The
Influence of Democratic Leadership Style, Physical Work Environment and
Extrinsic Motivation on Employees’ Performance at PT. Mayasari Bakti Jakarta
Andri Wibowo1, Herry Krisnandi2,
Kumba Digdowiseiso3*
1,2,3 Faculty
of Economics, Universitas Nasional, Indonesia
Email: 1[email protected]@gmail.com,
2[email protected], 3*[email protected],
ABSTRACT
This
research aims to analyze the influence of democratic leadership style, physical
work environment and extrinsic motivation on the performance of PT employees.
Mayasari Bakti in Jakarta. This research data uses primary data in the form of
a questionnaire to 110 respondents who work at PT. Mayasari Bakti using the
multiple linear regression method which was processed using SPSS 17.0 software.
From data that has met the validity test, reliability test and classical
assumption test, the following regression equation is obtained: Y =5,823+
0,316X1+0,252X2+0,257X3. Where are the employee performance decision variables
(Y), democratic leadership style (X1), physical work environment (X2) and
extrinsic motivation (X3). From the model feasibility test, it shows that the
three independent variables studied are proven to have a positive effect on the
dependent variable together. Through partial hypothesis testing, it can be seen
that democratic leadership style, physical work environment and extrinsic
motivation are proven to each have a positive influence on purchasing
decisions, namely 55.60%, meaning that 55.60% of the dependent variable of
employee performance can be explained by the independent variable, namely
leadership style. Democratic, physical work environment and extrinsic
motivation. Meanwhile, the remaining 44.40% is explained by other variables
that were not included in this research.
Keywords:
democratic leadership style, physical work environment, extrinsic motivation
and employee performance.
INTRODUCTION
In order to achieve
goals, every organization requires management related to efforts to improve
organizational effectiveness. Human resource management has an important role
in realizing organizational ideals. Human resource management is a recognition
of the importance of the human element in providing maximum contribution to the
company (Juliansyah Noor, 2013:1).
Democratic
leadership is leadership based on democracy, the implementation of which is
called participatory leadership. Participatory leadership is a method of
leadership whose strength lies in the active participation of each employee or
member of the organization.
Furthermore,
the physical work environment also influences employee performance. According
to(Alex.
S. Nitisemito, 2002: 183). The physical work environment is everything around
workers that can influence them in carrying out assigned tasks, for example
lighting, air temperature, space for movement, security, cleanliness, music and
so on (Alex. S. Nitisemito, 2002: 183). The work environment must be in
accordance with the needs of the employee so that the employee can be more
optimal in completing tasks.
Performance
is also influenced by extrinsic motivation. According to AM Sardiman (2005:90)
extrinsic motivation is motives that are active and function due to external stimuli.
Meanwhile, Rosjidan, et al (2001:51) consider extrinsic motivation to be
motivation whose goals lie outside of knowledge, that is, they are not
contained in the action itself.
And toexpect better
changes to the company's performance, therefore PT. Mayasari Bakti must always
improve its performance. PT. Mayasari Bakti has a problem phenomenon, namely
fluctuating income from 2013-2015 as follows:
Table 1. PT Income Report. Mayasari Bakti
2013-2015
|
No |
Bus There Is |
Month |
Income |
||
|
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
|||
|
1 |
325 |
January
13 |
4,759,743,821 |
3,203,479,528 |
3,551,029,133 |
|
2 |
327 |
February
13 |
4,487,230,258 |
2,906,863,360 |
3,485,500,816 |
|
3 |
323 |
March 13 |
5,390,911,608 |
3,292,973,327 |
3,900,330,927 |
|
4 |
323 |
April 13 |
4,755,161,882 |
3,395,397,674 |
3,649,345,265 |
|
5 |
325 |
May 13 |
4,942,081,475 |
3,499,748,806 |
3,891,659,563 |
|
6 |
327 |
June 13 |
4,702,767,964 |
3,569,487,253 |
3,978,709,673 |
|
7 |
327 |
July 13 |
3,903,770,793 |
3,754,911,897 |
3,016,362,673 |
|
8 |
307 |
August
13 |
4,340,736,207 |
2,995,658,135 |
3,743,142,459 |
|
9 |
307 |
September |
4,193,256,701 |
3,408,898,008 |
4,461,674,758 |
|
10 |
307 |
October
13 |
4,395,143,855 |
3,570,150,571 |
3,144,414,574 |
|
11 |
308 |
November |
4,165,644,754 |
3,617,493,043 |
5,010,298,744 |
|
12 |
308 |
December
13 |
4,326,241,068 |
3,885,953,341 |
5,411,881,596 |
|
TOTAL |
54,362,690,386 |
41,101,014,943 |
47.244.350.181 |
||
Source: PT.
MayasariBakti (Finance Department)
Table 2. Increase/Decrease in 2013-2015
|
No |
Income |
|||||
|
2013 |
2014 |
% |
2014 |
2015 |
% |
|
|
1 |
4,759,743,821 |
3,203,479,528 |
(33) |
3,203,479,528 |
3,551,029,133 |
11 |
|
2 |
4,487,230,258 |
2,906,863,360 |
(32) |
2,906,863,360 |
3,485,500,816 |
20 |
|
3 |
5,390,911,608 |
3,292,973,327 |
(39) |
3,292,973,327 |
3,900,330,927 |
18 |
|
4 |
4,755,161,882 |
3,395,397,674 |
(28) |
3,395,397,674 |
3,649,345,265 |
7 |
|
5 |
4,942,081,475 |
3,499,748,806 |
(29) |
3,499,748,806 |
3,891,659,563 |
11 |
|
6 |
4,702,767,964 |
3,569,487,253 |
(24) |
3,569,487,253 |
3,978,709,673 |
11 |
|
7 |
3,903,770,793 |
3,754,911,897 |
(3) |
3,754,911,897 |
3,016,362,673 |
(20) |
|
8 |
4,340,736,207 |
2,995,658,135 |
(30) |
2,995,658,135 |
3,743,142,459 |
25 |
|
9 |
4,193,256,701 |
3,408,898,008 |
(19) |
3,408,898,008 |
4,461,674,758 |
31 |
|
10 |
4,395,143,855 |
3,570,150,571 |
(19) |
3,570,150,571 |
3,144,414,574 |
(12) |
|
11 |
4,165,644,754 |
3,617,493,043 |
(13) |
3,617,493,043 |
5,010,298,744 |
38 |
|
12 |
4,326,241,068 |
3,885,953,341 |
(10) |
3,885,953,341 |
5,411,881,596 |
39 |
|
Total |
54,362,690,386 |
41,101,014,943 |
(24) |
41,101,014,943 |
47.244.350.181 |
15 |
Source:
PT. Mayasari Bakti (Processed)
The data on this
phenomenon turns out to be the cause of poor employee performance, which causes
fluctuations in income. Based on the results of an interview with one of the
officials at the company PT. Mayasari Bakti is the occurrence of performance
appraisals that are not in accordance with targets influenced by factors such
as leadership style, physical work environment and extrinsic motivation of
employees at the PT Mayasari Bakti. Based on this description, the author is
interested in conducting research with the title "The Influence of
Democratic Leadership Style, Physical Work Environment and Extrinsic Motivation
on Employee Performance at PT. Mayasari Bakti"
Based on the background
of the problem above, the objectives of the research are; (1) knowing and
analyzing the magnitude of the influence of democratic leadership style on the
performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti 2013-2015, (2) knowing and
analyzing the magnitude of the influence of the physical work environment on
the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti 2013-2015, and (3) knowing and
analyzing the magnitude of the influence of extrinsic motivation on the
performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti 2013-2015.
RESEARCH METHOD
In this
research, the object of research is the influence of democratic leadership
style, physical work environment and extrinsic motivation on employee
performance at PT. Mayasari Bakti Jakarta. The type of data used in this
research is primary data. Primary data is data obtained directly from
respondents. Especially data generated based on respondents' answers to
questionnaires at PT. Mayasari Bakti. Primary data is data obtained directly
from respondents' answers through distributing questionnaires using a Likert
Scale.
According to Sugiyono (2014:80) Population is a generalized area
consisting of objects or subjects that have certain qualities and
characteristics determined by researchers to be studied and then conclusions
drawn. The population used in this research was all employees of PT.Mayasari
Bakti, totaling 151 employees.
Determining the sample size can be done by statistical calculations, namely
by using the Slovin Formula. The Slovin formula is used to determine the sample
size from a known population of 110 employees. Slovin's formula:
Information :
n = Sample size
N = Population size
e = Allowance for inaccuracy due to tolerable sampling error, then
squared.
Based on the Slovin Formula, the size of the research sample size is:
n =
Based on the results of these calculations, the sample obtained was 110
respondents.
The general
approach used in this research is purposive sampling, where purposive sampling
is a technique for determining samples with certain considerations so that the
data obtained later can be more representative (Sugiyono, 2011: 84). Sampling
quotas is a technique for determining a sample from a population that has
certain characteristics up to the desired number (quota) (Sugiyono, 2001: 60).
Descriptive
Analysis Method
Descriptive analysis,
namely providing an empirical description or description of the data collected
in the research (Ferdinand, 2013:72).
Inferential Analysis Method
Inferential analysis
is a technique used to analyze sample data and the results are applied to the
population (Sugiyono, 2013: 103).
Multiple Linear
Regression Analysis
This analysis is used
to predict changes in the value of certain variables when other variables
change. According to Sugiyono (2006:210), the multiple linear regression
equation is used with the following formula:
Y = α + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + e
Information:
Y =Employee performance
a =
Constant
b1, b2, and b3 = Regression Coefficient
X1 = Democratic Leadership Style
X2 = Physical Work Environment
X3 = Extrinsic Motivation
e =
Error/mistake
Instrument Testing
Validity
test
According to Sugiyono (2012: 455), validity is
the degree of accuracy between the actual data on the research object and the
data reported by the researcher.
Reliability Test
Reliability
is a tool for measuring a questionnaire which is an indicator for indicators of
variables.
Classic
assumption test
Normality
test
The normality test is used to test whether in
the regression model, the two variables (independent and dependent) have a
normal distribution or at least close to normal (Umar, 2013: 77).
Multicollinearity
Test
The multicollinearity
test is useful for finding out whether in the proposed regression model a
strong correlation has been found between the independent variables. If there
is a strong correlation, there is a multicollinearity problem that must be
overcome (Umar, 2013: 80).
Autocorrelation
Test
The autocorrelation test is useful for finding
out whether in a linear regression model there is a strong relationship between
one observation and another. Priyatno (2009:61) autocorrelation is where there
is a correlation of the residuals for other observations arranged according to
a time series.
Heteroscedasticity Test
The heteroscedasticity
test aims to find out whether the variation in residual data from one
observation to another is different or constant. If the variation of the
residual data is the same it is called homoscedasticity and if it is different
it is called heteroscedasticity. A good regression model is homoscedastic.
Model
Feasibility Test
F Test
This test is used to
determine the joint influence of the independent variables on the dependent
variable.
Coefficient of
Determination (R2)
The coefficient of
determination (R2) essentially measures how far a model is able to explain
variations in the dependent variable (Ghozali, 2011: 97).
Hypothesis
Testing (T Test)
This test is used to
determine the significance of the influence of the independent variable on the
dependent variable individually and assumes the other dependent variables are
constant.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Multiple
Linear Regression Analysis
In
calculating the regression coefficient in this study using SPSS 17.0, the results
of the regression calculation are as follows:
Table 1. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
5,823 |
2,541 |
|
2,291 |
.024 |
|
Democratic Leadership Style |
,316 |
,096 |
,343 |
3,295 |
,001 |
|
|
Physical Work Environment |
,252 |
,063 |
,278 |
4,002 |
,000 |
|
|
Extrinsic Motivation |
,257 |
,092 |
,292 |
2,776 |
,007 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Source: Processed data
(SPSS 17.0)
Based on table 1 above regarding the regression
coefficients, it can be seen that the multiple linear regression equation is as
follows:
Y
=5,823+ 0,316X1+0,252X2+0,257X3
The regression equation shows a constant of5, 823and it can be explained that:
a)
A constant of5, 823states
that if the democratic leadership style (X1), physical work environment (X2)
and extrinsic motivation (X3) are constant (do not change), then the employee's
performance score is positive by5, 823with
standard error 2,541.
b)
The democratic leadership style variable (X1)
has a regression coefficient of 0,316This
means that if the democratic leadership style score is increased by 1 unit, the
employee's performance score will increase by 0,316units
with a standard error of 0,096.
c)
The physical work environment variable (X2)
has a regression coefficient of 0,252meaning
that if the physical work environment score is increased by 1 unit, the
employee's performance score will increase by 0,252units
with a standard error of 0,063.
d)
The extrinsic motivation variable (X3) has a
regression coefficient of 0,257meaning that if
the extrinsic motivation score is increased by 1 unit, the employee's
performance score will increase by 0,257units
with a standard error of 0,092.
Of the
three independent variables, namely democratic leadership style, physical work
environment and extrinsic motivation have a positive influence on employee
performance at PT. Mayasari Bakti. Thus, if the democratic leadership style,
physical work environment and extrinsic motivation increase, employee
performance variables will increase.
Instrument
Test
Validity test
Table 2. Validity Test Results
|
Variable |
Item Number |
r Count |
r Table |
Decision |
|
Democratic
Leadership Style (X1) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
0.339 0.514 0.496 0.494 0.397 0.460 0.275 0.415 |
0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 |
Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid |
|
Physical Work
Environment (X2) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
0.540 0.525 0.414 0.583 0.548 0.461 0.439 0.501 |
0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 |
Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid |
|
Extrinsic Motivation
(X3) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
0.339 0.514 0.496 0.494 0.397 0.460 0.275 0.415 |
0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 |
Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid |
|
Employee Performance
(Y) |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |
0.609 0.501 0.373 0.283 0.462 0.381 0.232 0.248 |
0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 0.185 |
Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid |
Source:
Processed data (SPSS 17.0)
From calculations
using SPSS 17.0, the data tested on 110 respondents stated that all statement
items 1-32 for the variables democratic leadership style, physical work
environment, extrinsic motivation and employee performance were valid. This can
be seen from the calculation results with the table above, that the calculated
r is greater than the r table (0.185).
Reliability
Test
Table 3. Reliability
Test Results
|
Variable |
Cronbach Alpha |
Limitation |
Decision |
|
Democratic
Leadership Style (X1) |
0.725 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Physical
Work Environment (X2) |
0.790 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Extrinsic
Motivation (X3) |
0.725 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
|
Employee
Performance (Y) |
0.694 |
0.6 |
Reliable |
Source: Processed data (SPSS 17.0)
From table 3, it can
be seen that the Cronbach Alpha value for the four variables is above 0.6.
Because these values are greater than 0.6, the measuring instrument values
are reliable or meet the reliability requirements.
Classic assumption test
Normality
test
Table 4. Normality Test Results
|
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test |
||
|
|
|
Unstandardized Residuals |
|
N |
110 |
|
|
Normal Parameters,, b |
Mean |
.0000000 |
|
Std. Deviation |
2.05307551 |
|
|
Most Extreme Differences |
Absolute |
,047 |
|
Positive |
,044 |
|
|
Negative |
-.047 |
|
|
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z |
,490 |
|
|
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) |
,970 |
|
|
a. Test distribution is Normal. |
||
|
b. Calculated from data. |
||
Source: Processed data (SPSS 17.0)
If the
results of the One Sample Kolmogorof Smirnov test are significant less than
0.05 then it is stated that the data is not normally distributed, but if the
significance value is more than 0.05 then the data is normally distributed.
Multicollinearity
Test
Table 5. Multicollinearity Test Results
Coefficientsa
|
Collinearity Statistics |
||
|
Tolerance |
VIF |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
,387 |
2,587 |
|
|
,867 |
1,153 |
|
|
,379 |
2,641 |
|
Source:
Processed data (SPSS 17.0)
Based on table 5 Coefficients
above, it is known that the calculated VIF for a democratic leadership style is
(X1) =2,587Calculated VIF for the physical
work environment (X2) =1,153and calculated VIF
for extrinsic motivation (X3) =2,641These
values show a value smaller than 10, so it can be concluded that the regression
equation model does not contain multicollinearity and can be used in this
research, because each variable has a number below 10.
Heteroscedasticity
Test
Figure 1. Scatterplot Graphics
Based on the
scatterplot above, it can be seen that the points spread in an unclear pattern
above and below the number 0 on the Y axis, so in the regression model there is
no heteroscedasticity problem.
Autocorrelation Test
Table 6.
Autocorrelation Test Results
|
Model |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
1,864 |
Source: Processed
data (SPSS 17.0)
Based on
the results of the autocorrelation test in table 6, it is known that the
Durbin-Watson value =1,864compared to the
Durbin-Watson table value using a significant 5% sample size of 110 (n) and the
number of independent variables 3 (k=3), then in the Durbin-Watson table the
values obtained are dL = 1.633 and dU = 1.745. Because the Durbin-Watson
value of 1.864 is greater than the limit (dU) of 1.745 and less than 4-1.745 =
2.255 (4-dU), this is in accordance with the performance criteria, namely dU
< DW < 4-dU (1.745<1,864<2.255),
then Durbin-Watson is located between dU and 4-dU, so it can be concluded that
there is not a strong relationship between the data (autocorrelation).
Model
Feasibility Test
F test
Table 7. F test
|
ANOVAb |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
576,407 |
3 |
192.136 |
44,328 |
,000a |
|
Residual |
459,448 |
106 |
4,334 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
1035.855 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Extrinsic Motivation, Physical Work Environment, Democratic Leadership Style |
||||||
|
b. Dependent Variable:
Performance |
||||||
Source: Processed data (SPSS 17.0)
From the calculations
in table 7 above, it can be seen that the Fcount value is 44,328 with a
significance level of 0.000. The Ftable value is obtained from the residual
degrees of freedom (df) which is 106 as the denominator df and the Regression
(treatment) df which is 3 as the numerator df with a significance level of 5%
so that the Ftable value (α = 5%) is 2.69 because the value Fcount is greater
than Ftable (44.328 > 2.69) with a significance level of 0.000 < 0.05, so
it can be concluded that the independent variable is able to explain the
dependent variable.
Coefficient
of Determination (R2)
Results
Table 8. Coefficient
of Determination Results
|
Model Summary b |
|||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the Estimate |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
.746a |
,556 |
,544 |
2,082 |
1,864 |
|
a. Predictors: (Constant),
Extrinsic Motivation, Physical Work Environment, Democratic Leadership Style |
|||||
|
b. Dependent Variable:
Performance |
|||||
Source:
SPSS 17.0 Processed Results
In table 8 it is shown
that the R Square value is 0.556. Based on these values, it can be seen that
55.60% of the variation in the dependent variable is the performance of PT
employees. Mayasari Bakti can be explained by a combination of independent
variables, namely democratic leadership style, physical work environment and
extrinsic motivation. Meanwhile, the remaining 44.40% can be explained or
explained by other factors that were not studied.
Hypothesis
Testing (t Test)
Table 9. t test
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
5,823 |
2,541 |
|
2,291 |
.024 |
|
Democratic Leadership Style |
,316 |
,096 |
,343 |
3,295 |
,001 |
|
|
Physical Work Environment |
,252 |
,063 |
,278 |
4,002 |
,000 |
|
|
Extrinsic Motivation |
,257 |
,092 |
,292 |
2,776 |
,007 |
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Source:
SPSS 17.0 Processed Results
Based on table 9, it can be concluded that the results of
the t test are as follows:
1)
The democratic leadership style variable (X1)
has a t count of3,295with a significance level
of 0.001 (0.001 < 0.05), Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that
the democratic leadership style variable has a positive and significant effect
on the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti.
2)
The physical work environment variable (X2)
has a tcount of 4.002 with a significance level of 0.000 (0.000 < 0.05), so
Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that the physical work
environment variable has a positive and significant effect on the performance
of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti.
3)
The extrinsic motivation variable (X3) has a t
count of 2.776 with a significance level of 0.007 (0.007 < 0.05), so Ho is
rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that the extrinsic motivation variable
has a positive and significant effect on the performance of PT Mayasari Bakti
employees.
Discussion
Based on the results of the research carried out, the
following standardized coefficients were obtained:
Table
10. Order of Influential Variables
|
No |
Variable |
Standardized Coefficients |
|
1 |
Democratic
Leadership Style |
0.343 |
|
2 |
Physical Work
Environment |
0.278 |
|
3 |
Extrinsic
Motivation |
0.292 |
Source:
SPSS 17.0 Processed Results
The results of table 10
show the sequence of influential variables. It can be seen that the democratic
leadership style is 0.343, while the physical work environment variable is
0.278 and the extrinsic motivation variable is 0.292. In this research, it can
be seen that the largest Standardized Coefficients Beta is found in the
democratic leadership style variable, which means that democratic leadership
style needs to be paid most attention to in order to improve the performance of
PT employees. Mayasari Bakti.
The Influence of Democratic
Leadership Style on Employee Performance
Based on
the research results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence of
the Democratic Leadership Style on the performance of PT employees. Mayasari
Bakti, meaning that the democratic leadership style can be used as a basis for
predicting the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti. This shows that the
performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti is influenced by the democratic
leadership style applied at PT. Mayasari Bakti Jakarta.
According to Rivai (2008:56) this type of leadership places humans as
the main and most important factor in every group or organization. Leaders view
and place the people they lead as subjects who have personalities with various
aspects like themselves.
So,
based on the regression test, the democratic leadership style variable (X1) is
0.343, meaningIf
the democratic work leadership style increases, employee performance will
increase by 0.343assuming other independent variables
have constant values. If the value is positive, it means that there is a
positive influence between democratic leadership style and employee
performance.The t test results show that the significant value is 0.011
<0.05, which means that democratic leadership style has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance.
The results of this
research are in accordance with the results of research conducted by Ari Cahyo
Suminar M. Djudi Mukzam Ika Ruhana (2015) which shows that a democratic
leadership style has a positive effect on employee performance.
The
Influence of the Physical Work Environment on Employee Performance
Based on the research
results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence between the
physical work environments on the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti,
meaning that the physical work environment can be used as a basis for
motivating the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti. This shows that the
performance of PT. Mayasari Bakti is influenced by the physical work
environment of an employee or group of employees.
According to
Sedarmayanti (2009:26), namely all physical conditions found around the
workplace which can affect employees either directly or indirectly.So, based on the variable regression testphysical
work environment(X2) is 0,278, It meansIf the physical work environment improves,
employee performance will increase by 0.278assuming
other independent variables have constant values. If the value is positive, it
means there is a positive influence betweenphysical work environmentwith employee performance.The t test results show
that the significant value is 0.001 < 0.05, which means that intrinsic
motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.
The
results of this research are in accordance with the results of research
conducted bySiti Untari (2014) which showsthat physical work environment variables have a positive
and significant effect on employee performance.
The Effect
of Extrinsic Motivation on Employee Performance
Based on the research
results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence between extrinsic
motivations on the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti, meaning that
the management of extrinsic motivation can be used as a basis for predicting
the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti. This shows that the
performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti.
According
to Hasibuan (2007:219), motivation is the provision of driving force that
creates enthusiasm for someone's work, so that they are willing to work
together, effectively and integrate with all their efforts to achieve
satisfaction.
Work
motivation in management is only proposed to human resources in general and
subordinates in particular and questions how to direct the power and potential
of subordinates to successfully achieve and realize predetermined goals. In
other words, extrinsic motivation for employees is really needed, because the
company's goals will be difficult to achieve if there is no extrinsic
motivation.
So, based
on the variable regression testextrinsic motivation(X3)
is 0,292, It meansif extrinsic
motivation increases, employee performance will increase by 0.292assuming other independent variables have constant values.
If the value is positive, it means there is a positive influence betweenextrinsic
motivationwith employee performance.The t test
results show that the significant value is 0.001 <0.05, which means that
extrinsic motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee
performance.
The
results of this research are in accordance with the results of research
conducted by AA
Gede Oka Pramadita, Ida Bagus Ketut Surya (2015) which states that extrinsic motivation has a positive effect on
employee performance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of
research and discussion regarding the influence of Democratic Leadership Style,
Physical Work Environment and Extrinsic Motivation on PT Employee Performance.
Mayasari Bakti, the research results can be concluded that; (1) democratic
Leadership Style has a positive and significant effect on PT Employee
Performance. Mayasari Bakti, (2) the
physical work environment has a positive and significant effect on PT employee
performance. Mayasari Bakti, (3) extrinsic
Motivation has a positive and significant effect on PT Employee Performance.
Mayasari Bakti, and (4) based on the results of the coefficient of determination
(R2), democratic leadership style, physical work environment and extrinsic
motivation influence the performance of PT employees. Mayasari Bakti as many as55.6% and the remainder is influenced by other
factors.
This article is a part
of joint research and publication between Faculty of Economics and Business,
Universitas Nasional, Jakarta and Faculty of Business, Economics, and Social
Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu.
REFERENCES
Arikunto, S. 2010. Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan
Praktik. (Edisi Revisi). Jakarta : Rineka Cipta.
Ghozali, I. 2012. Aplikasi Analisis
Multivariate dengan Program IBM SPSS 20. Cet. VI. Semarang: UNDIP.
Hermawan, A. 2012. Komunikasi Pemasaran. Jakarta :Erlangga.
Kotler, P. dan K. L. Keller. 2012. Marketing Management. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Jilid 2.
Terjemahan B. Sabran. 2013. Manajemen
Pemasaran. Edisi 13. Erlangga: Jakarta.
Sugihartono, J. 2009.
Analisis Pengaruh Citra, Kualitas Layanan dan Kepuasan Terhadap Loyalitas
Pelanggan (studi kasuspada PT. Pupuk Kalimantan Timur, Sales representative kabupaten Grobongan). Skripsi. Tesis S2 Program Studi Magister
Manajemen, Universitas Diponegoro.
Sugiono. 2010. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan dan Pendekatan
Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D.
Bandung : Alfabeta.
________. 2013. Metodologi Penelitian Bisnis. Alfabeta. Bandung.
Zeithaml, V. A dan M.
J. Bitner. 2008. Service Marketing. The Mcgraw Hill Companies. Journal of marketing, vol. 125-130.
|
Copyright holder: Andri Wibowo, Herry Krisnandi, Kumba Digdowiseiso (2024) |
|
First publication right: |
|
This article is licensed under:
|
