection of work available to a worker for a given task.
In
2020 the average presentation increased by 4% and became 86% of the set target.
Meanwhile, in 2021 employee performance experienced decline drastic that is
as big as 84% from target Which set. Matter
this can see Performance Employee Directorate General
HAM experience decline
and ascension performance. Performance of employees of the
Directorate General of Human Rights Still Not yet
optimal because it still has not reached the set target of 100%
This
research aims to investigate factors that influence employee performance, such
as the physical work environment, motivation and compensation, with a focus on
the Directorate General of Human Rights. The problems identified involve
questions regarding the positive and significant influence of the physical work
environment, work motivation, and compensation on employee performance. The
research objectives include analyzing the impact of the physical work
environment, work motivation, and compensation on employee performance. The
benefits are divided between theoretical benefits, such as contributions to the
science of human resource management, and practical benefits, including
suggestions for the Directorate General of Human Rights to increase employee
productivity through providing appropriate motivation. In addition, it is hoped
that this research can serve as a guide for readers, institutions and other
researchers in further exploring the relationship between environment,
motivation and compensation and employee performance.
RESEARCH
METHOD
This
research aims to examine the performance of employees at the South Jakarta
Directorate General of Human Rights, taking into account the variables of the
physical work environment, work motivation and compensation. The data source
consists of primary data obtained through distributing questionnaires to
respondents. The research population included 134 permanent employees at the
Directorate General of Human Rights, and a sample of 100 employees was taken
using the purposive sampling method. Data analysis methods involve validity and
reliability tests, normality tests, multicollinearity tests, autocorrelation
tests, and heteroscedasticity tests. Multiple linear regression analysis is
used to evaluate the influence of the physical work environment, work
motivation, and compensation on employee performance. Next, the t hypothesis
test is used to determine the significance of the influence of these variables.
The results of the research are expected to provide insight for the Directorate
General of Human Rights in improving employee performance through managing the
physical work environment, work motivation and optimal compensation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research result
1.
Results Complete Research Estimates
a. Method Analysis
1) Analysis Description
Data
The
results of the test are used to determine the average total and total values
for each variable. Each variable consists of 4 and 5 questions that must be
answered by respondents to support the accuracy of the data in the research
being conducted by the author.
a)
Descriptive
Data Variable Environment Work Physique
A
physical work environment that is fresh, comfortable and meets appropriate
needs will have an influence on employee comfort for their duties. The table
below is the average total mean work environment result. As follows:
Table 1. Average Total Mean Environment Work Physique (X 1 )
|
No |
Statement |
Mean |
|
1 |
The
employee's room must have good air circulation room Work so provides
comfort moment Work |
4.03 |
|
2 |
Place Work No disturbed with voices noisy so
that I Work with Good |
4.04 |
|
3 |
Lighting in room Work
Enough Good And No disturbing I so that support activity work
I |
4.01 |
|
4 |
Condition environment Work office own security so
that make Employee safe And can
Work with Good |
3.96 |
|
5 |
No There is smell not
delicious at workplace |
3.87 |
|
Average total
mean |
3.98 |
|
Source: processed
from SPSS 23 (2022)
Based
on from results spread questionnaire to para employee
it was found that getting perceptions of answers to physical work
environment variables with acquisition mean smallest with mark 3.87 And acquisition mean biggest 4.04 with an overall average score of
3.98.
b)
Description
Data Variable Motivation Work
Motivation
is an encouragement for employees to carry out something activity or work so Can produce performance Which effective in carrying out work. Below are the
results of the average total mean work motivation. As follows:
Table 2. Average Total Mean Motivation Work (X 2 )
|
No |
Statement |
Mean |
|
1 |
I
capable Work with full Employee's sense of responsibility |
4.08 |
|
2 |
I
feel motivated For do work
on a regular basis appropriate And
fast in accordance target
production |
3.96 |
|
3 |
I
feel There is satisfaction separately if you can finish it work Which difficult And achieve
production unit work targets |
4.04 |
|
4 |
I
able to use potency self
And work properly independent |
4.09 |
|
Average total mean |
4.07 |
|
Source: processed
from SPSS 23 (2022)
Based
on from results spread questionnaire to para employee
it was found that getting the perception of answers to the work
motivation variable with gain mean smallest
with mark 3.96 And acquisition mean biggest 4.09 with
an overall average gain of 4.07.
c)
Description
Data Compensation Variables
Compensation
is given to employees on the basis of cooperative ties, job satisfaction,
employee stability, discipline, and the influence of labor unions and the
government. So Employee the more
increase performance his become productive And effective, as
well can help Institution And employee in reach objective. Under this is the
result of the average total mean compensation. As follows:
Table 3. Average Total Mean Compensation (X 3 )
|
No |
Statement |
Mean |
|
1 |
The salary accepted in
accordance hope |
3.98 |
|
2 |
There is incentive outside wages
Which accepted by employees |
3.88 |
|
3 |
Allowance Which accepted according to expectations |
4.09 |
|
4 |
Facility office (uniform Work,
place parker, canteen, place worship, work equipment) complete and adequate.
|
4.15 |
|
|
Average total mean |
4.02 |
Source: processed from SPSS 23 (2022)
Based
on from results spread questionnaire to para employee
it was found that getting the perception of answers to the compensation
variable with gain mean smallest
with mark 3.88 And acquisition mean biggest 4.15 with
an overall average gain of 4.02.
d)
Description
Data Variable Employee
Performance
The
core performance is an employee's ability to develop the organization in a way
effective as well as efficient, with exists something
policy And effective program. Below are the results
of the average total employee performance. As follows:
Table 4. Average Total
Mean Performance Employee
(Y)
|
No |
Statement |
Mean |
|
1 |
I can complete every job with thorough And neat |
4.12 |
|
2 |
I capable
finish the job in accordance with targets Which determined |
4.12 |
|
3 |
I can finish work I in accordance with deadline time
Which given on I. |
4.36 |
|
4 |
I enter
And go home Work
in accordance office regulations
. |
4.03 |
|
5 |
I capable Work The same with other
employees |
4.00 |
|
Average total
mean |
4.12 |
|
Source: processed
SPSS 23 (2022)
Based
on from results spread questionnaire to para employee
it was found that getting perceptions of answers to employee performance
variables with gain mean smallest
with mark 4.00 And acquisition mean biggest 4.36 with
an overall average gain of 4.12.
2) Analysis Inferential
Inferential
analysis is an analysis that emphasizes the influence of variables free that
is environment Work physique, motivation Work And compensation to variables bound that is
performance employee Which mean generalize sample to in Population, Where from
the research results This from a
sample the results can be
representative for the population.
3) Testing Instrument
a) Validity Test Results
As
is the accuracy of the instrument to measure what is being measured. regarding
rcount > rtable, the questionnaire is declared valid and is different if
rcount < rtable, questionnaire the no valid,
use degrees of freedom
(df) = n-2 with a = 0.05. With this determined using the formula n = 100
(100-2), the results obtained are r Table (0.05) = 0.196, as follows:
Table 5. Validity Test Results
|
Variable |
Statement |
r Count |
r Table |
Information |
|
Environment Physical
Work (X1) |
X1_1 |
0.827 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
X1_2 |
0.802 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X1_3 |
0.822 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X1_4 |
0.776 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X1_5 |
0.804 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Motivation Work (X2) |
X2_1 |
0.820 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
X2_2 |
0.896 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X2_3 |
0.855 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X2_4 |
0.895 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Compensation (X3) |
X3_1 |
0.863 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
X3_2 |
0.821 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X3_3 |
0.766 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
X3_4 |
0.527 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Performance Employee (Y) |
Y_1 |
0.644 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
Y_2 |
0.696 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Y_3 |
0.736 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Y_4 |
0.804 |
0.196 |
Valid |
|
|
Y_5 |
0.774 |
0.196 |
Valid |
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
The
results of the calculations tested using Spss23 in the table above show that
each item in the questionnaire statement that was submitted to the respondent
has a calculated r test value that is more than the r table. If you compare r count > r table on sample N to 100 that is 0.196, This This means that the entire statement in the
questionnaire for each variable item can be said to be valid.
b) Results Reliability Test
This
reliability test is carried out to determine the measurements found something results Which relatively when testing repeated. Method testing namely Cronbach's Alpha, if the measuring
instrument or questionnaire has a Cronbach's Alpha value > 0.60 can is
known that his research reliable. But when Cronbach's Alpha < 0.6 with This instrument his research Which done No reliable. As for
test results from the reliability test results are as follows:
Table
6. Reliability Test Results
|
No |
Variable |
Reliability |
R Table |
Information |
|
1 |
Environment Work
Physical (X1) |
0.864 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
2 |
Motivation Work (X2) |
0.911 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
3 |
Compensation
(X3) |
0.740 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
4 |
Performance Employee (Y) |
0.781 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
The
results from the table above in the research are said to be good or reliable.
Because all the variable results, namely Physical Work Environment (X1), Work
Motivation (X2), Compensation (X3) and Employee Performance (Y) have Cronbach's
values Alpha > r table
that is 0.6 is known
environment Work physique
as big as 0.864, whereas motivation Work with 0.911,
as well as compensation worth 0.740 And employee
performance is 0.781, meaning that all variables can be declared reliable and
have met the test requirements.
4)
Test Assumption Classic
a) Normality Test Results
The
normality test uses the Kolmogorov Smirnov test. In taking test values that are
significant (sig) > α = 0.05, it is stated that the data is normally
distributed. As follows is the result
of data analysis carried out:
Table 7. Results Test Normality
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
|
|
Unstandardized Residuals |
|
|
N |
|
100 |
|
Normal Parameters a, b |
Mean |
,0000000 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
1.87470207 |
|
Most
Extreme Differences |
Absolute |
,047 |
|
|
Positive |
,047 |
|
|
Negative |
- $1,045 |
|
Test
Statistics |
|
,047 |
|
Asymp. Sig. (2- tailed) |
|
,200 c,d |
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Corrections.
d. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
Source: Processed
from SPSS 23, 2022
It
is known from the results of the normality test results, that the Asymp.Sig value is known to be 0.200,
indicating that the data is normally distributed because the significance is
0.200 > 0.05.
b) Multicollinearity Test Results
The
multicollinearity test to detect the presence or absence of multicollinearity
can be seen from the VIF and Tolerance values, the absence of multicollinearity
in model regression If on results VIF < 10 or tolerance > 0.1 stated
that multicollinearity does not occur, but if on the contrary,
multicollinearity occurs. The results are as follows:
Table 8. Multicollinearity Test Results
Coefficients a
|
Model |
Collinearity Statistics |
||
|
Tolerance |
VIF |
||
|
1 |
Environment Work Physique (X1) |
,987 |
1,013 |
|
|
Motivation Work (X2) |
,985 |
1,015 |
|
|
Compensation (X3) |
,995 |
1,005 |
a. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee (Y)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
The
known results from the multicollinearity test in the table can be stated that
there is no multicollinearity, with the following results the independent
variable, namely the physical work environment, has a VIF of 1.013 < 10 and
a tolerance value of 0.987 > 0.1, for motivation work has a VIF test value of 1.015 < 10 And own tolerance with mark 0.985
> 0.1, And compensation own VIF
results 1.005 < 10 and with a tolerance value of 0.995 > 0.1.
c) Results Test Autocorrelation
This
test is to detect autocorrelation, using the Durbin Watson (DW) method. The
comparison results produce conclusions such as dU<dW<4-dU, meaning that
it is determined that there is no autocorrelation. In the test results on
autocorrelation, the author uses Durbin Watson (DW) statistics as follows:
Table 9. Autocorrelation Test Results
Model Summary
b
|
Model |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
1,990 |
b. Dependent Variables: Employee Performance (Y)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
As
is known from the results of the autokereration test in table 4.13, it is
explained that Durbin Watson (DW) has a value of 1.990 where the K value or
number of variables free is 3 And mark N or as many samples as possible 100. So
that The known value of dL is 1.613
and the known value of dU is 1.736. From calculations and comparison with the
Durbin Waston table, the value is in Du and 4- Du, it is known that
dU<dW<4-dU = 1.736< 1.990 <4� 1.736(2.264). As from the results of
the tests carried out, it can be determined that the regression model does not
have autocorrelation.
d)
Heteroscedasticity Test
Results
The
regression heteroscedasticity test is categorized as good, of course
heteroscedasticity does not occur. The significance value is > 0.05, so if
it is known that heteroscedasticity does not occur then this is good. As for
knowing whether there is heteroscedasticity or not, the Glejser Test is carried
out by aggregating the independent variables into Abs RES. The results of the
heteroscedasticity test can be seen from the following results:
Table 10. Heteroscedasticity Test Results
Coefficients a
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std.
Error |
Beta |
|||
|
1 ������� (Constant) |
1,069 |
1,308 |
|
,817 |
,416 |
|
Environment Work Physique (X1) |
- $1.002 |
,046 |
- $1.005 |
- ,052 |
,959 |
|
Motivation Work (X2) |
,049 |
,043 |
,117 |
1,148 |
,254 |
|
Compensation (X3) |
- $1.023 |
,049 |
- $1.048 |
- ,471 |
,639 |
a. Dependent Variables: RES
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
From
the test results carried out in Table 10, namely testing heteroscedasticity
using the Glejser Test, it is explained that the regression model in this study
can be stated that heteroscedasticity does not occur. All variable
independent environment Work physique own magnitude mark test with
significance worth 0.959 > 0.05, as well as work motivation own magnitude
The significance test value is 0.254 > 0.05 and the compensation
significance test value is 0.639 > 0.05.
5) Analysis Regression Linear Multiple
Multiple
linear regression analysis is known as a form of analysis that discusses the
extent of influence of an independent variable on a dependent variable. In
terms of calculating multiple linear regression coefficients in testing using
the SPSS program, the results of the tests that have been carried out can be
seen as follows:
Table 11. Results Test Analysis Regression Linear Multiple
Coefficients a
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std.
Error |
Beta |
|||
|
1 ������� (Constant) |
1,234 |
2,100 |
|
,588 |
,558 |
|
Environment Work Physique (X1) |
,258 |
,073 |
,257 |
3,536 |
,001 |
|
Motivation Work (X2) |
,441 |
,069 |
,465 |
6,389 |
,000 |
|
Compensation (X3) |
,439 |
,079 |
,402 |
5,554 |
,000 |
a. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee (Y)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
Based
on from results test on table 11 show If that the independent variable from the
multiple linear regression test is
KP=0.257 LKF+0.465 MK+ 0.402 K
Interpretation:
Y = Employee Performance
LKF = Environment Work Physique
MK = Work Motivation
K = Compensation
Based
on the results of multiple linear regression, the following conclusions are
drawn:
a)
Mark coefficient regression For variable
environment Work physique
on matter the regression equation shows a value of
0.257 if physical work environment
variables have increased 1% so can interpreted environment Work physique
experience increase, then performance employee will experience something enhancement as big as
0.257 assuming the other
independent variables have fixed values. The positive sign indicates a
unidirectional influence between the independent variable and the dependent
variable. This means that physical work environment variables have a positive
and significant effect on employee performance.
b)
value for
work motivation in the regression equation shows a value of 0.465. If the work
motivation variable has increased by 1%, it can be interpreted that work
motivation has increased, then employee performance will experience an increase
of 0.465 assuming the variable free other
own mark still.
Sign positive showing
unidirectional influence between the independent variable and the
dependent variable. This means that the work motivation variable has a positive
and significant effect on employee performance.
c)
value for
compensation in the regression equation shows a value of 0.402. If the
compensation variable increases by 1%, it can be interpreted that if
compensation increases, then employee performance will experience an increase
of 0.402 assuming the variable free other
own mark still.
Sign positive showing
unidirectional influence between the independent variable and the
dependent variable. This means that the compensation variable has a positive
and significant effect on employee
performance.
6) Model
Feasibility Test Results
a)
F Test
Results
Testing
of the hypothesis uses the F test with ANOVA which is carried out by looking at
a significant level or comparing the magnitude of the calculated F value and F
table. The test on the F statistic has level significance Which set that is 0.05. As inner
criteria taking decision on test F If there is
mark sig < 0.05 said H0
is rejected And Ha accepted, Which
stated that variable
free influential positive as well significant to variable
bound in meaning
variable free together have an effect on the dependent
variable. The results of the F test are as follows:
Table 12. F Test
Results (ANOVA)
ANOVA a
|
Model |
Sum
of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
1 ������� Regression |
347,374 |
3 |
115,791 |
31,948 |
,000 b |
|
Residual |
347,936 |
96 |
3,624 |
|
|
|
Total |
695,310 |
99 |
|
|
|
a. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee (Y)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation (X3), Environment Work Physique (X1), Motivation Work (X2)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
As
from the results of the f test carried out in the ANOVA test above, it is known that F count with mark 31,948, with have significance
0.000. Is known that F table obtained from mark degrees
free df (residual) namely 2.70 on level confidence 5% (a=0.05). F count stated
more big than f table (31.948 > 2.70) with a
significance level of 0.000 < 0.05. Can be concluded every variable together
influential on variable
bound namely employee
performance.
b) Results Test Coefficient Determination (R 2 )
In study this coefficient determination for now influence of variables. The higher the value on R
Square, the better. Results that are close to 100% indicate that the variable
provides the information needed to predict. The test results of the coefficient
of determination (R 2 ) are in the table:
Table 13. Results Test Coefficient Determination
Model Summary
b
|
Model |
R |
R
Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error
of the Estimate |
|
1 |
,707 a |
,500 |
,484 |
1,904 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), Compensation (X3), Environment Work Physical (X1),
Work Motivation (X2)
b. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee (Y)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
It
is known from the results that the R Square is 0.500 or if the percentage is
50%, which means that employee performance variables are influenced by the
physical work environment, work motivation and compensation variables of 50%, while the remaining 50% is influenced
by other variables outside the regression model that has been researched by the
author.
c) t Test
Results
Test hypothesis as analysis Which done For determine
the influence of the physical work environment, work motivation, and
compensation on employee performance by using a significance level of 0.05. It
is known that the t table is known through the formula df=nk-1, namely
(df=100�3�1=96) it is known that the t table has a value of 1.984, the
calculated t value is at significant <0.05, meaning H0 is rejected and Ha is
accepted, which means the proposed hypothesis can be declared accepted. This
hypothesis test is carried out by looking for a t test by comparing a
calculated t and t table value and sig < 0.05. The test results are as follows:
Table 14. t Test
Results
Coefficients a
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std.
Error |
Beta |
|||
|
1 ������� (Constant) |
1,234 |
2,100 |
|
,588 |
,558 |
|
Environment Work Physique (X1) |
,258 |
,073 |
,257 |
3,536 |
,001 |
|
Motivation Work (X2) |
,441 |
,069 |
,465 |
6,389 |
,000 |
|
Compensation (X3) |
,439 |
,079 |
,402 |
5,554 |
,000 |
a. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee (Y)
Source: Processed from SPSS 23, 2022
From results
test t Which is known that aligned from A analysis
carried out, based on the t test, it can be concluded as follows:
(1) Testing the hypothesis of
physical work environment variables on employee performance by obtaining tcount
with a value of 3.536>ttable 1.984 at a significance level of 0.001
<0.05. So it can be concluded that the physical work environment has a positive
and significant effect on the performance of employees of the Directorate
General of Human Rights.
(2) Testing the hypothesis of work
motivation variables on employee performance obtained a calculated t value of
6.389 > t table 1.984 at a significance level of 0.000 < 0.05. So it can
be concluded that work motivation has a positive and significant effect on the
performance of employees of the Directorate General of Human Rights.
(3) Testing the hypothesis of
compensation variables on employee performance obtained a calculated t value of
5.554 > t table 1.984 at a significance level of 0.000 < 0.05. So that
means the conclusion is compensation influential positive
as well as significant to on performance employee of the Directorate General of Human Rights.
Discussion
A. Physical
Work Environment on Employee Performance of the Directorate General of Human
Rights
Based
on the analysis in this research, it is known that the physical work
environment has a positive and significant influence on the performance of
employees of the Directorate General of Human Rights. The following is
reinforced by the analysis results which are known through several tests
carried out by researchers as well as test results from several tests.
Including the results of the t test showing that tcount > ttable, namely the
tcount value 3.536> ttable 1.984 and the significant value obtained <
α = 0.05, namely (0.001 < 0.05). It can be concluded that the physical
work environment has a positive and significant effect on employee performance
at the Directorate General of Human Rights. As the results of the research were
strengthened by a questionnaire submitted by the researcher, the average result
was 3.98. Which means that the majority of respondents' answers agreed with the
need to pay attention to the physical work environment. The results of this
research are also strengthened by the results of the analysis by Rasfiani
Damsjik (2017) which states environment Work physique influential significant in a way simultaneous on employee performance
This
shows that the physical work environment makes employees motivated to work
diligently from the presence of a physical work environment. The work
environment produces a positive and real influence on employee performance,
even though the scope of the work environment does not play an active role, it
produces an influence that has an impact on employee performance.
B. Work
Motivation on Employee Performance of the Directorate General of Human Rights Man
Based
on the analysis in this research, it is known that work motivation have influence positive
as well as significant on performance employee
Directorate General of Human Rights. The following is reinforced by the
analysis results which are known through several tests carried out by
researchers as well as test results from several tests. Including the results
of the t test shows that tcount > ttable that
is mark t count 6,389 > t table 1,984 and by obtaining a significant value <
α = 0.05, namely (0.000 < 0.05). It can be concluded that work
motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance at the
Directorate General of Human Rights. As the results of the research were
strengthened by a questionnaire submitted by the researcher, the average result
was 4.07. Which means that the majority of respondents' answers stated that
they agreed with providing work motivation to employees in order to improve
employee performance and to encourage employees to work optimally to carry out
their duties. his job. Results
than study Which
done This Also This
is strengthened by the analysis results of Badar et al (2020) which states that work motivation has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance.
As
this shows, work motivation is a basic factor
a employee Work with Good so
that can Can give good efforts from employees to be able to
advance the vision and mission of the institutional organization that has been
established in order to improve and shape attitudes and behavior so that the
employee strives effectively and professionally.
C. Compensation
for Employee Performance of the Directorate General of Human Rights
As
based on the analysis in this research, it is known that compensation has a
positive and significant influence on employee performance Directorate General Right Asasi Man. Matter
following strengthened with from
the analysis results that are known through several tests carried out by
researchers as well as test results from several tests. Including the results
of the t test showing that tcount > ttable, namely the tcount value 5.554
> ttable 1.984 and the obtained significant value < α = 0.05, namely
(0.000 < 0.05). It can be concluded that compensation has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance at the Directorate General of Human
Rights. As the results of the research were strengthened by a questionnaire
submitted by the researcher, the average result was 4.02. Which means that the
majority of respondents' answers stated that they agreed with good compensation
in an organization or government institution. Results of the research conducted This Also strengthened from results analysis
Mashdzulhak Djamil Ps
& Dadan Zaenudin (2018)
who state compensation influential in a
way positive and significant on employee performance.
As is known
with para employee
Which have Good compensation will create employees
who are disciplined and can improve performance in institutions in order to
carry out productivity in government institutions. Compensation itself means
everything that employees get. from organization as reply service
on Work Which
done. This included as one of the most effective
ways to improve work performance, employee performance, motivation and job
satisfaction for employees.
CONCLUSION
