Michael Nur CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Company Profile
The hotel in this study has requested to remain anonymous. In regards to restriction and regulation of the hotel, the name of the hotel will not be published including any hints related. As per the hotel, the researcher will use Hotel – X to indicate the surveyed hotel. Hotel – X is located in South Jakarta, with 100 respondents.
4.2 Respondent Profile 4.2.1 Gender
Figure 4.1 Gender
As shown in the figure above, it is stated that 32% of the respondents are female and 68% of the respondents are male. From the result above, majority of the employees are male due to the work type. It is because Housekeeping department needs more male workers than the female
Gender
Male Female
68%
32%
Michael Nur workers. On the other hand, majority of employees in Front Office department consists of female employees.
4.2.2 Department
Figure 4.2 Departments
As shown from the figure above, 35% are from Front Office, and 65% are from Housekeeping. The result above is affected by work type, because in Hotel – X, there are some sections in Housekeeping department such as laundry, public area, rooms, and others which need more workers than front office.
This work type will affect the content of training program. For instance, the training program will focus on how to effectively make-up rooms or do the guest laundry for housekeeping department; while for front office department, the training program will involve check-in and check-out procedures, communicating with the guests, and other trainings that is related to problem solving methods.
Departments
Front Office Housekeeping
65%
35%
Michael Nur 4.3 Pre and Post-Testing Analysis
4.3.1 Pre- Testing Reliability Analysis
Table 4.1 Pre-Testing Reliability Statistics
Source: Data Processing Result
All the elements above are considered reliable because the cronbach’s alpha stated in the table above is more than 0.6.
4.3.2 Post- Testing Reliability Analysis
Table 4.2 Post-Testing Reliability Statistics
Source: Data Processing Result
All the elements above are considered reliable because the cronbach’s alpha stated in the table above is more than 0.6.
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Individual Ability .837 4
Organizational Capabilities .717 4
Knowledge Updating .651 4
Performance Feedback .756 6
Supervisor Support .631 6
Cronbach's Alpha
N of Items
Individual Ability .754 4
Organizational Capabilities .726 4
Knowledge Updating .707 4
Performance Feedback .789 6
Supervisor Support .756 6
Michael Nur 4.3.3 Pre- Testing Validity Analysis
Table 4.3 Pre-Testing KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Source: Data Processing Result
All the elements above are considered valid because score of KMO stated in the table above is more than 0.5.
4.3.4 Post-Testing Validity Analysis
Table 4.4 Post-Testing KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Individual Ability
Organiza tional Capabiliti
es
Knowle dge Updatin
g
Perform ance Feedba
ck
Supervis or Support Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy. .762 .719 .719 .817 .811
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx.
Chi- Square
89.500
77.663 69.570 143.895 118.097
df 6 6 6 15 15
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Source: Data Processing Result Individual
Ability
Organiza tional Capabiliti
es
Knowle dge Updatin
g
Perfor mance Feedba
ck
Superviso r Support
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy. .777 .596 .597 .710 .701
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
Approx.
Chi- Square
49.072
30.956 26.133 39.863 38.935
df 6 6 6 15 15
Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Michael Nur All the elements above are considered valid because score of KMO stated in the table above is more than 0.5.
4.4 Descriptive Analysis
The following table illustrated the descriptive analysis that shows overall overview on data characteristic.
Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation Individual
Ability 100 2.00 5.00 3.9425 .72723
Organizational
Capabilities 100 1.50 5.00 3.9400 .69460 Knowledge
Updating 100 1.50 5.00 3.9350 .69687
Performance
Feedback 100 1.83 4.83 3.9200 .65498
Supervisor
Support 100 2.17 4.83 3.9583 .60967
Valid N
(listwise) 100
Source: Data Processing Result
According to the result in the table above, the respondents’ average score of individual ability is 3.9245. It reflects that training programs ease Room Division employees in Hotel – X in regards of both physical and mental ability. Through training, they gain knowledge about how to present their appearance in front of guests. It involves grooming standard, uniform, cleanliness, and others.
Training also helps them to fortify their mental ability. As representatives of Hotel – X, employees serves their guests sincerely while they feel confident about themselves. Therefore, Hotel – X needs to keep and improve its training program to maintain their employees’ ability.
In regards to organizational capabilities in the table above, the respondents’
average score of individual ability is 3.9400. It means that training programs give contribution to Room Division employees in Hotel – X in developing individual’s effort and skill. Training programs enhance employee effort to show
Michael Nur their loyalty for their workplace. Willingness to perform duties out of their job description is an example. Training programs make Room Division employees to always improve their skills which result in higher job performance.
With the average score of 3.9350 in knowledge updating, it shows the high level of understanding of employees in Hotel – X in absorbing any information and data related to their job. In other words, training programs help employees to be aware of the latest information and ongoing subjects. Besides, the employees like the way of Hotel – X delivering data through training programs.
Meanwhile, performance feedback also shows high average score of 3.9200.
This indicates that Hotel – X concerns and respects their employees by giving incentives or rewards in accordance to their performance. Undoubtedly, employees are motivated to achieve goals. By conducting training programs, both Housekeeping and Front Office department establish a systematic departmental structure which results on smooth work flow.
Based on the result above, the average score of 3.9583 in supervisor support indicates that in Hotel – X, supervisor or their superior gives adequate support and guidance to their subordinates. Their superior shows how to do a particular job in order to make their subordinates understand and gives empowerment to them so that they have opportunity to apply their skills and helps them to develop themselves.
Michael Nur 4.5 SEM Analysis
Figure 4.3 Structural Equation Model
The figure above shows the analysis of GOF (Goodness-of-fit).
Table 4.6 Goodness-of-fit Model
Goodness-Of-Fit (GOF) Analysis Result Cut Off Value Evaluation
Chi-square 2= 5.637
𝑃 = 0.343
Probability ≥ 0,05
Good
GFI 0.978 GFI > 0.90 Good
AGFI 0.935 AGFI > 0.90 Good
TLI 0.997 TLI > 0.90 Good
CFI 0.999 CFI > 0.90 Good
RMSEA 0.036 RMSEA ≤ 0,08 Good
Based on existing GOF criteria, it can be concluded that the model is fit with the data.
According to Butarbutar, 2012, 𝑡-test is partial regression testing between the independent variable on the dependent variable. Testing is done to see how strong the influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable.
Whereas:
Michael Nur If the probability (significance value) > 0.05, therefore H0 is accepted.
If the probability (significance value) < 0.05, therefore H0 is rejected.
Table 4.7 Regression Weights
The probability value (𝑝-value) shown in the table above is 0.030.
Table 4.8 Standardized Regression Weights
Estimate KnowUpdate <--- Training_Program .886 OrgCap <--- Training_Program .789 IndividualAb <--- Training_Program .849 PerfFeedback <--- Employee_Productivity .988 SupSuppot <--- Employee_Productivity .995
The highlighted values in the table above are > 0.60, which mean the indicators are valid to measure its construct.
4.6 Hypothesis Analysis
H0 : There is no significant impact of training programs on employee productivity in Hotel - X in Jakarta.
H1 : There is a significant impact of training programs on employee productivity in Hotel - X in Jakarta.
As shown from the table above, the 𝑝-value of training program = 0.03 < 0.05 (significance level), so H0 is rejected and H1 is accepted, which means that the independent variable training programs is positive and has significant effect on the variable employee productivity.
