The aim of this research is to analyze how much influence democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline have on individual employee performance. This research was conducted at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta. This research data uses primary data in the form of a questionnaire to 100 respondents at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry using the multiple linear regression method which was processed using SPSS 17.0 software. The research results show in partial testing the influence of democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline on employee performance. Between Democratic Leadership Style (X1), Intrinsic Motivation (X2) and Work Discipline (X3) on Employee Performance (Y) shows a positive and significant influence. This shows that the three independent variables, namely democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline have influenced Y. The determination test result is 0.608, this shows that the variables democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline contribute 60.8% to the employees’ performance of PT Pangansari Utama Food Industry. This shows that there are still other factors that account for 39.2% of employee performance. The magnitude of this influence is PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta must pay more attention to democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline to improve the employees’ performance of PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

Keywords: Democratic Leadership Style, Intrinsic Motivation, Work Discipline And Employee Performance

INTRODUCTION

Human resources are an element in an organization that has an important role where an organization depends on the roles carried out by the people within it. An organization will find it difficult to achieve its goals without the support of organizational members. Organizational activities will not run without the involvement of the human element within it. The element of control is in humans, so that in the end compared to other factors, humans are the element that most determines the success or failure of an organization in carrying out various activities in order to achieve the organization's goals and various targets.

Democratic leadership always looks to try to take advantage of everyone it leads. Organization members are given the opportunity to participate in every activity. This participation is adjusted to the position and level and type of ability of each member of the organization. Apart from that, decision making in this type of democratic leadership places great importance on deliberation, so that in implementing each decision no member feels forced.

Intrinsic motivation arises from the individual himself without any coercion or encouragement from other people, but based on his own will. Intrinsic motivation is a work driver that originates from within the worker as an individual in the form of awareness of the importance or benefits or meaning of the work he or she carries out.

Work discipline is a person's awareness and willingness to obey all applicable regulations and social norms. The importance of work discipline in an organization or company is useful for employees to comply with existing regulations, procedures and policies, so that they can produce good performance. The higher a person's work discipline, the higher the performance and work achievements he or she can achieve.

The phenomenon that occurs at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, whether the performance of both management and employees is good or not is seen or measured by whether or not a target has been achieved by management. In this case, looking at the sales data table at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industrybelow this.

Table 1. Heat & Eat Sales Data 2015-2016

Month	2015 (In Pcs)		%	2016 (In Pcs)		%
Month	Sales Targets	Sale	%	Sales Targets	Sale	%
January	11,612	9,496	81.8	10,114	7,912	78.2
February	13,533	11,498	85	12,525	10,275	82
March	12,511	10,388	83	11,510	8,271	71.8
April	13,854	12,818	92.5	12,805	8,942	69.8
May	14,595	13,457	92.2	12,513	9,261	74
June	14,545	11,594	79.9	13,533	9,463	69.9
July	14,581	11,034	75.7	13,596	8,825	64.9
August	13,641	12,504	91.7	12,641	11,589	91.7
Amount	108,872	92,788	85.2	99,237	74,538	75.1

Source: PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry

From table 1 it can be seen that in 2015 the sales target of PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry achieved a percentage of 85.2% because of the total sales target the desired amount was 108,872 pcs while only 92,788 pcs were achieved starting from January 2015 to August 2015. Meanwhile in 2016 it was far from what was expected. Only achieved a percentage of 75.1% or with a total sales target of 99,237pcs which was only achieved with sales of 74,538pcs. This shows that sales data is still far from expectations, this situation must not continue if the company wants to remain on the expected target. In the future, companies must pay more attention to employees, especially in the sales department, and then need to pay attention to how the sales targets can be achieved as expected. All of this can of course be realized by paying attention to various aspects around employees, such as a democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and working discipline that supports the production process and is supported by the quantity of work, quality of work and timeliness in completing each job, because employees in the sales department has duties in the field, namely offering products in shops or nearby agents.

Based on the problem formulation in the previous sub-chapter, the objectives and research are; (1) to analyze the influence of the Democratic Leadership Style on employee performance at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta, (2) to analyze the influence of Intrinsic Motivation on employee performance at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta, and (3) to analyze the influence of Work Discipline on employee performance at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

RESEARCH METHOD

Object of research

The object of research in writing this thesis is employee performance which is influenced by Democratic Leadership Style, Intrinsic Motivation, Work Discipline and the place of research is PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

Data Sources and Data Types

a. Data source

The data source in this thesis research is data obtained through distributing questionnaires. Respondents in this research were employees at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, East Jakarta.

b. Data Type

The type of data used in this research is primary data. Where primary data is data obtained directly from respondents. Especially the data produced is based on respondents' answers to questionnaires at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry. DataThis primary data is obtained directly from respondents' answers through distributing questionnaires using a Likert Scale.

Population and Sample

a. Population

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 were all employees of PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, totaling 133 employees.

b. Sample

The definition of a sample according to Sugiyono (2014: 80) is part of the number and characteristics of the population. 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 100 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 100 respondents.

Methods of Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

a. Descriptive Analysis Method

According to Sugiyono (2014:147) Descriptive Analysis Method is a method used to analyze data by describing or illustrating the data that has been collected as it is without intending to make general conclusions or generalizations.

b. Inferential Analysis Method

According to Sugiyono (2014:148) the inferential analysis method is a statistical technique used to analyze sample data and the results are applied to the population.

Instrument Testing

a. Validity test

According to Sugiyono (2014: 455), validity is the degree of accuracy between the actual data on the research object and the data reported by the researcher.

b. Reliability Test

This Reliability Test was carried out using the Alpha Cronbach formula. The testing criteria used to determine reliability are based on the results of a reliability coefficient or alpha of 0.7 as a benchmark (Ferdinand, 2013:218).

Classic assumption test

a. 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. Normality test was carried out using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. If the value is above 5 percent (0.05), then the data from the variable in question is normally distributed (Umar, 2013: 77).

b. 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).

c. Autocorrelation Test

According to Priyatno (2009:61) autocorrelation is where there is a correlation of the residuals for other observations arranged according to a time series.

d. Heteroscedasticity Test

The Heteroscedasticity Test aims to test whether in a regression model there is an inequality in the variance of the residuals from one observation to another (Ghozali, 2011: 107).

Analysis Model

a. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

This analysis is used to determine the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. In this case, the model is to find out how much influence Democratic Leadership Style, Intrinsic Motivation and Work Discipline have on employee performance. The equation model used is as follows:

With the equation:

Y=a + b1X1 + bX2+ bX3+e

Information:

Y =Employee performance

a = Constant

b1, b2, and b3 = Regression Coefficient

X1= Democratic Leadership Style

X2= Intrinsic Motivation

X3= Work Discipline

e = Error/mistake

Model Feasibility Test

a. F test

This F test is carried out to determine that in this model the independent variable is able to explain the dependent variable. And to see whether the model being analyzed has a high level of model suitability, namely the variables used by the model to explain the phenomenon being analyzed (Ferdinand, 2013: 300).

b. 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

a. Hypothesis Testing (t Test)

The t test, namely the regression coefficient, is used to determine whether each independent variable has a positive and significant effect on the dependent variable by using a test for each variable's regression coefficient whether it has a significant effect or not on the dependent variable (Priyatno, 2009:83).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2. Results of Multiple Linear Regression Analysis

Coefficients^a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
1	(Constant)	5,501	2,515		2,188	.031
	Democratic Leadership Style	.173	,067	,185	2,592	.011
	Intrinsic Motivation	,327	,098	,354	3,327	,001
	Work Discipline	,334	.101	,366	3,314	,001
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

Based on table 4.11 above regarding the regression coefficients, it can be seen that the multiple linear regression equation is as follows:

Y = 5.501 + 0.185 X1 + 0.354 X2 + 0.366 X3

Information :

Y = Employee Performance

X1₌Democratic Leadership Style

X2₌Intrinsic Motivation

X3₌Work Discipline

The regression equation shows a constant of 5.501 and can be explained that:

a) A constant of 5.501 states that if democratic leadership style (X1), intrinsic motivation (X2) and work discipline (X3) are constant (do not change), then the employee performance score is positive at 5.501.

b) The regression coefficient for democratic leadership style (X1) has a positive value on employee performance of 0.185 or 1.85%, indicating that democratic leadership style influences employee performance. This means that the better the democratic leadership style, the more employee performance will increase.

c) The regression coefficient of intrinsic motivation (X2) has a positive value on employee performance of 0.354 or 3.54%, indicating that intrinsic motivation influences employee performance. This means that the better the intrinsic motivation, the more employee performance will increase.

d) The work discipline regression coefficient (X3) has a positive value on employee performance of 0.366 or 3.66%. This means that the better the work discipline, the more employee performance will increase.

Of the three independent variables, namely democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline have a positive influence on employee performance at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta. Thus, if the democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline increase, employee performance variables will increase.

Instrument Test

Validity test

Table 3. Validity Test Results

Variable	Item Number	r Count	rTable	Decision
Democratic Leadership Style (X1)	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	0.532 0.519 0.392 0.549 0.506 0.451 0.370 0.483	0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194	Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid
Internal Motivation (X2)	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	0.353 0.518 0.543 0.515 0.404 0.463 0.279 0.407	0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194	Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid
Work Discipline (X3)	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	0.569 0.466 0.348 0.532 0.651 0.364 0.641 0.479	0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194	Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid
Employee Performance (Y)	1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8	0.600 0.521 0.431 0.295 0.483 0.361 0.236 0.270	0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194 0.194	Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid Valid

Variable

Item Number

r Count

rTable

Decision

Democratic Leadership Style (X1)

0.532

0.519

0.392

0.549

0.506

0.451

0.370

0.483

0.194

Valid

Internal Motivation (X2)

0.353

0.518

0.543

0.515

0.404

0.463

0.279

0.407

0.194

Valid

Work Discipline (X3)

0.569

0.466

0.348

0.532

0.651

0.364

0.641

0.479

0.194

Valid

Employee Performance (Y)

0.600

0.521

0.431

0.295

0.483

0.361

0.236

0.270

0.194

Valid

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

From calculations using SPSS 17.0, the data tested on 100 respondents stated that all statement items 1-32 for the variables democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation, work discipline 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 (0.194).

Reliability Test

Table 4. Reliability Test Results

Variable	*Cronbach* *Alpha*	Limitation	Decision
Democratic Leadership Style (X1)	0.769	0.7	Reliable
Intrinsic Motivation (X2)	0.736	0.7	Reliable
Work Discipline (X3)	0.788	0.7	Reliable
Employee Performance (Y)	0.707	0.7	Reliable

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

From table 4 above, it can be seen that the Cronbach Alpha value for the four variables is above 0.7. Because these values are greater than 0.7, the measuring instrument values are reliable or meet the reliability requirements.

Classic assumption test

Normality test

Table 5. Normality Test Results

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
		Unstandardized Residuals
N		100
Normal Parameters,, b	Mean	.0000000
Normal Parameters,, b	Std. Deviation	1.96088869
Most Extreme Differences	Absolute	,074
	Positive	,074
	Negative	-.059
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z		,743
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)		,639
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data. Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

From table 5 it can be seen that in columnAsymp.Sig.(2-tailed) for 2-sided testing is 0.639. The results of the One Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test can be seen for the above data to be 0.639 > 0.05, so it can be stated that the data on democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation, work discipline and employee performance are normally distributed.

Multicollinearity Test

Table 6. Multicollinearity Test Results

Coefficients^a
Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance	VIF
,803	1,245
,361	2,767
,335	2,981
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

Based on table 7 Coefficients above, it is known that the calculated VIF for democratic leadership style (X1) = 1.245. The calculated VIF for intrinsic motivation (X2) = 2.767 and the calculated VIF for work discipline (X3) = 2.981. These 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.

Autocorrelation Test

Table 7. Autocorrelation Test Results

Model Summary b
Model	Durbin-Watson
1	1,760
Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

Based on the results of the autocorrelation test in table 7, it is known that the Durbin-Watson value = 1.760 compared to the Durbin-Watson value in the table using a significant 5% sample size of 100 (n) and the number of independent variables is 3 (k=3), so in the Durbin-Watson table the dL value is obtained. = 1.613 and dU = 1.736. Because the Durbin-Watson value of 1.760 is greater than the limit (dU) of 1.736 and less than 4-1.736 = 2.264 (4-dU), this is in accordance with the performance criteria, namely dU < DW < 4-dU (1.736 <1760 <2.264), 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).

Heteroscedasticity Test

Figure 1. Scatterplot graph

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.

Model Feasibility Test

F test

Table 8. F Test Results

ANOVA^b
Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	589,577	3	196,526	49,562	,000a
	Residual	380,663	96	3,965
	Total	970,240	99
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Discipline, Democratic Leadership Style, Intrinsic Motivation
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

From the calculations in table 8, it can be seen that the Fcount value is 49.562 with a significance level of 0.000. The Ftable value is obtained from the residual degrees of freedom (df) which is 96 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 2.70 because the value Fcount is greater than Ftable (49.562 > 2.70) 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)

Table 9. Results of Determination Coefficient

Model Summary^b
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.780a	,608	,595	1,991
a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Discipline, Democratic Leadership Style, Intrinsic Motivation
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

In table 9 it is shown that the R Square value is 0.608. Based on these values, it can be seen that 60.8% of the variation in the dependent variable is the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta can be explained by a combination of independent variables, namely democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline. Meanwhile, the remaining 39.2% can be explained or explained by other factors not studied.

Hypothesis Testing (t Test)

Table 10. t test results

Coefficients^a
Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
Model		B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
1	(Constant)	5,501	2,515		2,188	.031
	Democratic Leadership Style	.173	,067	,185	2,592	.011
	Intrinsic Motivation	,327	,098	,354	3,327	,001
	Work Discipline	,334	.101	,366	3,314	,001
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

Source: SPSS 17.0 Processed Results

Based on table 10, it can be concluded that the results of the t test are as follows:

1) The democratic leadership style variable (X1) has a tcount of 2.592 with a significance level of 0.011 (0.011 < 0.05), so 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. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

2) The intrinsic motivation variable (X2) has a tcount of 3.327 with a significance level of 0.001 (0.001 < 0.05), so Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that the intrinsic motivation variable has a positive and significant effect on the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

3) The work discipline variable (X3) has a tcount of 3.314 with a significance level of 0.001 (0.001 < 0.05), so Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that the work discipline variable has a positive and significant effect on the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

Discussion

The Influence of Democratic Leadership Style on Employee Performance

Based on the research results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence between the Democratic Leadership Style on the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, meaning that the democratic leadership style can be used as a basis for predicting the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry. This shows that the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry is influenced by the democratic leadership style applied at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry.

So, based on the regression test, the democratic leadership style variable (X1) is 0.185, meaningif the democratic leadership style increases, employee performance will increase by 0.185assuming 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 Mardiana (2014) which shows that democratic leadership style has a positive effect on employee performance.

The Effect of Intrinsic Motivation on Employee Performance

Based on the research results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence between intrinsic motivation on the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, meaning that intrinsic motivation can be used as a basis for motivating the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry. This shows that the performance of PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry is influenced by the intrinsic motivation of an employee or group of employees.

So, based on the regression test the motivation variable (X2) is 0.354, meaningif intrinsic motivation increases, employee performance will increase by 0.354assuming other independent variables have fixed values. If the value is positive, it means there is a positive influence between intrinsic motivation and 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 byTyas Hardianti Suwarno (2014) showsthat the intrinsic motivation variable has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

The Influence of Work Discipline on Employee Performance

Based on the research results, it can be seen that there is a significant influence between work discipline on the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry, meaning that the management of work discipline can be used as a basis for predicting the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry. This shows that the performance of PT employees. Pangansari Utama Food Industry.

Based on the regression test, the work discipline variable (X3) is 0.366, meaningIf work discipline increases, employee performance will increase by 0.366assuming other independent variables have constant values. If the value is positive, it means that there is a positive influence between work discipline and employee performance.The t test results show that the significant value is 0.001 < 0.05, which means that work discipline has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

The results of this research are in accordance with the results of research conducted byNi Made Yudiningsih, Fridayana Yudiaatmaja and Ni Nyoman Yulianthini (2016) stated that work discipline has a positive effect on employee performance.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of research and discussion regarding the influence of democratic leadership style, intrinsic motivation and work discipline on employee performance at PT. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta, the results of the research can be concluded that; (1) democratic Leadership Style has a positive and significant effect on PT Employee Performance. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta, (2) intrinsic Motivation has a positive and significant effect on PT Employee Performance. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta, and (3) work Discipline has a positive and significant effect on PT Employee Performance. Pangansari Utama Food Industry East Jakarta.

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

Brantas. 2009. Dasar-dasar Manajemen. Alfabeta. Bandung.

Ernika, L. 2014. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja terhadap Kinerja Karyawan. http://repository.uin-suska.ac.id. 08 Oktober 2016. (11:32).

Ferdinand, A. 2013. Metode Penelitian Manajemen. Universitas Diponegoro. Semarang.

Gunarsa, S. D. 2008. Psikologi Perawatan. Gunung Mulia. Jakarta.

Hasibuan, M. S. P. 2012. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Edisi Revisi. PT. Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.

Mangkunegara, A. P. 2011. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Perusahaan. Cetakan sepuluh. PT. Remaja Rosdakarya. Bandung.

Mardiana. 2014. Pengaruh Gaya Kepemimpinan Demokratis terhadap Kinerja Pegawai pada Kantor Sekretariat Daerah Kota Samarinda. Ejournal Ilmu Pemerintahan. 2(1):1802-1816.

Marwansyah. 2010. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Edisi 2. Alfabeta. Jakarta.

Maulana, F. H., D. Hamid., Y. Mayoan. 2015. Pengaruh Motivasi Intrinsik, Motivasi Ekstrinsik dan Komitmen Organisasi terhadap Kinerja Karyawan pada Bank BTN Kantor Cabang Malang. Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis. 22(1):1-8.

Priyatno, D. 2009. 5 Jam Belajar Olah Data dengan SPSS 17. Andi. Yogyakarta.

Putra, A. K. dan A. Frianto. 2013. Pengaruh Motivasi Intrinsik dan Motivasi Ekstrinsik terhadap Kepuasan Kerja. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen. 1(1):377-387.

Rivai, V. 2011. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Untuk Perusahaan Dari Teori Ke Praktek. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada. Jakarta.

Robbins, S. P. 2006. Organizational Behavior. Sixteenth Edition. Global Edition. Terjemahan B. Molan. 2009. Perilaku Organisasi. Edisi 16. Salemba Empat. Jakarta.

Sedarmayanti. 2011. Tata Kerja dan Produktivitas Kerja. Mandar Maju. Bandung.

Siagian, S. P. 2010. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bumi Aksara. Jakarta.

Sugiyono. 2014. Memahami Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif dan R&D. Cetakan ke-21. CV. Alfabeta. Bandung.

Sunyoto, D. 2012. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. CAPS. Yogyakarta.

Suprayitno. 2010. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja, Lingkungan Kerja dan Motivasi Kerja terhadap Kinerja Karyawan. Jurnal Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. 2(1):23-34.

Suwarno, T. H. 2014. Pengaruh Motivasi Intrinsik dan Kemampuan Kinerja Karyawan. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen. 2(3):928-940.

Tariban, S. 2013. Gaya Kepemimpinan Demokratis. http://digilib.unila.ac.id.12 Oktober 2016. (17:50).

Umam, K. 2010. Perilaku Organisasi. CV. Pustaka Setia. Bandung.

Umar, H. 2013. Metode Penelitian untuk Skripsi dan Tesis Bisnis. Rajawali Pers. Jakarta.

Wibowo. 2011. Manajemen Kinerja. Edisi ketiga. Rajawali Pers. Jakarta.

Yudiningsih, N. M. D., F. Yudiaatmaja., N. N. Yulianthini. 2016. Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja dan Disiplin Kerja terhadap Kinerja Pegawai . Ejournal Bisma Universitas Pendidikan Ganesha Jurusan Manajemen. 4:1-7.

Yugusna, I., A. T. Haryono. 2016. Pengaruh Gaya Kepemimpinan Demokratis dan Lingkungan Kerja terhadap Kinerja dan Kedisiplinan Karyawan. Journal Of Management. 2(2).