The
Effect of Motivation, Work Discipline And Supervision on the Performance of Employees at Jati
Padang Regional General Hospital
Achmad Fauzi1, Herry Krisnandi2,
Kumba Digdowiseiso3*
Faculty of Economics and Business,
National University, Indonesia1,2,3
Email: achmad.f[email protected]1,
[email protected]2, [email protected]3*
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
|
This study aims to determine how much
influence motivation, work discipline and supervision have on employee
performance at the Jati Padang Regional General Hospital, South Jakarta, the
population in this study were 278 employees of the Jati Padang Regional
General Hospital, South Jakarta. Using the formula, respondents were
selected. Slovin as a sample from 278 to 74 employees, based on the results
of data analysis using SPSS the results of the study showed the proposed
hypothesis 3, there was a significant hypothesis 3. The data collected was
then analyzed using inferential data analysis techniques with multiple linear
regression and using the application of the Statistical Product and Service
Solution (SPSS) version 26 program. With the results of this study, the
authors hope that the Jati Padang Regional General Hospital can strive to
increase motivation, Work Discipline and Supervision of Employee Performance. |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
The current era of globalization, which is
full of rapid progress in terms of science and technology, forces all aspects
of life to develop very quickly as well. This makes competition between
companies even tighter. Every company must have goals that it wants to achieve.
On the other hand, the company must still be able to survive in the midst of a
fast development rhythm and fierce competition.
Human resources are one of the valuable
assets that have a great influence on the progress of both companies and
government agencies, so that in managing human resources, management is needed
that can manage human resources well and contribute to companies and government
agencies in achieving their goals.
In order to achieve the goals of an
organization, both large and small organizations, motivation, work discipline
and good supervision are needed in order to support the performance of an
employee. According to (Ardana et al, 2011: 134) performance discipline is an
attitude of respect, respect, compliance and obedience to applicable
regulations, both written and unwritten and able to carry out and not avoid
receiving sanctions. Meanwhile, employee discipline is absolutely necessary so
that all activities that are being and will be carried out run according to a
predetermined mechanism. With work discipline, employees will not take actions
that can harm the company.
According to Sutrisno (2009), motivation is
an attitude or drive that comes from within a person to do a certain activity.
While the importance of performance motivation according to Handoko (200: 86)
as a driving force that can realize a behavior in order to achieve goals and
self-satisfaction.
Supervision is an important element for the
continuity and growth and safety of the organization at the Jati Padang
Regional General Hospital. Supervision is one element in administrative
activities which in the order of writing is always behind. This condition is
often associated with its placement as the final part of the overall
administration and control activities over the cooperation of units and / or a
number of employees to achieve company goals. Supervision can be formulated as
a process of activities to ensure that activities can be completed as planned
and the process of correcting any deviations that occur. Each manager must be
involved in the process of supervision of work units so that they function as
planned. Managers cannot actually know whether their units are working as they
should until they evaluate which activities have been performed and compare
actual performance to desired standards. Supervision means determining what has
been implemented, meaning evaluating work performance and if necessary
determining corrective action actions so that the results of the work are in
accordance with the plan.
Based on the results of the study, it can be
seen that the achievement rate of employee performance realization in 2017 was
80%, in 2018 it increased 2% to 82%, in 2019 it increased 2% to 84%, in 2020 it
decreased 1% to 83% and in 2021 it increased 2% to 85%. Thus, it can be seen
that the average percentage of employee performance value has fluctuated and
has not been said to be optimal. It is estimated that there are still some
activities that cannot be carried out properly according to the plan. This can be
caused by the influence of motivation, work discipline and supervision of
employee performance.
Based on
the background of the above problem, the author is interested in raising the
title in this study is "The Effect
of Motivation, Work Discipline and Supervision on the Performance of General
Hospital Employees".
METHODS
This research uses quantitative descriptive
research methods with the object of research in the form of employees of the
Jati Padang Regional General Hospital, South Jakarta. The main data source
comes from primary data obtained through the distribution of questionnaires to
278 employees. The population of this study was all employees of the Jati
Padang Regional General Hospital, and samples were taken as many as 74
respondents using the Slovin formula. Data collection techniques are carried
out through questionnaires with a Likert scale that includes motivation, work
discipline, supervision, and employee performance variables. Data analysis was
carried out using descriptive analysis, multiple linear regression, validity
test, reliability test, classical assumption test, model feasibility test (F
test and coefficient of determination), and partial t test. All of these
research processes are planned and carried out in accordance with the stages
that have been prepared, starting from the preparation of proposals, proposal
seminars, data collection, data report processing, to the preparation of the
final report or thesis.
RESULTS
Validity Test
This study uses a validity test to measure the
accuracy of measuring devices, which is declared valid if the rcount
(Correlated Item Total Correlation) is greater than the rtable at a
significance level of 0.10. With n = 74, we get rtable (0.10) = 0.190. The
results of the validity test showed that all statements (34 items) for
motivation, work discipline, supervision, and employee performance variables
were declared valid, because the count was greater than the rtable in each
statement. Furthermore, reliability tests using Cronbach Alpha showed that the
measuring instrument had a high level of reliability, with Cronbach Alpha
values for motivation (0.822), work discipline (0.895), supervision (0.878),
and employee performance (0.931) all exceeding the minimum limit of 0.6. Thus,
the measuring device in this study can be considered reliable because it has
met the established reliability criteria.
Classical Assumption Test
Normality
Test
The normality test aims to test whether in
the regression method, the bound variable and the independent variable both
have normal distribution data. One of the conditions in parametric analysis is
that the distribution must be normal. To achieve data normality can be done
using the Kolomogorof-Smirnof test. The results of SPSS version 26 data
processing can be shown as in table 4.12 below:
Table
1. Normality Test Results
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test
|
|
Unstandardized Residual |
|
|
N |
|
74 |
|
Normal Parametersa,b |
Mean |
.0000000 |
|
|
Std. Deviation |
2.58780763 |
|
Most Extreme Differences |
Absolute |
.093 |
|
|
Positive |
.068 |
|
|
Negative |
-.093 |
|
Test Statistics |
|
.093 |
|
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) |
|
.181c |
Source : SPSS 26 data
processing results
Based
on table 1. Kolomogorof-Smirnof Test above, if the results of the One Sample
Kolomogrof Smirnov test are at a significant less than 0.05 then it is stated
that the data is not normally distributed, but if the significance value is
more than 0.05 then the data is normally distributed.
Autocorrelation
Test
Autocorrelation test is useful to find out
whether in a linear regression model there is a strong relationship both
positive and negative between data on research variables. In autocorrelation
testing, researchers used the Durbin-Watson (DW) method. Autocorrelation test
results as follows:
Table
2. Autocorrelation test results
Model Summaryb
|
Type |
R |
R
Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
.789a |
.623 |
.606 |
2.64268 |
1.782 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on the results of the autocorrelation test
table 4.13 it is known that the magnitude of Durbin-Watson = 1.782 compared to
Durbin-Watson table using a significance of 10% sample number 74 (n) and the
number of independent variables 3 (K = 3), then in the Durbin-Watson table
obtained dL = 1.539 and dU = 1.707. because the Durbin-Watson value of 1.782 is
greater than the upper bound (dU) of 1.707 and less than 4-1.707 = 2.293
(4-dU). This is in accordance with the decision criterion, namely
dU<DW<4-dU (1,707<1,782<2,293), so DW is located between dU and
4-dU, so it can be concluded that there is no auto correlation.
Heteroscedasticity
Test
Heteroscedasticity testing is performed to
test whether in a regression model, there is an inequality of variance from
residuals from another observation. If the variance of the residual from one
observation to another is fixed, it is called homosceasticity.
Table
3. Glacier Test Results
Coefficientsa
|
Type |
Unstandardized
Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
|
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
|||
|
1 (Constant) |
-2.118 |
2.085 |
|
-1.015 |
.313 |
|
Total_Motivasi |
.177 |
.105 |
.355 |
1.695 |
.095 |
|
Total_Disiplin_Kerja |
.024 |
.094 |
.055 |
.255 |
.799 |
|
Total_Pengawasan |
-.087 |
.067 |
-.223 |
-1.298 |
.199 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on Table 3. It can be explained that the
heterokedasticity test with the glacier method obtained a significant value
greater than 0.05 so that it can be said that the three variables above do not
experience heteroxidicity problems.
Multicollinearity
Test
The Multicolonearity Test is used to determine
whether or not there is a deviation from the classical assumption of
multicolonearity, namely the existence of linear relationships or independent
variables in the regression model. In this test, researchers used the Variance
Infation Factor (VIF) method. The test results are as follows:
Table
4. Multicollinearity Test Results
Coefficientsa
|
Type |
Collinearity Statistics |
||
|
Tolerance |
VIF |
||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
|
|
|
|
Total_Motivasi |
.298 |
3.352 |
|
|
Total_Disiplin_Kerja |
.278 |
3.593 |
|
|
Total_Pengawasan |
.443 |
2.258 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on table 4.15 Coefficient above, it is
known that the VIF is calculated for Motivation (X1) = 3.352, VIF calculated
for Work Discipline (X2) = 3.593 and VIF for Supervision (X3) = 2.258. of the
three variables, the VIF value is <10 and the Tolerance value is more than
0.1, which means that the regression model does not contain multicollinearity.
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Multiple linear regression analysis is a form
of analysis that discusses the extent to which the influence of the independent
variable on the dependent variable. The
independent variable in this study is Motivation (X1), Work Discipline (X2), Supervision (X3),
while the dependent variable is Employee Performance (Y). The results of
multiple linear regression analysis can be seen in the following table:
Table
5. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Results
Coefficientsa
|
Type |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
11.519 |
3.629 |
|
3.174 |
.002 |
|
|
Total_Motivasi |
-.125 |
.182 |
-.092 |
-.687 |
.494 |
|
|
Total_Disiplin_Kerja |
.836 |
.164 |
.708 |
5.088 |
.000 |
|
|
Total_Pengawasan |
.213 |
.117 |
.201 |
1.819 |
.073 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on table 6. Above about the regression
coefficient it can be seen that the multiple linear regression equation is as
follows:
Y = 0.092 X1 + 0.708 X 2 +
0.201 X3
Information:
Y = Employee Performance
X1
= Motivation
X2
= Work Discipline
X3
= Surveillance
The
regression equation above shows the constant 11.519 and can be explained that:
1.
The Motivation variable has a
regression coefficient of 0.092 meaning that if motivation decreases by one
unit, then employee performance will decrease by 0.092 with a standard error of
0.182 if the variables of work discipline and supervision are constant.
2.
The Work Discipline variable has
a regression coefficient of 0.708, meaning that if work discipline increases by
one unit, then employee performance will increase by 0.708 with a standard
error of 0.164 if the motivation and control variables are constant.
3.
The supervisory variable has a
regression coefficient of 0.201, meaning that if supervision increases by one
unit, employee performance will increase by 0.201 with an error standard of
0.117 if the variables of motivation and work discipline are constant.
The results showed that the three independent
variables namely Motivation, Work Discipline and Supervision had a positive
influence on the variables tied to Employee Performance. Thus, if motivation,
work discipline and supervision increase, the variable Employee Performance
will also increase.
Model Due Diligence
Test
F
The F test is performed to find out that in
this model the independent variable is able to explain the dependent variable.
And to see whether the analyzed model has a high level of model feasibility,
that is, the variables used by the model are able to explain the phenomenon
analyzed.
Table
6. F Test Results
ANOVAa
|
Type |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
806.232 |
3 |
268.744 |
38.481 |
.000b |
|
|
Residuals |
488.863 |
70 |
6.984 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
1295.095 |
73 |
|
|
|
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on the results of the F test in table
4.17 above, it can be explained that the Fcalculate value is 38.481
(significant 0.000). The value of Ftabel is obtained from the value of the free
degree (df) Residual (remainder) which is 70 as df as the denominator df and df
Regression (treatment) which is 3 as df numerator with a significant level of
5%, so that the value of Ftable (α = 5%) is 2.74 because the value of
Fcalculate is greater than F table (38.481 > 2.74) with a significant level
of 0.000 < 0.05, it can be concluded that Ha is accepted. Then Motivation
(X1), Work Discipline (X2), Supervision (X3) and together have a positive and
real effect on Employee Performance (Y).
Test
Coefficient of Determination (R2)
The coefficient of determination (R2)
is a measure to determine the suitability or accuracy of the analysis model
made. The greater the value of the coefficient of determination, the better the
ability of the independent variable to explain the dependent variable.
Table
7. Coefficient of Determination Test
Model Summary
|
Type |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.789a |
.623 |
.606 |
2.64268 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on table 4.18 above, it can be seen that the
value of the coefficient of determination described in the Adjusted R Square
column is 0.606 or 60.6%, meaning that the variables of Motivation, Work
Discipline and Supervision have an influence on the variables of Employee
Performance, while the remaining 30.4% are influenced by other variables that
are not analyzed in this study.
Hypothesis
Testing t test
The t test is used to test the significance
of partial coefficients and to determine whether or not the role of each
independent and dependent variable is real. The test used a significant level
of 0.05 and 2 sides. The hypothesis test between
Motivation (X1), Work Discipline (X2) and Supervision (X3) on Employee
Performance (Y) can be used by searching for t test statistics with criteria
comparing the value of t count and t table. For more details, the author
describes the results of the t test in table 8. as follows:
Table 8.
Test Results t
Coefficientsa
|
Type |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
11.519 |
3.629 |
|
3.174 |
.002 |
|
|
Total_Motivasi |
-.125 |
.182 |
-.092 |
-.687 |
.494 |
|
|
Total_Disiplin_Kerja |
.836 |
.164 |
.708 |
5.088 |
.000 |
|
|
Total_Pengawasan |
.213 |
.117 |
.201 |
1.819 |
.073 |
Source
: SPSS 26 data processing results
Based on the results of the t test referring
to table 4.19 above, it can be seen that the calculated t value for Motivation
is -0.687 with a significant level of 0.494 while the table t value with df =
n-k-l (74-3-1=70), a significant level of 0.10 is obtained at 1.66691. because
t counts < t table (-0.687 < 1.66691) then Ho is accepted and Ha is
rejected, which can be concluded that Motivation does not have a positive and
significant effect on employee performance.
For the t value of calculate Work Discipline
of 5.088 with a significant level of 0.000 while the table t value with df =
n-k-l (74-3-1=70), a significant level of 0.10 is obtained the number 1.66691.
because t count > t table (5.088 > 1.66691) then Ho is rejected and Ha is
accepted, which can be concluded that Work Discipline has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance.
For the Monitoring calculated t value of
1.819 with a significant level of 0.073 while the table t value with df = n-k-l
(74-3-1=70), a significant level of 0.10 is obtained 1.66691. because t count
> t table (1.819 > 1.66691) then Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which
can be concluded that Supervision has a positive and significant effect on
employee performance.
Discussion
The Effect of Motivation on
Employee Performance
Based on the results of hypothesis testing,
it was found that the value of the motivation coefficient for variable X1 was
0.092 and marked negative, this shows that motivation has a counter-directional
relationship with employee performance. This means that for every increase in
motivation of one unit, the employee performance variable (Y) will decrease by
0.92% assuming that the other independent variables of the regression model are
fixed. This is also reinforced from the results of previous research (Isnaini
Diana Putri Abdullah, 2018). That motivation has a significant negative
influence on employee performance.
Y = 0.092 X1 + 0.708 X 2 +
0.201 X3
From the results of the multiple linear regression
test, which is 0.092 or 0.92%, it means that if work discipline increases by
one unit, then employee performance will decrease by 0.092% assuming other
independent variables have a fixed value. While the results of the t test show
that t count < t table (-0.687 < 1.66691) then Ho is accepted and Ha is
rejected, resulting in the conclusion that Work Discipline has a significant
negative effect on Employee Performance.
The Effect of Work Discipline on Employee
Performance
Based on the results of hypothesis testing in
this research analysis, it was found that the value was significantly smaller
than the probability limit of the error rate used, which was 10% = (0.000 <
0.10), meaning that the Work Discipline variable had a positive and significant
effect on employee performance at the Jati Padang Regional General Hospital.
This is also reinforced from the results of previous research (Budiman, 2019).
That there is a positive and significant influence of competence, motivation
and work discipline on employee performance. The positive influence generated
by the work discipline variable in this study shows that employees are always
present on time, complete work in accordance with company procedures, employees
always obey the rules made by the company and accept all consequences from the
Jati Padang Regional General Hospital if they violate the rules and regulations
that have been made by the company. Based on the results of multiple liner
regression analysis, namely:
Y = 0.092 X1 + 0.708 X 2 +
0.201 X3
From the results of the multiple linear
regression test, which is 0.708 or 70.8%, it means that if work discipline
increases by one unit, then employee performance will increase by 70.8%
assuming other independent variables have a fixed value. While the results of
the t test showed that t count > t table (5.088 > 1.66691) then Ho was
rejected and Ha was accepted, resulting in the conclusion that Work Discipline
had a positive and significant effect on Employee Performance.
The Effect of Supervision on Employee Performance
Based on the results of hypothesis testing in
this research analysis, it was found that the value was significantly smaller
than the probability limit of the error rate used, which was 10% = (0.073 <
0.10), meaning that the supervisory variable had a positive and significant
effect on employee performance at the Jati Padang Regional General Hospital.
This is also reinforced from the results of previous research (Ni Luh Made
herawati etc., 2013). There is a positive and significant influence of employee
supervision, discipline and competence on employee performance. The positive
influence generated by the Supervision variable in this study shows that with
objective and comprehensive supervision at the Jati Padang Regional General
Hospital, it can improve employee performance at the Jati Padang Regional
General Hospital. Based on the results of multiple liner regression analysis,
namely:
Y = 0.092 X1 + 0.708 X 2 +
0.201 X3
From the results of the multiple linear
regression test, which is 0.201 or 20.1%, it means that if Supervision
increases by one unit, then employee performance will increase by 20.1%
assuming other independent variables have a fixed value. While the results of
the t test showed that t count > t table (1.819 > 1.66691) then Ho was
rejected and Ha was accepted, resulting in the conclusion that Supervision has
a positive and significant effect on Employee Performance.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the results of analysis and discussion of the performance of employees of
the Jati Padang Regional General Hospital, South Jakarta, this study concluded
several findings. First, the Motivation variable (X1) has a significant
negative influence on employee performance, indicated by the results of a
multiple linear regression test of -0.092 or 0.92%. It can be concluded that
better attention to motivation, especially on indicators of employee needs and
facilities, can improve performance in accordance with planned goals. Second,
the Work Discipline variable (X2) has a positive and significant influence on
employee performance, with multiple linear regression test results of 70.8%. A
good understanding of work discipline, especially in the aspect of compliance
with work standards, can help achieve health service operational targets
optimally. Third, the Supervision variable (X3) also has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance, with multiple linear regression
test results of 20.1%. These results show that supervision carried out in
accordance with plans and strategies can improve employee performance,
especially in the aspect of accuracy. Thus, accurate and thorough supervision
can help achieve company goals and solve problems that arise.
REFERENCES
Agustini, F. (2011). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia
Lanjutan. Medan: Madenatera.
Badrudin. 2014.
Dasar-dasar Manajemen. Alfabeta, Bandung.
Donelly, Gibson
(1995), Organisasi, Prilaku,
Skruktur proses, Jakarta
: Indonesia.
Doni,
Juni, Priansa, dan Suwanto.(2013). Manajemen SDM dalam Organisasi Publik dan Bisnis.Bandung: Alfabeta.
Fathoni, Abdurrahmat. 2006. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia.
Rineka Cipta, Jakarta.
Halsey, 2003, Pengawasan Organisasi, tahun (2014).
Harahap, Sofyan Sari. (2001). Sistem
Pengawasan Manajemen (Management Control System), PT Pustaka Quantum:
Jakarta.
Herman. Sofyandi.
(2009). Manajemen Sumber
Daya Manusia, Graha ilmu. Yogyakarta.
Hasibun,
Malayu S.P, 2006. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, Edisi Revisi, PT. Bumi
Aksara, Jakarta.
Kaswan.
(2012). Coaching dan Mentoring Untuk Pengembangan SDM dan Peningkatan Kinerja Organisasi, Bandung:
Alfabeta.
Lucyda, Irma dan Wia Adawiyah, (2017),
Manajemen Perpustakaan Digital (Studi Sistem
Manajemen Perpustakaan Digital Universitas Islam Bandung), Jurnal Kependidikan Islam VII (1)
Mangkunegara,
Anwar Prabu, (2005). Perencanaan dan pengembangan sumber daya manusia.
Cetakan Kedua, penerbit PT retika
aditamo, Bandung
Muhamad
Zainur Roziqin, (2010). Kepuasan kerja, Averroes Press: Malang Payaman
J. Simanjuntak, (2005), Manajemen dan Evaluasi Kinerja, Jakarta: Lembaga Penerbit Fakultas Ekonomi
UI.
Santoso, Singgih, dan Fandy Tjiptono, (2002),
Riset Pemasaran : Konsep dan Aplikasinya dengan
SPSS, Jakarta : PT Elex Media Computindo Kelompok Gramedia
Sarwoto, (2001),
Dasar-Dasar Organisasi dan Manajemen, cetakan
keenambelas, Penerbit : Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta.
Simamora,
Henry. (2006). Manajemen sumber daya manusia, Edisi 2, STIE YKPN. Yogyakarta.
S.P,Hasibuan,
Malayu. (2013). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara
Sugiyono.
(2014). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D.
Bandung: Alfabeta.
Surdamayanti.
2001. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Mandar Maju: Bandung. Suyad Prawirosentono, 2008. Manajemen Sumber
Daya Manusia; Kebijakan
Kinerja Karyawan;
Kiat Membangun Organisasi Kompetitif Era Perdagangan Bebas Dunia.
BPFE: Yogyakarta.
Terry, George R. (1993).
Prinsip-prinsip Manajemen. Jakarta:
Bumi Aksara.
Ukas, Maman.
(2004). Manajemen : Konsep, Prinsip
dan Aplikasi. Agnini.
Bandung.
Veithzal, Rivai.
2009. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia
Untuk Perusahaan. Dari
teori ke praktek. Rajawalii
Pers: Jakarta
Walpole, R. E., Myers, R. H., Myers, S. L., & Ye, K. (2007). Probability & Statistics for Engineers
& Scientists. New Jersey: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Wirawan. (2009).
Evaluasi Kinerja Sumber
Daya Manusia Teori Aplikasi dan Penelitian. Jakarta.
Penerbit: Salemba Empat.
|
Copyright holder: Achmad Fauzi, Herry
Krisnandi, Kumba Digdowiseiso (2024) |
|
First publication rights: International Journal of Social Service and
Research (IJSSR) |
|
This article is licensed under:
|
