The Influence of Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance at PT Bintang Pacar

(1)

78

The Influence of Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance at PT Bintang Pacar

Surabaya

Defania Felisia, Bayu Airlangga Putra, Hermien Tridayanti, Elok Damayanti Departement of Management Faculty of Economics and Business Universitas Narotama

Surabaya, Indonesia

Jl. Arief Rahman Hakim 51 Surabaya, Indonesia

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

In achieving maximum performance, of course, there is a process that must be followed. Of course, having a sense of fasting and the intervention of a leader plays a big role in achieving the company's success. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the leadership style is able to improve employee performance, and satisfaction will be an important point of employee activity in carrying out work in the laboratory. The data collected is through a process of questionnaires and interviews. Data analysis used quantitative descriptive, namely research by taking random samples and collecting data using instruments, as well as statistical data analysis. The results showed that leadership style and job satisfaction greatly affect employee performance.

Keywords:

Employee Performance, Job Satisfaction, Leadership Style.

1. Introduction

The phenomenon of leadership often occurs in companies, especially in Indonesia, which makes the emergence of new problems so that it is interesting to study and research. In a company, success or deficiency in carrying out work is influenced by leadership and is supported by the satisfaction that has been felt or obtained by employees. Then good performance will be realized. On the other hand, leadership weakness is one of the factors that decrease employee performance. Leadership can be said as a way for leaders to be able to direct and manage all elements in the company, so as to produce satisfactory employee performance for a goal to be achieved.

In the company, of course, employees want to get the rights they should receive, both morally and materially. It is undeniable that good performance also has a supporting foundation from the company such as motivation, work environment, to the attitude and character of the leader. If all elements of satisfaction are met, it is certain that good performance will flow by itself without any pressure received by employees.

Companies engaged in clinical or laboratory health services need leaders who can provide concrete examples of the company's success. If the leader cannot deliver results or achieve targets, the company also experiences an imbalance that causes employees to not have basic guidelines as a tool to achieve targets and success. Problems will arise in the company if the leadership style and job satisfaction received by employees are not appropriate. This can lead to a decrease in employee performance which will have an impact on the achievement of the company. One of the references for employees in acting is the leader himself, both in terms of positive or negative.

PT Bintang Pacar (PACAR Laboratory) is one of the companies engaged in health services. There are several negative factors that affect the performance of employees in this company, such as the decreased desire of employees to achieve targets, less cooperative leaders, and the absence of examples that can be used as a reference for work achievement. All of this is suspected as a decrease in employee performance. According to Whitmore & John, (1997) Performance is the implementation of the functions required of a person, performance is an act, an achievement, a general exhibition of skills. There are several factors that can be used to achieve good employee performance are motivation, satisfaction, and leadership style. Harahap & Khair, (2019) states that job satisfaction is the fulfillment of all workers' needs in carrying out their duties for a certain time. Satisfaction can be obtained from various things, one example is the participation of leaders in dealing with problems, both small and large. And there are other performance companion factors such as leadership style.

(Kartono, 2017) states that leadership is the ability to influence other people, subordinates, or groups, directing the behavior of subordinates or others to achieve organizational or group goals(Harahap & Khair, 2019).

With the interaction between leaders and employees will facilitate the company's work in achieving the desired goals. It can be concluded that the leader remains the key to the company's success which is directly presented by employees in handling and achieving a common goal.

(2)

79

From the description above, in this study I am interested in conducting research with the title "The Influence of Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance at PT Bintang Pacar Surabaya (PACAR Laboratory)".

1.1 Literature Review 1. Leadership Style

Kartono (2017) states that leadership is the ability to influence other people, subordinates, or groups, directing the behavior of subordinates or others to achieve organizational or group goals. According to Kartono

& kartini (2008), a person's leadership style can be seen and assessed from the following indicators:

1) Decision Making Ability 2) Motivating Ability 3) Communication Ability 4) Ability to Control Subordinates 5) Responsibility

6) Ability to Control Emotionally 2. Job Satisfaction

Nuraini T (2013) job satisfaction is job satisfaction enjoyed in a job that gets praise, work results, placement, treatment, equipment and a good working environment. Employees who prefer to enjoy job satisfaction at work will prioritize work over remuneration even though remuneration is important.

According to Suwatno & Priansa (2011), several factors that affect job satisfaction are:

1) Compensation 2) Supervision 3) Work it self 4) Co-workers 5) Job Security

6) Advancement Opportunity 3. Employee performance

Suryani (2019) states: "Performance is the result or level of success of a person as a whole during a certain period in carrying out tasks compared to various possibilities, such as work standards, targets or targets as well as predetermined criteria that have been agreed upon. together". According to Agus & Dharma (2005) the following are some indicators that affect performance including:

1) Quality of work

2) Working quantity Leadership Style 3) Timeliness (Effectiveness) Job Satisfaction

1.2. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1. Framework

1.2. Hypothesis

Based on the formulation of the problem and the description of the literature review, the author proposes the research hypothesis as follows:

H1 = Leadership style partially significant effect on employee performance of PT Bintang Pacar Surabaya H2 = Job Satisfaction has a significant partial effect on Employee Performance at PT Bintang Pacar Surabaya

X2 H2 Job Satisfaction

X1 Leadership Style

Y

Employee Performance H1

(3)

80

H3 = Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction have a significant simultaneous effect on employee performance at PT Bintang Pacar Surabaya.

2. Methodology

Analysis of the data used in this study using quantitative descriptive analysis techniques. According to Sugiyono (2015) that the quantitative approach is research based on the philosophy of positivism to examine a particular population or sample and take random samples by collecting data using instruments, the data analysis is statistical (Collins et al., 1961). The scale used in this study is the Likert scale. The population in this study was 50 employees, by taking a sample of 35 employees by distributing questionnaires randomly. In the test using the SPSS application.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Results

1. Validity Test

The validity test is the equation of the data reported by the researcher with the data obtained directly from the research subject, Sugiyono (2018; 267) (Penelitian, 2013). From each question item on the three leadership style variables (X1), job satisfaction (X2), employee performance (Y) produces a Pearson correlation value above the r table value of 0.344.

2. Reliability Test

According to Sugiyono, (2017) states that the reliability test is the extent to which the measurement results using the same object will produce the same data.

Table 1. Reability Test Results

From the results of the reliability test which states that the results of the X and Y variables produce an alpha cornbrach value > 0.06. So it can be concluded that the instrument in this study is declared reliable.

3. Data Normality Test

According to Ghozali, Imam dan Ratmono (2018) the normality test is a test that aims to determine whether the independent and dependent variables have a normal distribution or not. A good regression model is a regression with a normal distribution or close to normal.

Table 2. Normality Test Results One-Sample Kolmogorov-

Smirnov Test

RES

N 35

Normal Parameters^a.b Mean .000

Std. Deviation 2.36924

Most Extreme Differences Absolute .131

Positive .131

Negative -.085

Test Statistic .131

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .139^C

a. Tes distribution is Normal b. Calculated from data

c. Lilliefors Significance Correction

From the results of the normality test using the Kolomogrov-Smirnov method, a significant result from the normality test was 0.139. Where the results are greater than the significance level of 0.05, so it can be concluded that the normality test in this study is normally distributed.

4. Multicollinearity Test

Reliability Statistics Cronbach's

Alpha N of Items

.946 27

(4)

81

According to Ghozali, Imam dan Ratmono, (2018), the purpose of the multicollinearity test is to test whether the regression model finds a correlation between the independent variables. A good regression model has a model in which there is no correlation between the independent variables. Multicollinearity test is seen from the tolerance value and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). If the value of VIF < 10, it means that there is no multicollinearity. If the VIF value > 10 then there is multicollinearity in the data.

Table 3. Multicollinearity Test Results Collinearity Statistics

Type Tolerance VIF

(Constant)

Lifestyle .980 7.529

Job Satisfaction .980 7.529

From the results of the calculations in the table of the results of the multicollinearity test of the Leadership Style (X1) and Job Satisfaction (X2) variables showing 7.529 is smaller than 10, then the data can be said that all variables do not occur multicollinearity.

5. Heteroscedasticity Test

Heteroscedasticity test to test whether or not heteroscedasticity occurs, it is seen from the value of the Spearman Rank correlation coefficient between each independent variable and the confounding variable. If the probability value (sig) > 0.05, then there is no heteroscedasticity Ghozali, Imam dan Ratmono, (2018) (Notoatmodjo et al., 2014).

Table 4. Heteroscedasticity Test Cofficientsa

Unstandardized Cofficients Standardized

Type B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 2.212 1.407 1.527 .126

Lifestyle -.185 .133 -.904 -1.393 .173

Job Satisfaction

.199 .152 .950 1.311 .199

a. Dependent Variable: RES2

From the results of the heteroscedasticity test using the glacier test, the significance of the variables X1 is 0.173 and X2 is 0.199 above the standard significance of 0.05. So it can be concluded that there is no heteroscedasticity.

6. Multiple Linear Regression Test

Table 5. Multiple Linear Regression Test Coefficientsa

Type

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 13.252 2.902 4.566 .047

Lifestyle .314 .274 .502 1.145 .029

Job Satifaction .185 .313 .259 .591 .012

a. Dependent Variable: Kinerja Karyawan Y= 13.252 + 0.314 X1 + 0.185 X2 + e State that:

1) This constant of 13,252 indicates that if the leadership style (X1), job satisfaction (X2) is equal to zero, then the employee's performance is 13,252.

2) Leadership style has a value (X1) of 0.314. This shows that if the leadership style (X1) increases by one unit, it will increase employee performance (Y) by 0.314 units with the assumption that the job satisfaction variable (X2) is constant.

(5)

82

3) Coefficient of Job Satisfaction (X2) 0.185. This shows that if employee job satisfaction increases by one unit, it will increase employee performance (Y) by 0.185 units assuming the magnitude of the leadership style variable (X1).

7. Determination Test

Multiple determination coefficient analysis in this study is used to measure how much variation up and down the variables of leadership style (X1) and job satisfaction (X2) are able to affect employee performance (Y).

From the results of the data test, it is possible to obtain the coefficient of multiple determination as follows : Table 6. Determination Test Results

Mode Summary

Type R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .755^a .570 .543 2.44216

a. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X1

From the data above, the Adjust R Square value is 0.543, which means that the effect of the independent variable (X) on the dependent variable (Y) is 54.3%. Thus 45.7% of the change in Y variable is influenced by other variables not examined in this study. Variables X1 and X2 can explain 54.3% changes in employee performance variable (Y).

8. F Test

The F test aims to determine the effect of the independent variable Leadership Style (X1), Job Satisfaction (X2) on the dependent variable, namely Employee Performance (Y) the criteria for accepting and rejecting the hypothesis used are as follows:

1) If the significant value is > 0.05 then Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected or the independent variable from the linear regression model is not able to explain the dependent variable.

2) If the significance value <0.05, then Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted or the independent variable from the linear regression model is able to explain the dependent variable.

Table 7. F . Test Results Anova

Type Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

1 Regression 252.690 2 126.345 21.184 .000^b

Residual 190.852 32 5.964

Total 443.543 34 a. Dependent Variable: Y

b. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X1

Based on the test results in the table above, it can be seen that the Fcount value of 21.184 with a significant level of 0.000 less than 0.05, it can be concluded that the Leadership Style (X1) and Job Satisfaction (X2) variables together have a significant effect on Employee Performance (Y).

9. T Test

According to Prof. Dr. Sugiyono (2018), the t-test is a temporary answer to the problem formulation, which asks the relationship between two or more variables (Notoatmodjo et al., 2014). The design of hypothesis testing is used to determine the correlation of the two variables studied. The steps in the decision-making test used in the t-test are as follows:

1) If the significant value is > 0.05 then Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected or the independent variable is not able to explain the dependent variable or there is no influence on the variable being tested.

2) If the significant value is <0.05, then Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted or the independent variable is able to explain the dependent variable or is usually said to be able to influence the two variables being tested.

(6)

83

Table 8. T. Test Results Coefficientsa

Type

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 13.252 2.902 4.566 .047

Leadership Style

.314 .274 .502 1.145 .029

Job Satisfaction

.185 .313 .259 .591 .012

a. Dependent Variable: Kinerja Karyawan

Based on the coefficients table above, the results of partial hypothesis testing are obtained as follows:

1) The results of the analysis of the leadership style variable obtained a significant value of 0.029, smaller than 0.05, which means that the work discipline variable (X1) has a significant effect on employee performance (Y).

2) The results of the analysis of job satisfaction variables were obtained with a significant value of 0.012, smaller than 0.05, which means that the work discipline variable (X2) has a significant effect on employee performance (Y).

3.2 Discussion of Research Results

1. Influence of Leadership Style on Employee Performance

From the results of the tests that have been carried out in this study, the leadership style has a significant influence on employee performance at PT Bintang Ayah Surabaya. This shows that the Leadership Style has a significant value of 0.029 which is smaller than 0.05. From these results it can be concluded that Leadership Style has a significant influence on Employee Performance. If the Leadership Style is carried out in a good way, the higher the Employee Performance.

2. The Effect of Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance

From the results of the tests that have been carried out in this study, job satisfaction has a significant influence on employee performance at PT Bintang Ayah Surabaya. This shows that job satisfaction has a significant value of 0.012, which is smaller than 0.05. From these results it can be concluded that job satisfaction has a significant effect on employee performance. If job satisfaction is obtained well, the higher the employee performance.

3. The Influence of Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance

Based on the results of simultaneous regression analysis, the Fcount value is 21.184 with a significant level of 0.000. The significant value of F is less than 0.05, thus it can be concluded that the variables of Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction have a significant simultaneous effect on employee performance.

4. Conclusions

Based on the analysis that has been done, several conclusions can be drawn as follows:

1. From the results of the reliability test which states that the results of the X and Y variables produce an alpha cornbrach value > 0.06. So, it can be concluded that in this research is stated reliable.

2. The results of the t-test showed that there was a significant influence between Leadership Style (X1) on Employee Performance (Y).

3. The results of the t-test showed that there was a significant influence between Job Satisfaction (X2) on Employee Performance (Y).

4. The results of the F-test showed that there was a positive and significant effect between Leadership Style (X1) and Job Satisfaction (X2) on Employee Performance (Y).

Referencess

Agus, & Dharma. (2005). Manajemen Supervisi. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Collins, D. H., Discombe, G., With, T. K., Woolf, A. L., Watson, A. J., & Ua Conchubhair, S. (1961). Reprints.

The Lancet, 277(7175), 507–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(61)90091-5

Ghozali, I., & Ratmono, D. (2018). Analisis Multivariat dan Ekonometrika dengan Eviews 10. Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Harahap, D. S., & Khair, H. (2019). Pengaruh Kepemimpinan Dan Kompensasi Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Melalui Motivasi Kerja. Maneggio: Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Manajemen, 2(1), 69–88.

https://doi.org/10.30596/maneggio.v2i1.3404

Kartono. (2017). Personality, Employe Engagement, Emotional Intellegence, Job Burnout Pendekatan Dalam Melihat Turnover Intention. Deepublish.

(7)

84

Kartono, & kartini. (2008). Pemimpin dan Kepemimpinan. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada.

Notoatmodjo, 2014:141, Ferretti, F., Planzer, S., Wilson, T., Keyes, M., Tang, Z. S., Durovic, M., Micklitz, H.

W., Baretić, M., Petrović, S., Kono, T., Hiscock, M., Reich, A., Geometry, R., Analysis, G., Ziegel, J. S., Lerner, S., م. و. د, رم اع., Geometry, R., & Analysis, G. (2014). No 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における健康関連指標に関する共分散構造分析Title.

Proceedings of the 8th Biennial Conference of the International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law, 1(hal 140), 43.

Nuraini T. (2013). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Yayasan Aini Syam.

Penelitian, bab 3 metode. (2013). Sugiyono 2018:8 metode kuantitatif. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.

Prof. Dr. Sugiyono. (2018). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif. Alfabeta.

Sugiyono. (2015). Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mix Methods). Alfabeta.

Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D. Alfabeta CV.

Suryani, N. L. (2019). Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Non Fisik Dan Komunikasi Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan Pada PT. Bangkit Maju Bersama Di Jakarta. JENIUS (Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia), 2(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.32493/jjsdm.v2i3.3017

Suwatno & Priansa, D. (2011). Manajemen SDM dalam organisasi Publik dan Bisnis. Alfabeta.

Whitmore, & John. (1997). Coaching Performance. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.