RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SERVING LEADERSHIP AND PERSONALITY TOWARDS INTENTION TO LEAVE THROUGH WORK LIFE
QUALITY
Saripudin*, Musa Hubeis, Nancy Yusnita
Faculty of Economics,
Universitas Pakuan, West Java, Indonesia
Email:
[email protected]*
|
Article
Information |
|
ABSTRACT |
|
Received:
December 11, 2022 Revised:
December 29, 2022 Approved:
January 16, 2023 Online: January
30, 2023 |
|
Quality of
Work Life (QWL) is an organizational effort to control employee behavior and
maintain work performance so that it improves continuously. The purpose of
this study is to investigate the impact of organizational culture, servant
leadership, and personality on turnover as mediated by work-life quality.
This study used a quantitative approach with a sample size of 134
respondents. Employees of PT Nipindo Primatama Group in North Jakarta City
completed questionnaires, which provided the research data. The SmartPLS
program was used to analyze the research data using the Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM PLS) analysis technique. The findings revealed that organizational
culture, servant leadership, and personality all had a significant and
positive impact on employees' quality of work life, with the better the
organizational culture, servant leadership, and employee personality, the
higher the employees' quality of work life. The findings revealed that
servant leadership, personality, and work-life quality all had a negative
impact on turnover, whereas organizational culture had no direct impact on
turnover. Employee turnover can be reduced by servant leadership,
personality, and a high quality of work life, whereas a good organizational
culture cannot always reduce employee turnover. |
|
Keywords |
|
|
|
organizational
culture; servant leadership; personality; quality of work life; turnover |
|
INTRODUCTION
Turnover
intention is the tendency or intention of employees to leave work from their
jobs (Mujiati
& Dewi, 2016).
The desire to leave an organization is generally preceded by employee
intentions that are triggered, among others, by employee dissatisfaction with
work and low employee commitment to attach themselves to the organization (Mahardika
& Wibawa, 2015).
This greatly affects the performance of coal production, the high employee
turnover rate affects the ratio of employee needs and ultimately disrupts the
achievement of annual National Coal production.
Intention
To Leave occurs in the phenomenon of high percent employee turnover that occurs
at PT. Nipindo Primatama Group is when an operator/ employee feels that their
work life and professional life are no longer balanced, they rarely submit
resignation. I often leave work right away or go on leave (work roster), but
when this happens at a coal mining company in North Jakarta, this is very
worrying. The Human Resources (HR) Division is the implementation of job
analysis, HR planning, recruitment and selection, placement and career
development, as well as good education and training which will increase the
potential of human resources to work, because they have received the provision
of knowledge and skills (Sinambela,
2021).
Employees
are one of the important aspects in carrying out the human resource management
(HRM) process, because these employees carry out every activity process in the
company (Ichsan,
Lukman Nasution, & Sarman Sinaga, 2021).
One of the problems that cannot be avoided by the company is when employees
want to leave the company voluntarily. It is often heard of private and
government companies losing their employees and what is most unacceptable for
companies is when companies have to lose potential employees, who are most able
to contribute to helping the company progress. However, it is necessary to
pay attention to obtaining working conditions that support employee
satisfaction, so that quality employees can be created. In addition, by knowing
the level of employee satisfaction, the company can increase productivity and
efficiency, namely through improving the attitudes and behavior of its
employees.
Big Five Personality states a consistent
approach to see and assess personality in a person through the analysis of
adjective factors, where the five factors are Neuroticism, Openness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientious-ness
(Arifin,
Saputra, Puteh, & Qamarius, 2019).
The theory formulated by McCrae and Costa states that individual personality is
influenced by five major things, namely: (1) Neuroticism includes individuals
who have problems with negative feelings, such as anxiety, sadness,
irritability, and tense; (2) Openness to Experience (Openness to New Things)
explains how a person accepts a new idea or situation or is open to new things
and is curious to know and learn something new. (3) Extraversion, that is,
someone who easily interacts with other people and whose positive traits are
happy associating with other people, can socialize, and is able to form groups
firmly. (4) Agreeableness (Easy to Get Along or Easy to Agree) summarizes the
traits interpersonal, namely someone who is friendly, gentle,
Seen
the relationship between the variables of the Big Five Personality Model and
employee performance. The Big Five Personality Model is a consistent approach
to seeing and assessing personality in a person through adjective factor
analysis, where the five factors are Neuroticism, Openness, Extraversion,
Agreeableness, and Conscientious-ness
(Simanullang,
2021).
So that the personality of the big five personality or characteristics can be
seen in the work performance of employees.
Quality
of work life (QWL) is a management perspective on people, workers and
organizations. Quality of work life refers to a philosophy of introducing
changes in organizational culture, as well as improving the physical and
emotional state of employees (Rianda
& Firmansyah, 2021).
The better the QWL, the better the performance produced by employees, so that
the goals of the organization can be achieved more quickly. Quality of work
life is a condition in which workers feel safe and satisfied at work, because
they are in a pleasant position and are treated according to human dignity and
worth (Nadeak,
2019).
Sinha's research (2012) QWL resulted in the extraction of three factors from
various organizational factors. Three factors emerged, namely 1)
relationship-sustenance orientation, 2) futuristic and professional
orientation, and 3). Self deterministic and systemic orientation. The results
show that these factors have an important role in QWL for employees and for
developing work-related quality of life (Hadiwijaya,
2016).
There are efforts to obtain a better quality of work life, and the achievement
of welfare for employees is becoming an increasingly important issue for more
attention. Based on research conducted by the QWL life survey team for 30 years
in the United States, it has consistently shown results that a high quality of
work life in the workplace can reduce stress levels in the workplace, increase
productivity and loyalty to the company.
As
a company engaged in the mining contracting business and coal port service
facility which is technology-intensive, capital-intensive and high-risk, since
the issuance of Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Decree No. 1827
K/30/MEM/2018 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Good Mining
Principles issued on May 7 2018. PT. Nipindo Primatama Group continuously
revamps the system and improves employee competence through internal and external
training to improve the skills and competencies of employees, drivers,
operators and mechanics in the field.
Companies
that pay little attention to the QWL quality of work life factor, will likely
find it difficult to get or retain workers that match the company's needs, it
will even be difficult to resurrect the performance of existing employees (Achmad
Agus Priyono, 2020).
More than that, sometimes companies will face conditions of worker
displacement, because employees prefer to work in other places or companies
that apply various quality of work life factors that are more promising.
Quality
of work lifeis one of the most important factors for human motivation and
increase job satisfaction. Quality of work life is a comprehensive concept
consisting of physical and psychological health, economic situation, personal
beliefs and interaction with the environment (Farmi,
Apridar, & Bachri, 2021).
The work atmosphere will create a conducive quality of work life for the
achievement of organizational goals, where an increase in QWL can have a
positive impact on increasing job satisfaction with the organization. This explanation
implies that QWL is the right way to improve the quality of human resources in
a company. By going through an HR (employee) process it is hoped that it will
maximize responsibility for work. Servant leadership is the
behavior of a leader who prioritizes service, namely service that arises from a
person's desire to perform service to others, which aims to enable the
individual served to grow, be healthy, be independent (autonoumous), and have
serving soul (Rangkuti,
2017).
Servant leaders usually put the needs of
followers as a top priority and treat them as colleagues, so the closeness
between the two is very close, because they are involved in one another.
Servant Leadership is a management style in terms of leading and serving in
harmony, and in interaction with the environment (Suryati,
2021).
A servant leader is someone who has a strong desire to serve and lead, where
the important thing in servant leadership is to be able to combine the two as a
mutually reinforcing strategy in a positive way. In this case the leader acts
as a role model, co-worker, as well as a driver or motivator.
Personality
is a relatively stable set of characteristics, tendencies, and temperaments
that have been significantly shaped by inheritance and by social, cultural, and
environmental factors (Mashudi,
2018).
Personality is the totality of attitudes, feelings, expressions, temperament,
character traits and behavior of a person. Personality is one of the things
that is very influential in the success and failure of a person in life, both
in the field of work and in his actions in society. Personality is very
important to be known by everyone so that each individual is able to develop
the strengths they have and improve the weaknesses that exist in that person (Lusyawati,
Anni, & Suharso, 2018).
Someone who has difficulty developing himself, probably because he does not
know the weaknesses and shortcomings he has, because most of the science of
psychology still uses old ways and methods in the process of understanding and
studying the psychological side of an object, this is less efficient because it
requires quite a long time in the process, besides that a feeling of saturation
is prone to occur during the process.
The
phenomenon of employee turnover is the tendency of employees who have
competence (skills) not to feel QWL or work–life balance (WLB) they do not feel
from the company where they work (Octaviani,
2015).
Such a turnover phenomenon also occurs in other mining companies which are not
the object of this research. Since 2018-2020, at least the rate of employees
resigning at PT. Nipindo Primatama Group has achieved an average rate of 12
percent in three years. This condition tends to fluctuate increasing from year
to year.
About
30% of employees will stay on the conditions and job, if there is a higher
salary offer elsewhere. Based on temporary observations, that currently the
average high turnover rate is the highest of the standard set by the company,
thus affecting the ratio of competent operators which is quite a large
deviation from the needs of operators in the mine. Other problems currently
faced by companies apart from Turnover are organizational culture, service
leadership and personality towards Intention to Leave through QWL. Quality of
work life has an important role, especially in one's performance at work.
Based
on the literature from several previous studies, another factor that is thought
to have a relationship with Intention to Leave through QWL is organizational
culture, namely the understanding of important values and norms in the
organization that direct the behavior of members of the organization. Serving
Leadership is the behavior of a leader who prioritizes service, namely service
that arises from a person's desire to perform service to others, which aims to
enable the individual served to grow, be healthy, be independent (Autonoumous),
and have service spirit, and Personality, which is a relatively stable set of
characteristics, inclinations, and temperaments (individuals) that have been
significantly shaped by inheritance and by social, cultural, and work
environment factors.
Hypothesis
The
influence of Servant Leadership on Turnover Through Quality
of work life
According
to Agnesya (2019),
leadership is an activity to influence people so that they are directed to
achieve organizational goals. Leadership includes influencing processes in
determining organizational goals, motivating behavior to achieve a goal. According to Afroz (2017),
QWL is defined as an engagement-based culture. The QWL culture engenders a very
high mutual commitment among individuals to organizational goals as well as
between organizations and individual development needs. Quality of work life
can be seen as goals, processes and organizational philosophy. Quality of work
life is seen as a goal, namely QWL refers to the creation of increased work,
employee involvement, satisfaction of the people involved in the organization
and organizational effectiveness. Turnovers is the level or intensity of
the desire to leave the organization/company, there are many reasons that cause
this turnover intention and one of them is the desire to get a better job (Dechawatanapaisal,
2017).
According to Budiarto (Budiarto,
2020)
Turnover is characterized by a decrease in the productivity level of employee
performance at the company, usually this occurs as frequently arriving late,
often skipping school, or high levels of absenteeism for various reasons, lack
of enthusiasm and low initiative or lack of desire to work hard. better than
the start.
Research
conducted by Harahap (2021),
Gusroni (2021),
Hayati, et al., (2021),
Hidayati and Saputra (2018),
and Agnesya, (2019)
state that QWL is able to mediate the influence of servant leadership on
Turnover. Based on the description above, the hypothesis in this study is:
H1: There is servant leadership
towards Turnover through Quality of work life
The
Effect of Personality on Turnover Through the Quality of work life
Personality
or psyche includes all thoughts, feelings and behavior, conscious and
unconscious. Personality guides people to adapt to the social and physical
environment. From the beginning of life, the personality is unitary or has the
potential to form a whole. When developing personality, people must try to
maintain unity and harmony between all elements of personality (Alwisol,
2014). According to Afroz (2017),
QWL is defined as an engagement-based culture. The QWL culture engenders a very
high mutual commitment among individuals to organizational goals as well as
between organizations and individual development needs. Quality of work life
can be seen as goals, processes and organizational philosophy. Quality of work
life is seen as a goal, namely QWL refers to the creation of increased work,
employee involvement, satisfaction of the people involved in the organization
and organizational effectiveness.
Turnovers is the level or intensity of
the desire to leave the organization/company, there are many reasons that cause
this turnover intention and one of them is the desire to get a better job (Dechawatanapaisal,
2017).
Turnover is characterized by a decrease in the productivity level of employee
performance at the company, usually this occurs as frequently arriving late,
often skipping school, or high levels of absenteeism for various reasons, lack
of enthusiasm and low initiative or lack of desire to work hard. better than
the start (Dechawatanapaisal,
2017).
Research
conducted by Pramudita and Suharnomo (2022),
Fridolin, (2020)
and Prasetyo, (2019)
states that QWL is able to mediate the influence of personality on turnover.
Based on this description, the hypothesis in this study is:
H2: There is a personality
towards Turnover through Quality of work life
|
Author,
Year |
Title |
Methods |
Results |
Equality |
Difference |
|
(Mustamil & Najam, 2020) |
The
Impact of Servant Leadership on Follower Turn-over Intentions: Mediating
Role of Resilience |
Quantitative
Survey |
This
study provides empirical evidence of the importance of having leaders who
manage servant leadership, as it helps reduce turnover intention. It also reports
the mediating effect of employee resilience. |
Both
involve servant leadership and turnover variables. In addition, both use
quantitative survey research. |
The
research conducted added several variables such as organizational culture,
personality, and QWL. In addition, this research was conducted on HEIs
academics in Pakistan, while the research was conducted on employees of PT
Nipindo Group in North Jakarta, Indonesia. |
|
(Huning, Hurt, & Frieder, 2020) |
The
effect of servant leadership, perceived
organizational support, job
satisfaction and job embeddedness on Turnover intentions An Empirical
Investigation |
Quantitative
survey |
POS
and engagement are mediating mechanisms in which servant leadership is
related to employee turnover intention, POS and job engagement are
significant mediating constructs that help explain the nature of the servant
leadership and turnover intention relationship. |
Both
involve servant leadership, organizational culture, and turnover variables.
In addition, both use quantitative survey research. |
The
research conducted added several variables such as personality and QWL. In
addition, this research was conducted on metropolitan employees in the
Southeastern United States, while the research was conducted on PT Nipindo
Group employees in North Jakarta, Indonesia. |
|
(Pomsuwan, 2018) |
The
Impact Of Employee Personality Traits, Perceived Stress And
Stress Management On Quality Of Work Life Of Operational
Employees Selected For Layoff |
Quantitative |
There
is an influence of employee personality traits on the quality of work life of
operational employees who are selected for termination, except for
friendliness and neuroticism. In addition, there is a perceived impact of
stress on the quality of work life of operational employees who are selected
to be terminated |
Both
involve QWL. In addition, both use quantitative survey research. |
The
research conducted added several variables such as organizational culture,
personality and Turnover. In addition, this research was conducted on
employees in Bangkok, Thailand while the research was conducted on employees
in North Jakarta, Indonesia. |
METHODS
The approach in this research
is a quantitative approach, because this research is presented with numbers.
This is in accordance with the opinion of Arikunto (2010)
who stated that quantitative research is a research approach that requires a
lot of numbers, starting from data collection, interpretation of the data, and
the appearance of the results. In this study, data were collected using a
questionnaire, and the results of the questionnaire were analyzed to determine
the effect of each variable calculated using SEM PLS analysis.
To
obtain the necessary data in the field, in order to prove the hypothesis that
has been set, it is necessary to use the right data collection technique or
method in the sense that it can be accounted for that the data obtained is
accurate, correct, and not distorted. Data collection techniques in this study
used surveys with data collection tools, such as questionnaires or
questionnaires. Questionnaire is a tool that can be used for research that uses
a quantitative approach to the survey method (Hamdi
& Bahruddin, 2015).
Data
analysis was carried out using the Partial Least Square (PLS) method using
SmartPLS version 3 software. PLS is a method of solving Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) which is valued more than other SEM techniques. SEM has a higher
degree of flexibility in research that links theory and data, and is capable of
carrying out path analysis with latent variables, so it is often used by
researchers who focus on social sciences. Partial Least Square is a fairly
strong analytical method, because it is not based on many assumptions. Data
also does not have to be multivariate normal distribution (indicators with
category scale, ordinal, interval to ratio can be used in the same model), and
the sample does not have to be large (Ghozali,
2016)
RESULTS
A. Description of Servant
Leadership
Serving leadership in this study is measured bynine
measurement indicators, Empowerment, Accountability, Standing Back, Humility,
Authenticity, Courage, Interpersonal, Acceptance and Stewardship. The results
of the analysis in Figure 5.2 show that the average score of respondents'
answers on the variable serving leadership is in the good category (mean =
3.602), meaning that the leaders at PT Nipindo Primatama Group, North Jakarta
City, have carried out their leadership well.
Figure 1. Description of Serving Leadership carried out by the
leadership at PT Nipindo Primatama GroupNorth Jakarta City.
Based on the average score of respondents' answers on each
dimension of serving leadership measurement, the lowest average was found on
the dimensions of Humility and Acceptance. This means that the servant
leadership carried out by superiors is good, but still needs improvement in
terms of Humility and Acceptance. The details can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. The Average
Score of Respondents' Answers on Serving Leadership Variables
|
No |
Statement |
Means |
|
1 |
Managers provide the information
needed to do a good job |
3,278 |
|
2 |
Managers offer many opportunities
to learn new skills |
3,805 |
|
3 |
Managers take responsibility for
the work done |
3,947 |
|
4 |
Managers hold colleagues
accountable for how we handle work |
3,970 |
|
5 |
The manager hides himself and
gives credit to others |
3,940 |
|
6 |
Managers seem to enjoy the success
of their colleagues more than their own |
3.173 |
|
7 |
Managers learn from criticism |
3,150 |
|
8 |
Managers learn from mistakes |
3,188 |
|
9 |
Managers constantly criticize
people for mistakes made in their jobs |
3,977 |
|
10 |
Managers find it hard to forget
the things that went wrong in the past |
3,669 |
|
11 |
Managers take risks, even when
unsure of their own manager's support |
3,609 |
|
12 |
The manager takes the risk and
does what he sees fit to do |
3,609 |
|
13 |
Managers prefer to provide criticism
outside the meeting forum for the results of meeting decisions |
3,662 |
|
14 |
The manager carries out the
results of the meeting's decisions at will |
3,714 |
|
15 |
Managers always accept jobs given
by superiors |
3,263 |
|
16 |
Managers never refuse orders from their
superiors. |
3,211 |
|
17 |
Managers emphasize the importance
of focusing on the overall good |
3,609 |
|
18 |
Managers have a long term vision |
4,060 |
Source: processed data (2022)
The results
of the analysis in Table 1 show that
of the 18 question items that measure the variable serving leadership,
indicators with the lowest average values are found numbers 6, 7, 8, 15 and
16. This means that even though the serving leadership carried out by superiors
is good, but still need improvement in terms of:
(1) The manager is satisfied with the results of his team's
efforts and does not compare them with the results of other teams' work, so it
is as if the results of other teams are always better than his team
(2) Managers want to learn from criticism, and accept criticism
as a reference for future improvement
(3) Managers want to learn from various mistakes, where each
error must be studied and a solution sought, so that in the future if the same
problem is encountered, the error will no longer occur.
(4) Managers
always accept jobs given by superiors
(5) Managers
never refuse orders from their superiors
B. Personality
description
Employee
personality in this study is measured bysix
dimensions of measurement, namely feelings of being able to complete tasks and
being trusted, having a strong power for constructive change, fixing something
if you don't like it, always believing in something and making it happen,
looking for better ways to do things and finding good opportunities long before
others . The results of the calculation of the average score of respondents'
answers on the personality variable show an average value of 3.223 (good),
which means that the personality of most employees in this company tends to be
good.
The results of calculating
the average score of respondents' answers on all dimensions of measuring
employee personality, where the dimension with the lowest average is in the
dimension of fixing something if you don't like it. This needs to be corrected,
because when working in a mining company all risks must be accepted, even
though the work provided by the company is quite heavy.
Table 2. The average value of the
respondent's answer score on the personality variable question
|
No |
Statement |
Means |
|
1 |
I believe
I have a sense of being able to complete tasks and can be trusted |
3,421 |
|
2 |
I am
confident and confident. I feel able to complete tasks and can be trusted |
3,421 |
|
3 |
I want the
company to believe in my abilities, feel able to complete tasks and can be
trusted |
3,684 |
|
4 |
I feel I
have the ability to complete assignments well and on time |
3,060 |
|
5 |
I believe
that the task will be completed within the time set by the supervisor |
3.105 |
|
6 |
I always
have a way of doing a good job |
3,414 |
|
7 |
I always
finish work on time |
3,331 |
|
8 |
I always
provide input that can build the company |
3030 |
|
9 |
I always
make a strategy at work |
3030 |
|
10 |
I always
stick to the vision and mission of the company |
3008 |
|
11 |
I still
try to be patient in doing jobs that I don't like |
3,759 |
|
12 |
I always
try to like all the jobs in the company |
3,977 |
|
13 |
I am
required to do a good job |
3,917 |
|
14 |
Every
employee is required to like every job given |
3,421 |
|
15 |
I feel I
can fix all the work well |
3.173 |
|
16 |
I'm always
confident in doing my job |
3030 |
|
17 |
I can
always carry out every job from the boss well |
2,992 |
|
18 |
I'm always
optimistic |
3,248 |
|
19 |
I never
give up before doing work |
3,511 |
|
20 |
I'm always
trying to find a way to get the job done |
3,549 |
|
21 |
I'm always
trying to find a way to get the job done |
3,549 |
|
22 |
Every
difficult job I always have a way to solve it |
3,376 |
|
23 |
Every job
I always do it carefully |
3,383 |
|
24 |
I always
look for references before doing work |
3,383 |
|
25 |
Every
reference I get, I develop again according to my work |
3.218 |
|
26 |
I always
try to find interesting ideas |
3,263 |
|
27 |
I always
find a good opportunity before anyone else does |
3,398 |
|
28 |
Every
opportunity I find is always welcomed and appreciated by my manager |
3,068 |
|
29 |
I always
have creative ideas |
2,902 |
|
30 |
I always
consult ideas that I have with others |
3,068 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
The results of the analysis
in Table 2
show that of the 30 questions that measure personality variables, the question
items with the lowest average scores are items number 17 and 29. This means
that basically the personality of the employees in this company is good, but
there are still many employees who lacks patience when faced with difficult
work, tries to do a good job and has creative ideas.
C. Description
of Quality of Work Life
QWL
variables in this
research is measured by five measurement dimensions, namely Supervisors
supports, Good work environment, Professional respect, Work life balance, Skill
development. The results of the calculation of the average score of
respondents' answers on the QWL variable are in the good category. This shows
that basically the QWL of employees in this company is good. The results of the
calculation of the average score of respondents' answers on the QWL variable
are in the good category (mean = 3.367), so it can be said that the employee's
QWL is actually good.
Furthermore, the results of
calculating the average per dimension, the result is that the lowest average is
on the dimensions of availability of job alternatives and hostile work
environment, meaning that overall the employee QWL is good, but in terms of
availability of job alternatives and hostile work environment employees still
feel lacking. Details of this can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. The average score of Respondents Answers on QWL
Question Items
|
No |
Statement |
Means |
|
1 |
The work given is very difficult |
3,203 |
|
2 |
There is no alternative from superiors
at work |
3,083 |
|
3 |
The target given is quite high |
3,722 |
|
4 |
The work given is too dense |
3.173 |
|
5 |
Leaders do not provide corrective
directions, when employees make work mistakes |
3,060 |
|
6 |
Always encounter difficulties at
work |
4,053 |
|
7 |
All policies are applied
inconsistently to all employees |
3,895 |
|
8 |
Before making a decision, the
organization does not seek accurate and factual information |
3,203 |
|
9 |
The company does not provide
opportunities for employees to express their opinions before making decisions |
3030 |
|
10 |
Colleagues don't want to help,
when someone has difficulty doing the task |
3,417 |
|
11 |
Co-workers don't want to help when
someone has difficulty doing the task |
3.143 |
|
12 |
Bosses who are unfair to
co-workers |
3,098 |
Source: processed data (2022)
The results
of the analysis show that of the 12 question items that measure the QWL
variable, the items with the lowest average are item numbers 2,4,5,9,11 and 12.
This means that even though the employee QWL is quite good, there are still
many employees who feel that their QWL is low, because (1) there is no
alternative from their superiors at work, (2) the work given is too dense, (3)
there is a lack of direction from superiors when employees work, (4) the
company does not provide opportunities for employees to express their opinions
before making decisions, (5) Co-workers don't want to help when someone is
having difficulties doing tasks and Bosses are unfair to co-workers.
D. Turnover
Description
Turnovers employees in this study is measured byfive
measurement dimensions, namely supervisors supports, good work environment,
professional respect, work life balance and skill development. The results of
the calculation of the average answer score on the Turnover variable are in the
high category, which means that there have been many turnover symptoms in this
company caused by many things, both from the leadership side and job
specifications. Details of this can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Overview of Employee Turnover
at PT Nipindo Primatama Group, North Jakarta City
The
results of the calculation of the average score of respondents' answers, the
results of the analysis show that most of the symptoms of turnover are due to
lack of support from supervisors, lack of work life balance and professional
respect which are considered lacking by employees. Details of this can be seen
in Table 4.
Table 4. The
average score of Respondents' Answers on the Turnover Variable
|
No |
Statement |
Means |
|
1 |
Supervisorsnot always
support career and job |
3,534 |
|
2 |
Supervisorsdoes not
ensure that the income/salary received is appropriate and in accordance with
the workload |
4,534 |
|
3 |
I feel uncomfortable with the
working conditions (comfort, quiet, and facilities) at work. |
3,977 |
|
4 |
Lack of assurance of a safe work environment. |
3,722 |
|
5 |
The company does not implement a
structural system for providing competitive direct compensation (salary) in
accordance with the position/title |
3,985 |
|
6 |
Rewardswhat is
received is not appropriate and in proportion to the results of the work |
4,038 |
|
7 |
There were times when I had to
work not according to the working hours set by the company |
4,023 |
|
8 |
I can't do other activities
outside working hours |
4,459 |
|
9 |
Bosses never try to create a wide
variety of tasks for employees to reduce monotony. |
3,496 |
|
10 |
Bosses have never given more
job-related responsibilities |
3,466 |
|
11 |
Bosses do not provide
opportunities for all employees to use the new knowledge they have. |
3,880 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
The results
of the calculation of the average score of respondents' answers on each item of
the question of the turnover variable show that the highest average is in items
number 9 and 10, meaning that symptoms of turnover appear mostly because
superiors are assessed by employees not trying to create a wide variety of
tasks for employees To reduce monotony and superiors, it is considered that
employees do not give more work-related responsibilities.
E.
SEMS
PLS
1. The
Servant Leadership Construct
The Servant Leadership
Construct is a 2nd order construct with nine measurement indicators,
Empowerment, Accountability, Standing Back, Humility, Authenticity, Courage,
Interpersonal, Accept-ance and Stewardship. Details of this can be seen in
Figure 3.
Figure
3. Estimation Results of the Serving Leadership Construct CFA Model (X2)
Based
on the estimation results of the serving leadership construct CFA model in
Figure 3,
there are several indicators that are invalid in measuring the serving
leadership construct, because it has a loading factor <0.7, namely indicator
X2.1.1; X2.2.2; X2.3.2 and X2.6.2. Therefore, these four indicators must be
removed from the model because they are considered unable to properly measure
X2 and its dimensions. The results of the estimation of the X2 measurement
model after the two indicators are removed from the model can be seen in Figure 4.
Figure
4. Estimation Results of the Serving Leadership Construct CFA Model (X2) after
the four invalid indicators were issued
The model estimation results in Figure 4, show that
after two invalid indicators are removed from the model, all indicators in the
X2 measurement modelvalid and the 1st order
construct AVE (X2 dimension) has > 0.5, which means that all indicators in
the Serving Leadership construct measurement model have met the required
convergent validity criteria. Furthermore, to ensure that the dimensions of the
X2 gauge can measure X2 properly, a bootstrapping test is carried out. The
results of the bootstrapping test in Table 4.12 show that all dimensions have a
p value <0.05 and t statistic > 1.96, which means that the nine
dimensions measuring X2 are dimensions that can be used to measure servant
leadership by company leaders. Details of this can be seen in Table 5.
Table
5. Results of the Serving
Leadership Construct Bootstrapping Test (X2)
|
Path |
Original Sample(O) |
Sample Means(M) |
Standard Deviations(STDEV) |
t Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
X2 ->
X2.1 |
0867 |
0869 |
0.034 |
25,425 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.2 |
0947 |
0947 |
0.008 |
119,287 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.3 |
0.946 |
0.946 |
0.016 |
58,191 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.4 |
0.982 |
0.982 |
0.002 |
406,248 |
0.000 |
|
X2->X2.5 |
0.944 |
0.945 |
0.010 |
97,215 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.6 |
0.731 |
0.731 |
0.057 |
12,797 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.7 |
0968 |
0969 |
0.006 |
166,455 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.8 |
0.972 |
0.972 |
0.005 |
191,604 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
X2.9 |
0.976 |
0.976 |
0.005 |
194,568 |
0.000 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
2. Personality
Construct
The Personality Construct is
a 2nd order construct with six measurement dimensions, namely feelings of being
able to complete tasks and can be trusted, having a strong power for constructive
change, fixing something if you don't like it, always believing in something
and making it happen, looking for a better way to do it something and find good
opportunities long before anything else. The shape of the measurement model for
the Personality construct and its estimation results can be seen in Figure 5.
Figure
5. Estimation Results of the Personality Construct CFA Model (X3) after the
four invalid indicators were excluded Based on the estimation
results of the CFA model of the Personality construct
Figure
5 shows several indicators that are not valid in measuring the service
leadership construct, because they have a loading factor <0.7, namely
indicators X3.2.3, X3.2.4, X3.3.1, and X3.3.2. Then the four indicators must be
removed from the model because they are considered unable to measure X3
properly along with its dimensions. The results of the estimation of the X3
measurement model after the two indicators are removed from the model can be
seen in Figure 6.
Figure
6. Estimation Results of the Personality Construct CFA Model (X3) after the
four invalid indicators were excluded
The
model estimation results in Figure 6 show that after the four invalid
indicators are removed from the model, all indicators in the X3 measurement
modelvalid and the 1st order
construct AVE (X3 dimension) has > 0.5, which means that all indicators in
the Personality construct measurement model have met the required convergent
validity criteria. Furthermore, to ensure that the dimensions of the X3 gauge
can measure X3 properly, a bootstrapping test is carried out. The results of
the bootstrapping test in Table 4.9 show that all dimensions have a p value
<0.05 and t statistics > 1.96, which means that the six dimensions
measuring X3 are dimensions that can be used to measure Personality by company
leaders. an.
Table 6. X3 Construct
Bootstrapping Test Results
|
Path |
Original Sample(O) |
Sample Means(M) |
Standard Deviations(STDEV) |
t Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
X3 ->
X3.1 |
0.983 |
0.983 |
0.003 |
298,889 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
X3.2 |
0912 |
0913 |
0.019 |
49,234 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
X3.3 |
0.972 |
0.973 |
0.004 |
224,223 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
X3.4 |
0.980 |
0.980 |
0.004 |
227,602 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
X3.5 |
0978 |
0979 |
0.003 |
311,830 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
X3.6 |
0993 |
0993 |
0.001 |
683,571 |
0.000 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
The QWL construct is a 2nd
order construct with five measurement dimensions, namely Supervisors supports,
Good work environment, Professional respect, WLB, Skill development. The shape
of the QWL construct measurement model and its estimation results can be seen
in Figure 7.
Figure
7. Estimation Results of the Construct CFA Model Quality of Work Life(Z)
Based on the estimation
results of the CFA model of the Personality construct in Figure 7, there are
several indicators that are not valid in measuring the QWL construct, because
they have a loading factor <0.7, namely indicators Z3.1 and Z4.1. Therefore,
these two indicators must be removed from the model, because they are
considered unable to measure QWL properly along with its dimensions. The
estimation results of the QWL measurement model after the two indicators are
removed from the model can be seen in Figure 8.
Figure
8. Estimation Results of the Construct CFA Model Quality of Work Life(Z) after all four invalid indicators are
issued
The
model estimation results in Figure 8 show that after two invalid indicators are
removed from the model, all indicators in the construct measurement modelThe
QWL is valid and the 1st order construct AVE (QWL dimension) has > 0.5,
which means that all indicators in the QWL construct measurement model have met
the required convergent validity criteria. Next, to ensure the dimensions of
the QWL meter are correct, a bootstrapping test is carried out to measure QWL
properly. The results of the bootstrapping test in Table 4.12 show that all
dimensions have a p value <0.05 and t statistic > 1.96, which means that
the four QWL measuring dimensions are dimensions that can be used to measure
the QWL of a company's employees. Details of this can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7. X3 Construct
Bootstrapping Test Results
|
Path |
Original Sample(O) |
Sample Means(M) |
Standard Deviations(STDEV) |
t Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
Z ->
Z. 1 |
0.886 |
0.885 |
0.019 |
46,888 |
0.000 |
|
Z ->
Z. 2 |
0966 |
0966 |
0.005 |
182,416 |
0.000 |
|
Z ->
Z. 3 |
0.918 |
0917 |
0.019 |
49,387 |
0.000 |
|
Z ->
Z. 4 |
0.944 |
0.944 |
0.010 |
95.104 |
0.000 |
Source: processed data (2022)
3.
Turnover construct
The Turnover construct is a
2nd order construct with six measurement dimensions, namely Supervisors, Good
Work, Professional respect, WLB, Skill development. The estimation results can
be seen in Figure 9.
Figure
9. Estimation Results of the Construct CFA Model Quality of Work Life(Z)
Based on the estimation
results of the CFA model for the Personality construct in Figure 9, there are
several indicators that are invalid in measuring the Turnover construct,
because they have a loading factor <0.7, namely indicators Y2.1 and Y4.1, so
these two indicators must be removed from the model, because they are
considered unable to properly measure Turnover along with its dimensions. The
estimation results of the Turnover measurement model after the two indicators
are removed from the model can be seen in Figure 10.
Figure
10. Estimation Results of the Construct CFA Model turnovers (Y) after both invalid indicators are issued
The
model estimation results in Figure 10 show that after the two invalid
indicators are removed from the model, all indicators in the Turnover construct
measurement modelvalid and AVE 1st order
construct (Turnover dimension) has > 0.5, which means that all indicators in
the Turnover construct measurement model have met the required convergent
validity criteria. Next, ensure that the dimensions of the Turnover measure can
measure Turnover properly. Then do the bootstrapping test. The results of the
bootstrapping test in Table 8 show that all dimensions have a p value <0.05
and t statistic > 1.96, which means that the four dimensions for measuring
turnover are dimensions that can be used to measure company employee turnover.
Table 8. X3 Construct
Bootstrapping Test Results
|
Path |
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Means (M) |
Standard Deviations (STDEV) |
t Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
Y ->
Y.1 |
0.984 |
0.984 |
0.002 |
465,839 |
0.000 |
|
Y ->
Y.2 |
0.782 |
0.781 |
0.046 |
16,954 |
0.000 |
|
Y -> Y.3 |
0.948 |
0.948 |
0.009 |
107,090 |
0.000 |
|
Y ->
Y.4 |
0.946 |
0.946 |
0.012 |
78,157 |
0.000 |
|
Y ->
Y.5 |
0.958 |
0.959 |
0.006 |
152,328 |
0.000 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
Based on the overall results
of the CFA analysis on each construct, it is concluded that all dimensions of
each research variable can be used to measure research variables, but there are
several indicators that are invalid in measuring research variables, so they
cannot be used as a measure of research variables. Based on the overall results
of the CFA test on each construct, Organizational Culture is measured by six
measurement indicators, Service Leadership is measured by 14 measurement
indicators, Personality is measured by 26 indicators, QWL is measured by 10
indicators and Turnover is measured by nine measurement indicators.
F. Testing the Effect of Between
Variables
In
PLS analysis, after the model is proven fit, testing the effect between
variables can be done. Testing the effect includes testing the direct effect,
testing the indirect effect and testing the total effect.
1.
Direct
Influence
The
direct effect or often referred to as the direct effect is the direct effect of
exogenous variables on endogenous variables. In PLS SEM analysis, the
significance and direction of direct influence can be seen from the p value, t
statistic and the path coefficient connecting endogenous to exogenous. If the p
value is <0.05 and the t statistic is >1.96 (two tail t value), it can be
concluded that the exogenous variable has a significant effect on the
endogenous variable with the direction of influence according to the sign
attached to the path coefficient. Furthermore, if the p value is obtained >
0.05 and the t statistic is <1.96 (two tail t value), then it is concluded
that the exogenous variable has no significant effect on the endogen (Hair et
al, 2019). Details of this can be seen
in Table 9.
Table 9. Results of the Direct Effect
Test
|
Path |
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Means (M) |
Standard Deviations (STDEV) |
t Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
X1 ->
Y |
-0.064 |
-0.065 |
0.080 |
0.800 |
0.424 |
|
X1 ->
Z |
0.276 |
0.282 |
0.068 |
4,075 |
0.000 |
|
X2 ->
Y |
-0.217 |
-0.211 |
0.073 |
2,983 |
0.003 |
|
X2 ->
Z |
0.369 |
0.362 |
0.068 |
5,441 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
Y |
-0.351 |
-0.354 |
0.091 |
3,857 |
0.000 |
|
X3 ->
Z |
0.234 |
0.237 |
0.075 |
3.137 |
0.002 |
|
Z ->
Y |
-0.286 |
-0.290 |
0.082 |
3,484 |
0.001 |
Source:
processed data (2022)
The explanation of the results of the direct
influence test is as follows:
a) X1
lineàZ
On the path that shows the
influence of organizational culture on QWL, a very significant p value (0.000)
is obtained with a t statistic of 4.075 and a positive path coefficient of
0.276, because the p value <0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path
coefficient is positive, it can be concluded that organizational culture has a
significant and positive effect on employee QWL, the better the company's
organizational culture, the higher the employee QWL, and vice versa, a bad
organizational culture can reduce employee QWL.
b) X2
lineàZ
On the path that shows the
influence of servant leadership on QWL, a very significant p value (0.000) is
obtained with a t statistic of 5.441 and a positive path coefficient of 0.369.
Because the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient
is positive, it can be concluded that servant leadership has a significant and
positive effect on employee QWL, the better the service leadership carried out
by company leaders, the higher the employee QWL, and vice versa, serving
leadership does not carried out properly by company leaders can reduce employee
QWL.
c) X3
lineàZ
On the path that shows the
influence of personality on QWL, a very significant p value (0.002) is obtained
with a t statistic of 3.137 and a positive path coefficient of 0.234. Because
the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient is
positive, it can be concluded that employee personality has a significant and
positive effect on employee QWL, the better the personality of the company's
employees, the higher the employee QWL, and vice versa the unfavorable employee
personality can reduce employee QWL.
d) X1
lineàY
On the path that shows the
influence of organizational culture on turnover, the p value is not significant
(0.424) with a t statistic of 0.800, because the p value is > 0.05; t
statistic <1.96, it can be concluded that organizational culture has no
effect on employee turn-over, meaning that a good organizational culture cannot
always reduce employee turnover in a company.
e) X2
lineàY
On the path that shows the
influence of servant leadership on turnover, a very significant p value (0.003)
is obtained with a t statistic of 2.983 and a negative path coefficient of
-0.217. Because the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path
coefficient is negative, it can be concluded that servant leadership has a
significant and negative effect on employee turnover, the better the service
leadership carried out by company leaders, the lower employee turnover, and
vice versa, serving leadership is not carried out properly by company leaders
have the potential to increase employee turnover.
f) X3
lineàY
On the path that shows the
influence of personality on Turn-over, a very significant p value (0.000) is
obtained with a t statistic of 3.857 and a negative path coefficient of -0.351.
Because the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient
is negative, it is concluded that employee personality has a significant and
negative effect on employee turnover, the better the personality of the
company's employees, the lower the employee turnover, and vice versa the
unfavorable employee personality can trigger employee turnover.
g) Z
lineàY
On the path that shows the
effect of QWL on Turnover, a very significant p value (0.001) is obtained with
a t statistic of 3.484 and a negative path coefficient of -0.286. Because the p
value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient is negative, it
can be concluded that employee QWL has a significant and negative effect on
employee turnover, the better the quality of work life of company employees,
the lower employee turnover, and vice versa a poor QWL can trigger turnover
employee.
2. Indirect Influence
The indirect effect or often referred to as the
indirect effect is the influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables
through mediating (intervening). As in the direct effect test, the significance
of this indirect effect is assessed from the p value and t statistics. P value
<0.05 and t statistic > 1.96 (two tail t statistics cut value) indicating
the existence of an intervening role in mediating exogenous effects on
endogenous, while P value > 0.05 and t statistic <1.96 (two tail t
statistics cut value) indicates the absence of an intervening role in mediating
exogenous to endogenous influences.Details
of this can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10. Test resultsIndirect Influence
|
Path |
Original Sample (O) |
Sample Means (M) |
Standard Deviations (STDEV) |
t
Statistics (|O/STDEV|) |
P Values |
|
X1 ->
Z -> Y |
-0.079 |
-0.081 |
0.029 |
2,728 |
0.007 |
|
X2 ->
Z -> Y |
-0.106 |
-0.105 |
0.037 |
2,840 |
0.005 |
|
X3 ->
Z -> Y |
-0.067 |
-0.069 |
0.029 |
2,272 |
0.023 |
Source: processed
data (2022)
Based
on the results of the analysis in the table above, the following test results
are obtained:
a)
Line
X1 – Z – Y
On
the indirect path that connects X1 to Y via Z, a p value of 0.007 and t
statistic is 2.728 with a negative path coefficient of -0.079, because the p
value <0.05, t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient is negative,
then it can be concluded that organizational culture can have an indirect
effect on turnover throughQWL. This means that QWL is
significantly proven to mediate the indirect effect of organizational culture
on turnover, where a good organizational culture can increase employee QWL and
can further reduce employee turnover.
b)
Line
X2 – Z – Y
On
the indirect path connecting X2 to Y via Z, a p value of 0.005 and a t
statistic of 2.840 with a negative path coefficient of -0.106 are obtained.
Because the p value <0.05, t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient is
negative, it is concluded that servant leadership can have an indirect effect
on turnover throughQWL. This means that QWL is
significantly proven to be able to mediate the indirect effect of servant
leadership on turnover, good servant leadership can increase employee QWL which
in turn can reduce employee turnover.
c)
Line
X3 – Z – Y
On
the indirect path connecting X3 to Y via Z, a p value of 0.023 and a t
statistic of 2.272 with a negative path coefficient of -0.067 are obtained.
Because the p value obtained is <0.05, the t statistic is > 1.96 and the
path coefficient is negative, it is concluded that personality can have an
indirect effect on turnover throughQWL.
This means that QWL is significantly proven to mediate the indirect effect of
personality on turnover, good personality can increase employee QWL, which in
turn can reduce employee turn-over.
G. Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis 1 in this study
states that servant leadership influences QWL. The results of the analysis show
that the path that shows the influence of servant leadership on QWL obtained a
very significant p value (0.000) with a t statistic of 5.441 and a positive
path coefficient of 0.369. Because the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96
and the path coefficient is positive, it can be concluded that servant
leadership has a significant and positive effect on employee QWL, the better
the service leadership carried out by company leaders, the higher the employee
QWL, and vice versa, service leadership which is not implemented properly by
company leaders can reduce employee QWL. This supports hypothesis 2 in this
study, then hypothesis 1 is accepted.
Hypothesis 2 in this study
states that personality influences QWL. The results of the analysis show the
effect of personality on turnover, a very significant p value (0.000) is
obtained with a t statistic of 3.857 and a negative path coefficient of -0.351.
Because the p value < 0.05; t statistic > 1.96 and the path coefficient
is negative, it can be concluded that employee personality has a significant
and negative effect on employee turnover, the better the personality of the
company's employees, the lower the employee turnover, and conversely, the
personality of employees who are not good can trigger employee turnover. This
supports hypothesis 2 in this study, then hypothesis 2 is accepted.
DISCUSSION
A. The Influence of Servant
Leadership on the Quality of Work Life
Hypothesis 1 in this study is
proven and it is concluded that servant leadership has a significant and
positive effect on employee QWL, the better the service leadership carried out
by company leaders, the higher the employee QWL, and conversely, service
leadership which is not carried out well by company leaders can reduce employee
QWL.
The results of this study are
in line with the results of previous studies conducted by
The results of this study
indicate an increase in the quality of work life of employees, so even though
the servant leadership carried out by superiors has been good, it still needs
improvement in terms of (1) Managers are satisfied with the results of their
team's efforts and do not compare with the results of other teams' work and as
if the results of other teams always better than his team, (2) Managers want to
learn from criticism, accept criticism as a reference for future improvement,
(3) Managers want to learn from various mistakes, every mistake must be studied
and a solution sought, so that in the future if the same problem is
encountered, the error will no longer occur, (4)Managers
always accept jobs given by superiors and (5) Managers always never refuse
orders from their superiors.
B. The Effect of Personality on Turnover
Hypothesis 2 in this study is
proven and it is concluded that employee personality has a significant and
negative effect on employee turnover, the better the personality of the
company's employees, the lower the employee turnover, and conversely, the
personality of employees who are not good can trigger employee turnover.
The results of this study are
in line with the results of Life's research
CONCLUSION
Servant leadership has a
significant and positive effect on the quality of work life of employees, the
better the service leadership carried out by company leaders, the higher the
quality of work life of employees, and conversely, serving leadership that is
not carried out properly by company leaders decreases quality employee's work life.
Employee personality has a
significant and negative effect on employee turnover, the better the
personality of the company's employees, the lower the employee turnover, and
conversely, the personality of employees who are not good can trigger employee
turnover.
REFERENCES
Afroz, Saman. (2017). Quality of work
life: A conceptual model. Advances in Economics and Business Management
(AEBM), 4(8), 570–578. Google Scholar
Agnesya,
Resa Adi. (2019). Pengaruh kepemimpinan, komitmen organisasional dan budaya
organisasi terhadap turnover intention (Studi kasus pada Bank Muamalat KC
Surakarta). IAIN SALATIGA. Google Scholar
Alwisol.
(2014). Psikologi Kepribadian (Edisi Revisi). Malang: UMM Press. Google Scholar
Arifin,
A., Saputra, J., Puteh, A., & Qamarius, I. (2019). The role of
organizational culture in the relationship of personality and organization
commitment on employee performance. International Journal of Innovation,
Creativity and Change, 9(3), 105–129. Google Scholar
Arikunto,
Suharsimi. (2010). Metode peneltian. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Google
Scholar
Budiarto,
Nadelia Rachma Purwadhita. (2020). Pengaruh quality of work life terhadap
turnover intention berdasarkan persepsi karyawan PT. XYZ. Google Scholar
Dechawatanapaisal,
Decha. (2017). The mediating role of organizational embeddedness on the
relationship between quality of work life and turnover: Perspectives from
healthcare professionals. International Journal of Manpower. Google Scholar
Farmi,
Nadia, Apridar, Apridar, & Bachri, Naufal. (2021). Pengaruh Quality of Work
Life Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan PT. POS Indonesia (Persero) KPRK Lhokseumawe
dengan Motivasi Intrinsik dan Kepuasan Kerja sebagai Variabel Intervening. J-MIND
(Jurnal Manajemen Indonesia), 5(2), 84–93. Google Scholar
Ghozali,
Imam. (2016). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program IBM SPSS 23, Edisi
Kedelapan. In Semarang: Penerbit Undip. Semarang. Google Scholar
Hadiwijaya,
Hendra. (2016). Pengaruh Quality Of Work Life Terhadap Person Organization Fit
dan Implikasinya Pada Kinerja Karyawan. Jurnal Manajemen Dan Bisnis
Sriwijaya, 14(4), 439–448. Google Scholar
Hamdi,
Asep Saepul, & Bahruddin, E. (2015). Metode penelitian kuantitatif
aplikasi dalam pendidikan. Deepublish. Google Scholar
Harahap,
Lannidar S., & Prasetia, Indra. (2021). Pengaruh Pemberdayaan, Kualitas
Kehidupan Kerja dan Motivasi Kerja Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Guru SMK di Padang
Lawas. Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar, Menengah Dan Tinggi [JMP-DMT],
2(3), 91–95. Google Scholar
Huning,
Tobias M., Hurt, Kevin J., & Frieder, Rachel E. (2020). The effect of
servant leadership, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction and job
embeddedness on turnover intentions: An empirical investigation. Evidence-Based
HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship. Emerald Publishing Limited. Google Scholar
Ichsan,
Reza Nurul, SE, M. M., Lukman Nasution, S. E. I., & Sarman Sinaga, S. E.
(2021). Bahan Ajar Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia (MSDM). CV. Sentosa
Deli Mandiri. Google Scholar
Mahardika,
I. Gst Ag Gd Emdy, & Wibawa, I. Made Artha. (2015). Pengaruh Kepuasan
Kerja terhadap Turnover Intention dengan Komitmen Organisasi sebagai Variabel
Intervening pada PT. Autobagus Rent Car Bali. Udayana University. Google Scholar
Mashudi,
Farid. (2018). Panduan Praktis Evaluasi Dan Supervisi Bimbingan Konseling.
Diva Press. Google Scholar
Mujiati,
Ni Wayan, & Dewi, Anak Agung Sagung Kartika. (2016). Faktor-faktor yang
menentukan intensi turnover karyawan dalam organisasi. Forum Manajemen, 14(2),
56–63. Google Scholar
Mustamil,
Norizah, & Najam, Usama. (2020). The impact of servant leadership on
follower turnover intentions: Mediating role of resilience. Asian Journal of
Business and Accounting, 13(2), 125–146. Google Scholar
Nadeak,
Bernadetha. (2019). Bahan Ajar Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Pendidikan Era
Industri 4.0. UKI Press. Google Scholar
Octaviani,
Heny. (2015). Person-organization fit, kepuasan kerja, dan turnover intention:
studi empiris pada karyawan generasi Y industri perbankan di indonesia. Jurnal
Manajemen, 12(2), 111–128. Google Scholar
Pomsuwan,
Suthinan. (2018). The Impact Of Employee Personality Traits, Perceived Stress
And Stress Management On Quality Of Work Life Of Operational Employees Selected
For Layoff. Research Journal Phranakhon Rajabhat: Social Sciences and
Humanity, 13(1), 71–86. Google Scholar
Priyono,
Achmad Agus. (2020). Pengaruh Kualitas Kehidupan Kerja Terhadap kinerja
karyawan dengan kepuasan kerja sebagai variabel intervening. Attadrib:
Jurnal Pendidikan Guru Madrasah Ibtidaiyah, 3(1), 31–42. Google Scholar
Priyono,
Lusyawati Wahyu, Anni, Catharina Tri, & Suharso, Suharso. (2018). Pengaruh
kondisi keluarga dan self acceptance terhadap kepercayaan diri remaja. Indonesian
Journal of Guidance and Counseling: Theory and Application, 7(1). Google Scholar
Rangkuti,
Freddy. (2017). Customer care excellence: meningkatkan kinerja perusahaan
melalui pelayanan prima plus analisis kasus jasa raharja. Gramedia Pustaka
Utama. Google Scholar
Rianda,
Riski, & Firmansyah, Deny. (2021). Pengaruh Self Efficacy Dan Kualitas
Kehidupan Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Kantor Pelayanan Pajak Pratama
Bireuen. Jurnal Ilmu Adminsitrasi Bisnis (JIAB), 4(2), 9–18. Google Scholar
Simanullang,
Tansen. (2021). Pengaruh tipe kepribadian the big five model personality
terhadap kinerja aparatur sipil negara (Kajian studi literatur manajemen
keuangan). Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan Dan Ilmu Sosial, 2(2),
747–753. Google Scholar
Sinambela,
Lijan Poltak. (2021). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia: Membangun tim kerja
yang solid untuk meningkatkan kinerja. Bumi Aksara. Google Scholar
Suryati,
Suryati. (2021). Gaya Kepemimpinan Servant Leadership, Kepuasan Kerja,
Loyalitas Kerja Terhadap Komitmen Organisasional (Studi Kasus Pada Kantor Bpkad
“Badan Pengelolaan Keuangan Dan Aset Daerah) Kabupaten Mappi. Jurnal
Manajemen Pendidikan Dan Ilmu Sosial, 2(2), 1002–1018. Google Scholar