�The Effect of Work Motivation, Teamwork and
Physical Work Environment on the Performance of PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia
Employees
�
Dheazalfa Sukmarini1, Ahmad Cik2,
Kumba Digdowiseiso3*
1,2,3* Faculty Economy
And Business, Jakarta National University, Indonesia
Email:
1 [email protected], 2[email protected], 3*[email protected]
Abstract
This research
is the results of research
on the Effect of Work motivation, Teamwork, and Physical Work Environment on
Employee Performance at PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia. The research method used is
quantitative method. The results of this study
used primary data in the form of a questionnaire to 60 respondents, the The results of
the study stated that there was a positive and significant influence between
the variables Work Motivation, Teamwork and Physical Work Environment on
Employee Performance at PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia. Therefore the results of
the study have been capable
to influence work motivation, teamwork
and physical work environment on the performance of
employees of PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia.
Keywords:
Work Motivation, Teamwork, Physical Work Environment, and Employee Performance
INTRODUCTION
Source Power
man own position
And position Which important In an organization, resources are related
to employees (Davidescu et al., 2020). Employees are the
most important and valuable resource owned by a company or government agency (Akhmetshin et al., 2019). Employees or
employees have a role important in progress or setback something
organization, in an
organization, employees are always required to have high performance and
mobility, because the achievement and success of an organization is determined
and depends on the ability and performance of the human resources within it. That is
para employee or employee That Alone. By Because That It
can be concluded that employees and the company have a very close influence,
because these two aspects both need each other (Kanter, 2017).
The success of
a company or organization is largely determined by the activities of utilizing
human resources that have quality and quantity, as well as hold role important in function operational company (Ahmad, 2015). Companies need to
understand and know the needs of their employees, because employees' living
needs are one of the reasons why they work and stay in a job (Akkas et al., 2015). And if employees'
needs are met, they will be motivated to become better employees (Sabir, 2017). This motivation
causes work performance, especially improving overall company performance (G�lmeanu, 2015).
Motivation is action Which done somebody
For make ends meet Which
Not yet fulfilled in himself. Marquis
And Huston, 2013 in
(Kaawoan et al., 2017). These needs range
from the most basic needs to the highest needs such as necessities physiological, safe And comfortable, social/ Love, award
And self-actualization (Kaawoan et al., 2017). Even though
motivating employees is difficult, a leader must always try to motivate
employees so that the company they lead can progress and develop (Fowler, 2023).
Teamwork according to Bene And Seats in (Daniels et al., 2021) emphasizes
that the major premise in a team is that everyone in the work team must
function as a cooperative and productive player to achieve the desired results.
Teamwork has a significant and
positive effect on performance variables Employee according to Marpung (2014), regarding This based because
Teamwork cannot be separated from the cooperation of employees who are
there to work and employee teamwork is a philosophy based on the idea of life
as values that constitute human character.
The work
environment in a company is very important for management to pay attention to.
The work environment is an important factor and has a big influence on the
company and its employees, where the work environment can improve employee
performance. With a good work environment, employees will feel at home working
in the company (Shammout, 2021).
The physical
work environment in the sense of all conditions that exist around the work
place, and influence employees both directly and indirectly (Cintia & Gilang, 2016). Panjaitan (2017) defines stakeholders as groups or individuals
who are not expressly part of the organizational environment because internal stakeholders are actually
members of the organization, where managers have responsibility for their
interests.
Employee
performance is a description of the level of achievement in implementing an
activity program or policy in realizing the goals, objectives, vision and
mission outlined through an organization's strategic planning. According to Moeheriono(2014), performance as results performance that can be achieved
by a person or group of people in an organization both qualitatively and
quantitatively in accordance with their respective authority, duties and
responsibilities in an effort to achieve the goals of the organization
concerned legally, without violating the law and in accordance with morals and
ethics. Good performance will be achieved if the factors that cause this
performance are well met. There are factors that can influence performance employees viz among them work
motivation, teamwork , and physical
work environment. Employee performance appraisal is the process of evaluating
how well employees do their work when compared to standard operational
procedures that employees must comply with.
PT. Faradi
Pesona Indonesia is a private company engaged in the wholesale clothing
(Fashion) trade. The company has a target of selling 10,000 pcs of its products
within one month, where each activity that workers carry out of course has
different responsibilities and workloads. PT. Faradi Pesona Indonesia, most of
whose employees are engaged in clothing production, graphic design, fashion
designers, and digital teams marketing. And also workers has operating hours for work, namely 08.30 to 17.30 WIB.
In increase
Performance Employee on PT Faradi
Charm Indonesia still seems
to face obstacles making it difficult to achieve organizational goals.
Conditions that are not yet ideal still exist, such as employees who do not
communicate well between individuals and groups, employees who are
uncomfortable with their environment, and employees who do not complete their
work responsibilities. The following is the output
data on employee performance achievements for 2019-2021 PT. Faradi Pesona
Indonesia.
In research Hidayat
(2018), it is explained that
teamwork indirectly influences
employee performance. This research was conducted on all employees at PT. Dunia
Barusa Banda Aceh Branch as many as 170 people. In research Jufrizen (2018), it is explained that
work motivation cannot strengthen or weaken the relationship between work
discipline and employee performance.
In research Adha
et al., (2019), it is explained that
work motivation does not influence positive as well as significant to performance employee. Research This It
was tried on all 32 employees of the Jember Regency Social Service.
To improve
employee performance, work motivation, teamwork
and a physical work environment are needed which can encourage employees to
improve employee performance (Astuti, 2021). Thus, based on the
background, the author raised research, with the title "The Influence of
Work Motivation, Teamwork , and
Physical Work Environment on the Performance of PT Employees. Faradi Pesona
Indonesia�.
This research aims to analyze the influence
of work motivation, teamwork and physical work environment on employee
performance at PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia. By achieving this aim, the research
is expected to contribute to the understanding of these factors in the context
of the company. For companies, this research is useful as a guide to evaluate
the extent to which work motivation, teamwork and the physical work environment
influence employee performance. For academics, this research can be a reference
for further studies regarding work motivation, teamwork, and the physical work
environment in the context of PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia, as well as providing
a general overview for determining research topics. For the author, this
research is an opportunity to compare and apply the knowledge gained during
college in the field of Human Resources Management, especially regarding work
motivation, teamwork, and the physical work environment on employee
performance.
RESEARCH METHOD
This research
focuses on examining the impact of work motivation, teamwork, and the physical
work environment on employee performance. The data for the study were collected
from employees at PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia through questionnaires, with
primary data gathered from respondents and secondary data obtained from
relevant articles, journals, and books. The research population consists of 60
employees, and the sampling method employed is saturated sampling, where the
entire population is included based on certain characteristics or traits. Data
were collected using the Likert scale, and the operational definitions of the
variables are provided. The research involves both descriptive and inferential
analyses, with the latter employing multiple linear regression to assess the
relationship between independent variables (work motivation, teamwork, and
physical work environment) and the dependent variable (employee performance).
The study includes validity and reliability tests, as well as classical
assumption tests, such as normality, multicollinearity, heteroscedasticity, and
autocorrelation. The appropriateness of the model is evaluated using the F-test
and coefficient of determination (R�), and hypothesis testing involves the
t-test to determine the significance of the influence between independent and
dependent variables.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. Research result
1. Results Complete
Research Estimates
a.
Descriptive
Analysis
Table 1. Total Mean Motivation Work (X1)
|
No. |
Statement |
Mean |
|
Motive |
||
|
1 |
I
feel there is satisfaction in being able to do it completing difficult work and achieving work targets |
4.32 |
|
Hope |
||
|
2 |
I capable
use potency self And work independently |
4.43 |
|
3 |
I ���������� feel
�������� motivated ����� to �������� do my work correctly and quickly
according to the target |
4.40 |
|
Incentive |
||
|
4 |
I feel satisfied accept
bonus in accordance with assessment of personal performance
results |
4.33 |
|
5 |
I
get overtime money when I do work after the company's operating hours |
4.43 |
|
Total Mean |
21.90 |
|
|
Average Total Mean
Motivation Work |
4.38 |
|
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
On table
the amount respondents Which fill in questionnaire as much 60 people.
It can be seen that the average respondent assessment of the work motivation
variable, overall, is in the high category, namely 4.38. Statement Which contribute most big to variable motivation work, namely respondents feel there is satisfaction if they are
able to work independently and get overtime pay with a mean of 4.43. This shows
that work motivation influences performance in the company.
Table 2. Total Mean Teamwork
(X2)
|
No. |
Statement |
Mean |
|
Objective
Which The same |
||
|
1 |
Every member
team considered own high
contribution in achieving company goals |
4.52 |
|
Enthusiasm |
||
|
2 |
Every member
team own Spirit
Which equal to the success
of the company |
4.47 |
|
Communication effective _ |
||
|
3 |
Every member
team communicate with
good at carrying out company duties |
4.47 |
|
Role And not quite enough answer Which clear |
||
|
4 |
Each
team member is aware of their respective roles to achieve the targeted goals |
4.58 |
|
Skill Which owned
by members of the group |
||
|
5 |
Every
team member has high awareness direct potency self in achieving goals |
4.60 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total Mean |
22.53 |
|
|
Average Total Mean
Teamwork |
4,506 |
|
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
On table
the amount respondents Which fill in questionnaire as much 60 people.
It can be seen that the average respondent assessment of the teamwork variable,
as a whole, is in the high category, namely 4.506. The statement that
contributed the most to the teamwork variable was that respondents felt that
each team member had a high level of awareness of direction potency
self in reach objective with mean as big as 4.60. This shows
that teamwork influences the achievement of goals in the company.
Table 3.
Total Mean Descriptive Environment Work Physique (X3)
|
No. |
Statement |
Mean |
|
Lighting light at workplace |
||
|
1 |
The
lighting in the work space is quite good and not dazzling so it supports my
work activities |
4.50 |
|
2 |
Atmosphere environment Work I very
support so that I can work better |
4.37 |
|
Temperature
in place Work |
||
|
3 |
In
the room Work company
place I workers are provided with air
conditioning facilities |
4.37 |
|
Security
in place Work |
||
|
4 |
I own flavor safe leave bag in
the work room |
4.40 |
|
5 |
I leave
vehicle I in parking
area the office is quiet |
4.40 |
|
Cleanliness |
||
|
6 |
The
company where I work always applies environmental cleanliness to its employees. |
4.22 |
|
Total Mean |
26.25 |
|
|
Average Total Mean Environment Work
Physique |
4,375 |
|
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
On table
the amount respondents Which fill in questionnaire as much 60 people.
It can be seen that the average respondent assessment of the physical work
environment variable, as a whole, is in the high category, namely 4.375. The
statement that contributed the most to the physical work environment variable
was that respondents felt that the lighting in the work space was good enough
and not dazzling so that it supported work activities with a mean of 4.50. This
shows that the physical work environment influences employee comfort in the
company.
Table 4. Total Mean Performance Employee (Y)
|
No. |
Statement |
Mean |
|
Quantity results Work |
||
|
1 |
I
work for 8 hours and rest 1 hour in
1 day |
4.37 |
|
2 |
I
have the creativity to adapt tasks/work For reach
results Which better _ |
4.38 |
|
Quality results Work |
||
|
3 |
I
am able to be responsible for my duties/work to my boss and co-workers |
4.32 |
|
Efficiency |
||
|
4 |
I ����������� can
������ complete ������������� tasks/work carefully and precisely as
expected |
4.40 |
|
Discipline
Work |
||
|
5 |
Every always
come appropriate time And seldom
once arrived late |
4.27 |
|
Incentive
Ability |
||
|
6 |
I own initiative in carrying
out relatively new tasks/work |
4.33 |
|
Total Mean |
26.07 |
|
|
Average Total Mean Performance Employee |
4,345 |
|
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
On table
the amount respondents Which fill in questionnaire as much 60 people. Can seen that average evaluation respondents to variable
Overall employee performance is included in the high category, namely
4,345. The statement that contributed the most to the employee performance
variable was that respondents felt they could complete tasks/work carefully and
precisely as expected with a mean of 4.40. This shows that there is good
employee performance.
In
conclusion, the independent variable that contributes the most to the dependent
variable is the Teamwork variable with an average total mean of 4.506.
b.
Test Validity
Test Validity
used For know validity questionnaire in collecting data. The validity test was carried out using the
bivariate person correlation formula with SPSS program tools. Questionnaire
items in validity testing said valid If R count > R table
on mark significance 5%. On the other hand, an item is said to be invalid if the
calculated R value < R table at a significance value of 5%. DF value = N-2,
then the DF value is 60. The summary of the validity test results is as per the
data in the following table.
Table 5. Results
Test Validity Questionnaire
|
Variable |
Indicator |
R Count |
R Table 5% (df=60) |
Information |
|
Motivation Work (X1) |
X1.1 |
0.439 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
X1.2 |
0.315 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X1.3 |
0.530 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X1.4 |
0.454 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X1.5 |
0.278 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Teamwork (X2) |
X2.1 |
0.390 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
X2.2 |
0.510 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X2.3 |
0.694 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X2.4 |
0.316 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X2.5 |
0.408 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Work environment Physical(X3) |
X3.1 |
0.646 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
X3.2 |
0.780 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X3.3 |
0.780 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X3.4 |
0.643 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X3.5 |
0.758 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
X3.6 |
0.567 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Employee performance (Y) |
Y.1 |
0.814 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
Y.2 |
0.820 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Y.3 |
0.789 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Y.4 |
0.797 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Y.5 |
0.654 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
|
|
Y.6 |
0.682 |
0.2542 |
VALID |
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
From
this data, all calculated R values > R table at a significance value of 5%. By Because That,
can concluded that all variable
in this research questionnaire
is valid, so it can be used as a research
instrument.
c.
Test Reliability
Reliability
testing is carried out using the alpha
formula . The significant test was carried out at the level a = 0.05 or 5%. Instruments can be said reliable
If mark alpha more
big from mark Cronbach the alpha is 0.6.
Table 6. Results
Reliability Test
|
Variable |
Mark alpha |
Mark Cronbach alpha |
Information |
|
X1 |
0.640 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
X2 |
0.701 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
X3 |
0.880 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Y |
0.914 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
The
reliability test results showed that the reliability coefficient values for
variables X1, X2, X3, and Y had Cronbach alpha values greater than 0.6. Based
on the reliability coefficient value, it can be concluded that all
questionnaires in this study are reliable or consistent, so they can be used as
research instruments.
d.
Test
Classical Assumptions
1)
Test Normality
Base taking decision in Test Normality
KS/Kolmogorov Smirnov namely:
a) If mark significance > 0.05 so distribution from model regression is normal.
b) If the significance value is
<0.05 then the distribution of the regression model is not normal.
Table 7. Normality test
|
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test |
||
|
|
Unstandardized Residuals |
|
|
N |
|
60 |
|
Normal Parameters
a, b |
Mean |
,0000000 |
|
|
Std.
Deviation |
1.24678485 |
|
Most Extreme Differences |
Absolute |
,089 |
|
|
Positive |
,089 |
|
|
Negative |
-
,073 |
|
Test Statistics |
|
,089 |
|
Asymp. Sig.
(2- tailed) |
|
,200 c,d |
|
a. Test distribution is Normal. |
|
|
|
b. Calculated from data. |
|
|
|
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction. |
||
|
d.
This is a lower bound of the true significance. |
||
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
Based
on the results of the normality test, the significance value is 0.200, which
means that the regression model in this study, both the dependent and
independent variables have a normal sample distribution based on the
significance value > a = 0.05. So it
can be said that the distribution of Employee Performance results originating
from Work Motivation, Teamwork and Physical Work Environment is normally
distributed at a significant level of a =
0.05.
2)
Test Multicollinearity
Guidelines something model regression Which
free multicollinearity is to have a tolerance number close to 1.
The VIF limit is 10, if the VIF value is below 10, then there are no symptoms
of multicollinearity (Gujarati, 2012).
Table 8. Results
Multicollinearity Test
|
Coefficients a |
||||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized
Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
Collinearity
Statistics |
|||
|
B |
Std.
Error |
Beta |
Tolerance |
VIF |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
- ,326 |
2,738 |
|
- ,119 |
,906 |
|
|
|
|
Motivation Work |
,177 |
,083 |
,143 |
2,133 |
,037 |
,953 |
1,049 |
|
|
Teamwork |
,185 |
,092 |
,135 |
2,009 |
,049 |
,961 |
1,041 |
|
|
Environment Work Physique |
,699 |
,060 |
,792 |
11,576 |
,000 |
,922 |
1,084 |
|
a. Dependent Variables: Performance Employee |
||||||||
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
In
the table above, it is known that the VIF value for each variable is less than
10 and the tolerance value is more than 0.01. This means that there are no
symptoms of multicollinearity.
3)
Test Heteroscedasticity
Heteroscedasticity
is tested using the Glejser test if one independent variable with another in
the regression model does not lead to heteroscedasticity.
(Situmorang & Lutfi, 2012:101).
Table 9. Results
Heteroscedasticity Test
|
Coefficients a |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
-
1,201 |
1,772 |
|
-
$1,678 |
,501 |
|
|
Motivation Work |
-
,011 |
,054 |
-
$1.026 |
-
$1,200 |
,842 |
|
|
Teamwork |
,118 |
,060 |
,261 |
1,984 |
,052 |
|
|
Environment Physical
Work |
-
,012 |
,039 |
-
,041 |
-
,302 |
,764 |
|
a. Dependent Variables: ABS |
||||||
Source
: Processed by researcher, 2023
Table
9 explains that the results of each independent variable are Work Motivation
(X1), Teamwork (X2), and Work
Environment�
Physique� (X3),� with� use� model� glesjser� obtained significance of more than 0.05, which means the data in
this research can be continued.
4)
Test Autocorrelation
Base taking decision There is
or not autocorrelation is as
follows:
a)
If Du <
d < 4-Du, means No autocorrelation
occurs
b)
If d < dL or d > 4DI means ad autocorrelation
c)
If etc < d < dL or 4-dU < d < 4-dL means doubtful
happen autocorrelation or no
conclusion.
Table 10. Results
Autocorrelation Test
|
Model Summary
b |
|||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
,871 a |
,759 |
,746 |
1,278 |
1,691 |
|
a.
Predictors: (Constant), Environment Work Physique, Teamwork, Motivation Work |
|||||
|
b.
Dependent Variables: Performance Employee |
|||||
Source : Processed by researcher, 2023
It
is known that DU at N = 60 and K = 3 is 1.6889. Then the value of 4-DU =
1.6889. And mark D.L as big as 1.4797 so mark 4-DL as big as 1.4797 In this table,
the DW value is 1,691. If included in the criteria so that obtained results
dU < DW < 4 � dU ( 1.6889
< 1.691 < 1.4797) which
means that the regression model obtained does not have autocorrelation.
2. Test Regression Linear
Multiple
This
method is aimed at determining the linear relationship between several
independent variables (Work Motivation, Teamwork, and Physical Work
Environment) and the dependent variable (Employee Performance). Researchers
used the SPSS software program to obtain more focused results.
Table 11. Results
Test Regression Multiple
Linear
|
Coefficients a |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
- ,326 |
2,738 |
|
- ,119 |
,906 |
|
|
Motivation Work |
,177 |
,083 |
,143 |
2,133 |
,037 |
|
|
Teamwork |
,185 |
,092 |
,135 |
2,009 |
,049 |
|
|
Environment Physical Work |
,699 |
,060 |
,792 |
11,576 |
,000 |
|
a.
Dependent Variables: Performance Employee |
||||||
Source
: Processed by researcher, 2023
Based
on Table 11, it can be seen that the multiple linear regression equation the is
known on column Standardized Coefficient are as follows :
Information :
Y ���������������������� =
Employee Performance (KK) b1,2,3 �������������� = Coefficient Regression
X1 =
Work Motivation (MK)
X2 �������������������� = Teamwork
(TW)
X3 �������������������� = Environment Work Physique (LKF)
So that the equation will become like following :
K.K = 0.154MK1
+ 0.134TW2 + 0.806LKF3
Based
on formula the on so can explained
as following:
Mark coefficient regression Partial variable
motivation Work (X1) as
big as 0.143 with a positive sign , which means that the higher the
employee's work motivation, the employee's performance will increase. The
partial regression coefficient value of the teamwork variable (X2) is 0.135
with sign (sign) positive
Which means the more
Good teamwork in work, employee performance will get
better and increase.
Mark coefficient Partial variable environment Work physique (X3) as
big as 0.792 with sign (sign) positive Which means
that the more Good physical
work environment that employees get, employee performance will increase.
3. Test Appropriateness Model
a. Test F
Criteria taking decision as follows:
Ho : b 1 , b 2 = 0 (No there
is influence Which positive And significant jointly from all independent
variables to the dependent variable)
H1 : b 1 , b 2 ≠ 0 (there is a
positive and significant influence together from all independent
variables on the dependent variable).
Table 12.
Results F test
|
ANOVA a |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
288,019 |
3 |
96,006 |
58,621 |
,000 b |
|
|
Residual |
91,714 |
56 |
1,638 |
||
|
|
Total |
379,733 |
59 |
|
||
|
a.
Dependent Variables: Performance Employee |
||||||
|
b.
Predictors: (Constant), Environment Work Physique, Teamwork, Motivation Work |
||||||
Source
: Processed by researcher, 2023
These
results can be explained that the calculated F value is 58.621 with a sig value
of 0.000. Based on the results of calculations assisted by the SPSS 23 program,
the value sig = (0.000) is obtained which is smaller than the alpha or error
limit level obtained, namely 5% ( a =
0.05). Model said significant Because under limit mark alpha which is determined 0,000 < 0.05. Can withdrawn
conclusion that in In
this research, the model is said to be significant and suitable for use in this
research based on the sig value obtained. That all independent variables can
explain any changes in the value of the dependent variable because they have a
significant influence.
b. Coefficient Determination (R�)
The
coefficient of determination (R2) is used to measure the proportion or
percentage of the model's ability to explain the dependent variable. The
coefficient of determination ranges from zero to 1 (0 ≤ R2 ≥ 1)
Table 13. Results
Coefficient determination (R2)
|
Model Summary |
||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
,871 a |
,758 |
,746 |
1,280 |
|
a.
Predictors: (Constant), Environment Work Physique, Teamwork, Motivation Work |
||||
Source
: Processed by researcher, 2023
Based
on the table above, it is known that the coefficient of determination or R square
is 0.758 or equal to 75.8%. This shows that the percentage influence of the
independent variables (work motivation, teamwork variables, physical work
environment) on the dependent variable (performance employee) as big as 75.8%. Whereas the rest
(100% - 75.8% = 24.2%) influenced by variables outside this regression
equation or variables not studied.
4. Testing Hypothesis Test t
Test
criteria are set based on probability. If the significance level used is 5
percent, in other words if it is a probability
Ha>0.05 stated No significant, And If Probability Ha < 0.05 so stated
significant (Ghozali, 2018). Decision making criteria:
H0 is accepted If t
count < t table at α = 5%Ha accepted
If t count > t table at α = 5%
Table 14. Results
t test
|
Coefficients a |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
- ,326 |
2,738 |
|
- ,119 |
,906 |
|
|
Motivation Work |
,177 |
,083 |
,143 |
2,133 |
,037 |
|
|
Teamwork |
,185 |
,092 |
,135 |
2,009 |
,049 |
|
|
Environment Physical Work |
,699 |
,060 |
,792 |
11,576 |
,000 |
|
a.
Dependent Variables: Performance Employee |
||||||
Source: Processed by researcher, 2023
Based
on table 14 can is known
explanation hypothesis on This
research is as follows:
a. In these results, the Work
Motivation variable (X1) t value is 2.133, so the T value is (2.133) and is
significant 0.037 < a = 0.05. So H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted so that
it can be concluded that work motivation has a positive and significant effect
on employee performance.
b. In these results, the Teamwork
variable (X2) t value is 2.009, so the T value is (2.009) and significant 0.049 < a = 0.05. So H0
is rejected and H1 is accepted so that it can be concluded that Teamwork has a
positive and significant effect on Employee Performance.
c. In these results, the Physical
Work Environment variable (X3) t value is 11.576, so the T value is (11.576)
and is significant 0.000 < a = 0.05. So H0 rejected And H1 accepted
so that can conclusion that
Discussion
A. Influence Motivation Work To Performance Employee PT Faradi
Pesona Indonesia
Based
on the results of hypothesis testing, the results obtained show that work
motivation has a positive and significant effect on performance Employee
PT Faradi Charm Indonesia. Based
on from the results of hypothesis testing, it was
found that Work Motivation has a value of 2.133 with a significant value of
0.037 where this value is below 0.05.
This
positive and significant influence indicates that increasing work motivation
can influence the increase in employee performance at PT Faradi Pesona
Indonesia. This is also proven by the coefficient value of 0.143, which means
that if it increases Good Motivation Work Which applied
so the more Good also
employee performance.
Based on the results of
distributing the Work Motivation questionnaire (X 1 ) as a whole, it
was identified that Work Motivation received a good score. The largest mean
obtained from the second and fifth statements was 4.43 namely "feeling satisfaction if you are able to work
independently and get overtime pay"
B. Influence Teamwork To Performance Employee
PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia
Based
on the results of hypothesis testing, the results obtained are that Teamwork influential positive And significant to PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia Employee
Performance. Based on the results of hypothesis testing, it was found that Teamwork
has a value of 2.009 with a significant value of 0.049, where this value is
below 0.05.
This
positive and significant influence indicates that increasing teamwork can
influence the increase in employee performance at PT Faradi Pesona Indonesia.
This is also proven by the coefficient value of 0.135, which means that the
better the teamwork that is implemented, the better the employee performance
will be.
Based
on the results of distributing the Teamwork questionnaire (X 2 ) as a whole identify
that Teamwork get value _ Good. From mean biggest obtained from statement fifth
of 4.60 namely "Every member has a high awareness of directing their own
potential in achieving goals"
C. Influence Environment Work Physique To PT
Faradi Pesona Indonesia Employee Performance
Based
on the results of hypothesis testing, the results obtained show that the
physical work environment has a positive and significant effect on performance Employee
PT Faradi Charm
Indonesia. Based on from the
results of hypothesis testing, it was found that the Physical Work Environment
had a value of 11.962 with a significant value of 0.000, where this value was
below 0.05.
This
positive and significant influence indicates that improving the Physical Work
Environment can influence improvement PT
Faradi Pesona Employee Performance Indonesia. This is also proven by the coefficient
value of 0.806, which means that the better the physical work environment
implemented, the better the employee performance will be.
Based
on results spread questionnaire Environment Work Physical (X 3 ) overall identifies
that the Physical Work Environment gets a good score. The largest mean
obtained from the first statement is 4.50 namely
"The lighting in the work space is good enough and not dazzling so it
supports my work activities".
