The Influence of Workload, Work Motivation, and
Physical Work Environment on Employee Performance
Indah Fitriyani1, Herry
Krisnandi2, Kumba
Digdowiseiso3*
Faculty
of Economics and Business,
Universitas Nasional1,2,3
Email:
[email protected]1, [email protected]2, k[email protected]3*
|
|
ABSTRACT |
|
|
Workload, Work
Motivation, Physical Work Environment and Employee Performance. |
|
This
study investigates the impact of workload, work motivation, and the physical
work environment on employee performance within the Finance and Equipment
Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal
Health, Ministry of Agriculture. The population comprises 150 employees
within this section. Utilizing the Slovin formula, a sample of 110 employees
was selected. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 23, employing
multiple linear regression. The results revealed significant findings
supporting the three hypotheses proposed. However, the abstract does not
provide specific details about the magnitude and direction of these effects.
The study suggests that the Finance and Equipment Division employees can
enhance their performance by addressing factors such as workload, work
motivation, and the physical work environment. Practical implications and
recommendations for implementation are not explicitly mentioned in the
current abstract. In summary, while the abstract effectively outlines the
study's objectives and methodology, it could benefit from greater
specificity, conciseness, and clarity in presenting the essential findings
and their practical implications. |
|
|
||
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Human resource
management is a set of organizational activities directed at efforts to
attract, develop, and retain an effective workforce. Human resource management
takes place in the context of a complex and ever-changing environment and is
increasingly considered strategically important. In an organization, human
resource management has a very important role to manage, organize and utilize
employees so that they can function productively. In short, human resource
management places labor not just as a means of production, an organization or company
sees the quality of its employees based on the performance produced by these
employees in every task given to them. According to (A. Anwar Prabu
Mangkunegara, 2011) performance is the result of work in quality and quantity
achieved by an employee in performing his duties in accordance with the
responsibilities given to him. (V.Hubeis, 2007) (Billy Rubianto Irawan, 2016)
states that employee performance is influenced by employee intrinsic and
extrinsic factors. The intrinsic factors that affect employee performance
consist of education, experience, motivation, health, age, skills, emotions and
spiritual. While extrinsic factors that affect employee performance consist of
physical and non-physical environments, leadership, vertical and horizontal
communication, compensation, control in the form of supervision, facilities,
training, workload, work procedures, punishment systems and so on.
Thus the workload
is included in the extrinsic factors that affect employee performance. Workload
is the tasks given to the workforce or employees to be completed at a certain
time using the skills and potential of the workforce (Munandar, 2011).
Excessive workload will result in both physical and psychological fatigue and
emotional reactions, such as headaches, indigestion and irritability. While on
too little workload where the work done due to repetition of motion causes
boredom.
In addition to the
workload factor, the motivation factor also needs to be considered in order to
achieve organizational goals. According to (A.F.Stoner James, 1996) defines
motivation as that which causes, channels, and supports human behavior. Because
of its position and relationship, it is very strategic if the development of
individual employee performance starts from increasing work motivation.
Employees and companies are two things that cannot be separated. Employees play
a major role in running the wheels of company life If employees have high
productivity and work motivation, then the pace of the wheels will run fast,
which will eventually result in good performance and achievements for the
company. On the other hand, how can the wheels of the company run well, if the
employees work unproductively, it means that employees do not have high morale,
are not tenacious at work, and have low morale. Usually employees who are
satisfied with what they get from the company will give more than what is expected
and he will continue to try to improve his performance. Conversely, employees
with low job satisfaction tend to see work as tedious and boring, so they work
forcefully and carelessly.
A physical work
environment can create a binding working relationship between people in the
environment. Therefore, efforts should be made so that the work environment
must be good and conducive because a good and conducive work environment makes
employees feel at home in the room and feel happy and eager to carry out their
duties so that job satisfaction will be formed and from the employee's job
satisfaction, employee performance will also increase.
From HRD data from
the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health in 2021, a
recapitulation of the percentage of employee performance targets in the finance
and equipment section of the secretariat of the Directorate General of
Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture was obtained with an
estimated target of 100%. The performance produced in 2019 averaged 81.4%, then
in 2020 it increased to 83.2% and in 2021 it decreased again. Based on these
data, it can be seen that employee performance fluctuates, where the average
employee performance increases and decreases every year.
With there are
still problems in the Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the
Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture such as Workload, Motivation and Physical Work Environment that
have not been implemented optimally, for this reason, it is necessary to take
appropriate actions in order to create a growing company by focusing and
increasing employee potential that can make employee performance increase. This
study focuses on the effect of workload, work motivation, and physical work
environment on employee performance in the Finance and Equipment Section of the
Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the
Ministry of Agriculture. The problem formulation includes questions related to
the influence of each of these variables on employee performance. The purpose
of the study was to analyze the effect of workload, work motivation, and
physical work environment on employee performance. The usefulness of research
involves the application of research results as input to HR policies for
employees of the Ministry of Agriculture, references for universities in future
research, and contributions to the development of authors' knowledge and skills
in obtaining a Bachelor of Management Degree.
METHODS
This study used a
quantitative approach with a correlational descriptive research design. This
type of study aims to identify the relationship between the variables Workload,
Motivation, and Physical Work Environment on Employee Performance in the Finance
and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of
Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture. The population of
this study is all employees in the Finance and Equipment Section of the
Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the
Ministry of Agriculture, which is 150 employees. The sample was taken using a
random sampling method with a total of 110 respondents. Data collection is
carried out through primary data, namely interviews with personnel and
distribution of questionnaires to employees. Secondary data is also used as
supporting material from internal representatives of the Directorate General of
Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture.
The data
collection instrument is a questionnaire with closed questions using the Likert
scale. Data analysis was carried out in a quantitative descriptive manner using
multiple regression and linear methods. The test of the research instrument
involves testing validity and reliability with the Pearson Product Moment and
Cronbach's Alpha methods. Hypothesis testing uses the T test to see the effect
of Workload, Motivation, and Physical Work Environment variables on Employee
Performance. In addition, tests of classical assumptions such as normality,
multicollinearity, autocorrelation, and heteroscedasticity are also performed
to ensure the validity of regression models. The entire research process is
expected to contribute to the development of human resource management and
provide further insight into the factors that affect employee performance at
the institution.
RESULTS
In this study,
validity and reliability tests were conducted on a sample of 110 respondents of
employees of the Finance and Equipment Section of the Scope of the Secretariat
of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture. The results of the validity test show that all question items on
the variables workload (X1), work motivation (X2), physical work environment
(X3), and employee performance (Y) have a greater Corrected Item Total
Correlation value compared to the r table, thus it can be concluded that all
statements on each variable are valid. Furthermore, reliability tests using
Alpha Cronbachs showed that all research variables, namely workload (X1), work
motivation (X2), physical work environment (X3), and employee performance (Y),
had a reliability coefficient or alpha above 0.6, indicating that this research
instrument was reliable.
Classical Assumption Test
Normality Test
One Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test, or Normality Test is
used to determine the distribution of the population, whether it follows the distribution
theoretically (normal, poisson, or
uniform). Which aims to test whether in the regression model, variables
bound to employee performance (Y) and independent variables, namely, workload (X1),
work motivation (X2), and physical work environment (X3) both have a normal
distribution. The distribution data is said to be normal if the level of
significance value is > α = 0.05 and if the opposite is < α = 0.05 then
it is said to be abnormal. Below is presented a table of results from the
Normality Test in this study.
Table 1. Normality Test Results
|
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test |
||
|
|
Unstandardized
Residual |
|
|
N |
110 |
|
|
Normal
Parametersa,b |
-0,0269481 |
,0000000 |
|
2,02089055 |
3,27511892 |
|
|
Most
Extreme Differences |
0,051 |
,054 |
|
0,051 |
,052 |
|
|
-0,049 |
-,054 |
|
|
Test
Statistic |
0,051 |
|
|
Asymp.
Sig. (2-tailed) |
,200c,d |
|
|
a. Test distribution is Normal. |
||
Sumber: Output SPSS 26. Coefficients, linier regression. Diolah
2022
The results from
Table 1 above show that the value of Asymp Sig. (2-tailed) is 0.200. Which
means that the regression model in this study has a normal sample distribution
based on its significance value > α = 0.05. So it can be said that the
distribution of employee performance results derived from workload (X1), work motivation
(X2), and physical work environment (X3) is normally distributed at the
level of significance α = 0.05.
Multicollinearity Test
The
multicollinearity test is used to determine whether or not there is a deviation
from the classical assumption of multicollinearity, namely the existence of a
linear relationship or the value of
variance inflation factor (VIF), if the Tolerance
value > 0.1 or VIF < 10, then it can be said that multicollinearity
does not occur in the model studied. To find out whether multicollinearity
occurs can be seen in table 2 below:
Table 2. Multicollinearity Test Output
|
Coefficient |
|||
|
Model |
Collinearity
Statistics |
||
|
Tolerance |
BRIGHT |
||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
|
|
|
Beban_Kerja |
0,466 |
2,145 |
|
|
Motivasi_Kerja |
0,378 |
2,644 |
|
|
Lingkungan_Kerja_Fisik |
0,487 |
2,053 |
|
|
A.
Dependent Variable: Kinerja_Pegawai |
|||
Sumber: Output SPSS 26. Coefficients, linier regression. Diolah
2022
Based on table 2 (Coefficients) it can be seen that the variance inflation factor (VIF) of each independent variable has the following values:
1) The VIF value for the workload variable (X1) is
2.145 < 10 and the tolerance value is 0.466 >
0.10.
2) The VIF value for the work motivation variable
(X2) is 2.644 < 10 and the tolerance value is 0.378 >
0.10.
3) The VIF value for the physical work
environment variable (X3) is 2.053 < 10 and the
tolerance value is 0.487 > 0.10.
Thus it can be
concluded that the regression equation model does not occur multicollinearity
and can be used in this study.
Heteroscedasticity Test
In a good
Regression Heteroscedasticity test should not occur Heteroscedasticity, this
test aims to test whether a regression model has an inequality of variance from
one observation to another. A good regression model is one of homokedasticity,
or no heteroscedasticity. In this study, researchers used the
Heteroscedasticity Test with the glacier test
where the test results can be seen in the table below:
Tableau 3. Output Uji Gletjer
|
Coefficient |
||||||
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized
Coefficients |
T |
Say. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
3,803 |
1,342 |
|
2,834 |
0,005 |
|
Beban_Kerja |
-0,058 |
0,063 |
-0,128 |
-0,915 |
0,362 |
|
|
Motivasi_Kerja |
0,003 |
0,046 |
0,011 |
0,069 |
0,946 |
|
|
Lingkungan_Kerja_Fisik |
-0,027 |
0,051 |
-0,072 |
-0,524 |
0,602 |
|
Sumber : :Output SPSS 26. Coefficient,
linear regression. Diolah 2022
Table 3 above
explains that the results of each independent variable, namely workload (X1), work
motivation (X2), and physical work environment (X3) using the glacier model obtained significant
results greater than 0.05 (Sig > 0.05)
which means that the data in this study did not occur heterokedasticity
problems so that this research can be continued.
The Automobile
Autocorrelation is
a state in which there is a strong correlation for observations between one and
another observation arranged according to time sequence. The Autocorrelation
Test aims to test whether in a linear regression model there is a correlation
between confounding errors in the current period and confounding errors in
previous periods. A good regression equation is one that has no
autocorrelation. If there is autocorrelation, the equation becomes not good for
production. One measure in determining the presence or absence of autocorrelation
problems is to use the Durbin-Watson (DW)
test. Where the results of autokeralsi testing can be seen in the table below:
Table 4. Autocorrelation Test
|
Model Summaryb |
|||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error Of The Estimate |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
,841a |
0,708 |
0,699 |
1,59411 |
1,906 |
Sumber : Output SPSS 26. Coefficients, linier regression. Diolah 2022
Based on table 4
it can be explained that the Durbin-Watson
value is 1.906. Where the K value or number of independent variables is 3
and the N value or the number of respondents' data amounts to 110 respondents.
So that the value of dL = 1.633 and the value of dU = 1.745 then the value of
4-dU = 2.255. The Durbin-Watson value
in regression was 1.706. If included in the criteria so that the results of dU
< DW < 4-dU (1.745 < 1.906 < 2.255) which means that the regression
model obtained does not occur autocorrelation.
Double Linear Regression
Analysis
Multiple linear
regression analysis is a form of analysis that discusses the extent of the influence
of the independent variable (X) on the dependent variable (Y). where for the
independent variables of workload (X1), work motivation (X2), and physical work environment
(X3) and the dependent variable is employee performance (Y). In
calculating the regression coefficient in this study using the SPSS 26 program.
Below are the output results
presented in Table 5 as follows:
Table 5. Multiple Liniear Regression Analysis
|
Variable |
Koefisien Regresi |
t-count |
Say. |
|
Konstanta |
0,155 |
|
|
|
Workload (X1) |
0,465 |
6,047 |
0,000 |
|
Work Motivation (X2) |
0,304 |
3,554 |
0,001 |
|
Physical Work Environment
(X3) |
0,170 |
2,258 |
0,026 |
|
f-count |
85,489 |
|
|
|
R
Square |
0,708 |
|
|
Sumber : Output SPSS 26. Coefficient,
linear regression. Diolah 2022
Based on the
results of multiple linear regression analysis referring to table 5 above, it
can be seen that the linear regression equation is as follows:
Y = 0.465 X1 + 0.304 X2 + 0.170 x3
Information:
Y = Employee Performance X1 = Workload
X2 = Work Motivation
X3 = Physical Work Environment
The interpretation of the results of the
equation is as follows:
Workload (X1) in this study obtained a positive
contribution value of 0.465 to employee performance variables (Y). If the workload variable
(X1) increases, it is predicted that the employee performance variable
(Y) will increase by 0.465 or 46.5%.
Work motivation
(X2) in this study obtained a contribution value of 0.304 to the employee
performance variable (Y). If the work motivation variable (X2) increases, it is
predicted that the employee performance variable (Y) will increase by 0.304 or
30.4%.
The physical work
environment (X3) in this study obtained a contribution value of 0.170 to the
employee performance variable (Y). If the physical work environment variable
(X3) increases, it is predicted that the employee performance variable (Y) will
increase by 0.170 or 17.0%.
In this study, it
can be seen that the Standardized Coefficient Beta which has the greatest value
is found in the workload variable (X1) of 0.465 which means that in the Human
Resource Management (HRM) process it is necessary to maintain the factor or influence
of the workload given to employees as a form of giving a sense of
responsibility to employees, with a sense of responsibility owned, It is
expected that the performance of employees in the Finance and Equipment Section
of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of
the Ministry of Agriculture will increase. However, it must be considered again
the influence of the physical work environment (X3) which has the lowest contribution
value to performance in this study. So that the factors or influences of the
physical work environment can be increased again.
Test Model Eligibility
Test F
To test the
significance of the influence of independent variables, namely workload, work
motivation, physical work environment on the dependent variable, namely the
performance of 110 respondents, employees of the Finance and Equipment Section
of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of
the Ministry of Agriculture, the ANOVA test (Test F) was used. The test results
using a significance level of 0.05 are as follows.
Table 6. Model Credential Test Output (Test F)
|
ANOVA |
||||||
|
Model |
Sum Of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Say. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
651,734 |
3 |
217,245 |
85,489 |
,000b |
|
Residual |
269,366 |
106 |
2,541 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
921,100 |
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
A.
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance |
||||||
|
B.
Predictors: (Constant), Work Discipline, Communication, Work Motivation |
||||||
Sumber: Output SPSS 26. ANOVA. Diolah 2022
The Ftable value can be
searched with the conditions:
Number of
independent and
bound variables (k-1) -1 or, (4-1=3) and Number of respondents (n-k) minus the
number of variables (110 - 4 = 106). So that the calculated F value is 2.698, as shown in the data output of the Anova Table in Table 4.21 above, it can be
explained that the Fcalculate value is 85.489 with a sig value of 0.000. The F
value of the table (α= 5%) is 2.698 because the Fcalculate value is greater
than the F table (242.629 > 2.482),
it can be concluded that there is an influence on four independent
variables, namely, workload (X1), work motivation (X2), and physical work environment (X3) on
employee performance (Y). This is reinforced by the probability value of p-value (significance) Sig value =
(0.00) which is smaller than alpha or the error limit level obtained which is
5% (α = 0.05). The meaning of the Sig value in the Anova model table is said to
be significant because it is below the specified alpha value limit of 0.000
< 0.05.
So it can be
concluded that in this study together the workload (X1), work motivation (X2), and
physical work environment (X3) are said to be significant and feasible to be
used in this study based on the Sig value obtained, that all independent
variables can explain any changes in the value of the dependent variable
because it has a significant influence.
Coefficient of Determination (R2)
Analysis of the coefficient of
determination (R2) is used to determine
how much the ability of the independent variable developed in the study is able
to explain the dependent variable.
Table 7. Coefficient of Determination (R2)
|
Model Summaryb |
|||||
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error Of The Estimate |
Durbin-Watson |
|
1 |
,841a |
0,708 |
0,699 |
1,59411 |
,841a |
Sumber : Output SPSS 26.Model
Summary, Diolah 2022
In Table 7 it can
be seen that the coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.708. This means that
the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable in
this study is 0.708 which means that 70.8% of the variation in employee
performance of the Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the
Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture is influenced by workload, work motivation, physical work
environment. While 29.2% was explained by other factors that can affect
employee performance outside the regression model analyzed in research
conducted in the Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the
Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture.
Test t (Research Hypothesis Test)
This test is used
to determine the significance of the effect of the independent variable
partially or individually on the dependent variable. The effect can be estimated by
the cynical value and tcount obtained. To find out whether workload (X1), work
motivation (X2), and physical work environment (X3) have a significant effect
on employee performance Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat
of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture
Tableau, 8. Uji t
Coefficient
|
Model |
Unstandardized |
Standardized |
t |
Say. |
||
|
B |
Std. |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
0,155 |
1,663 |
|
0,093 |
0,926 |
|
Beban_Kerja |
0,472 |
0,078 |
0,465 |
6,047 |
0,000 |
|
|
Motivasi_Kerja |
0,201 |
0,056 |
0,304 |
3,554 |
0,001 |
|
|
Lingkungan_Kerja_Fisik |
0,142 |
0,063 |
0,170 |
2,258 |
0,026 |
|
a. Dependent Variable:
Kinerja_Pegawai
Sumber :
:Output SPSS 26. Coefficients. Diolah
2022
Based on table 8,
it can be seen that the elaboration of the hypothesis in this study is:
when
the trust level is 95% then the value α = 5% or 0.05
df =
derajat bebas (degree of freedom)
Determined
by the formula (n-k) where:
n
= number of samples
k = number of variables (dependent and
independent)
Then the value of
df is 110 – 4 = 106 (df = 106), because the hypothesis is bidirectional, the value of ttable
is 1.660.
Based on the test
results in table 8 above, it shows that the calculated value in the workload variable (X1) is 6.047 with a
significant value of 0.000 (0.000 < 0.05). While the ttable value with df
106 and a significant level of 5% obtained a value of 1.660. Because tcounts
> ttable
(6.047 > 1.660), then, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted, which means that
there is a positive and significant influence between workload (X1) on employee
performance in the Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the
Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture.
Based on the test
results in table 4.23 above, it shows that the calculated value of the work motivation
variable (X2) is 3.554 with a significant value of 0.001 (0.001 < 0.05). While
the ttable value with df 106 and a significant level of 5% obtained a value of
1.660. Because tcounts > ttable (3.554 > 1.660), then, Ho is rejected and Ha is
accepted, which means that there is a positive and significant influence
between work motivation (X2) on employee performance in the Finance and
Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock
and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture.
Based on the test
results in table 4.23 above, it shows that the calculated t value in the physical work environment
variable (X3) is 2.258 with a significant value of 0.026 (0.026 < 0.05).
While the ttable value with df 106 and a significant level of 5%
obtained a value of 1.988. Because tcount > ttable (2.258 > 1.660), then, Ho was rejected and H a was accepted, which means that there is a positive
and significant influence between the physical work environment (X3) on employee
performance in the Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of
the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of
Agriculture.
Discussion
The effect of workload (X1) on employee performance (Y)
Based on the
results of research conducted by researchers, it was found that workload had a
positive and significant effect on employee performance. This is evidenced by
the test of the workload variable t test on employee performance showing tcalculated
> ttable
(6.047 > 1.660), regression coefficient of 0.465 and probability
value of 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05). This positive influence indicates that the better the
workload given, it will affect the performance of employees in the Finance and
Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock
and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture. The results of the assessment
of 110 respondents regarding the workload questionnaire given, on average,
answered in agreement with the average value of the average workload of 4.21.
From the largest mean obtained in the fourth indicator, which is agreeing with
the target that must be achieved which states that the boss or leader sets a
target that I must achieve every time I do work and is always given a target to
complete the work on time. The lowest assessment is found in the Job Conditions
indicator with a value of 4.18 which states that the workload given is in
accordance with job standards and always does the same work every day. This
also has an impact on the level of employee performance statements which state
that employees can complete work on time and come and go to work according to
the specified time.
Workload is a
process carried out by someone in completing the tasks of a job or group of
positions that are carried out under normal circumstances within a certain
predetermined period of time. Workload can affect employee performance in
working to achieve optimal results for the company. Workload requires employees
to work harder to produce the performance desired by the company. (Kiolol,
2018). In a study conducted by Kadek Ferranita (2017) in his research entitled
"The Effect of Workload and Compensation on the Performance of Employees
of the Regional Government Secretariat of Tabanan Regency" showed the
results of research that stated that workload had a positive and significant
effect on employee performance. The research also supports the results of this
study which states that workload has a positive and significant effect on
employee performance. This indicates the acceptance of hypothesis 1 in this
study.
The Effect of Work Motivation (X2) on Employee
Performance (Y)
Based on the
results of research conducted by researchers, it was found that work motivation
has a positive and significant effect on employee performance. This is
evidenced by the t-test testing of work motivation variables on employee
performance showing t-count > t-table (3.554 > 1.660), regression coefficient of 0.304
and probability value of 0.001 which is smaller than 0.05 (0.001 < 0.05).
This positive influence indicates that the better the motivation given to
employees, the more it will affect the performance of employees in the Finance
and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of
Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture. The results of the
assessment of 110 respondents regarding the work motivation questionnaire
given, on average, answered in agreement with the average value of work
motivation mean of 4.31. From the largest mean, the Esteem-need indicator was
obtained with a value of 4.41 where respondents agreed to be given awards for
the achievements I achieved and the incentives given in accordance with the
work targets set. And the statement item that gets the lowest answer is found
in the physiological-need indicator which states that the salary and benefits
are sufficient to meet my living needs with a value of then employees work to
meet and meet my living needs 4.16. This also has an impact on the level of
employee performance statements which state that employees can complete work on
time and come and go to work according to the specified time.
Work motivation is
a variety of efforts made by humans, of course, to meet their wants and needs.
However, so that his wants and needs can be fulfilled is not easy to obtain
without maximum effort. In fulfilling their needs, a person will behave
according to the impulses he has and what underlies his behavior. To improve
employee performance, it is necessary to have employees who have skills,
expertise and professionalism on the job, because if employees do not have
these traits, it will result in decreased employee performance and harm the
company. Researchers concluded that employees who have great motivation in
their work can certainly increase the level of performance of a company. Vice
versa, if employees do not have a sense of motivation, employee performance
will decrease and the expected goals will be difficult to achieve.
In a study
conducted by Arta Adhi Kusuma, (2019) stated the results that motivation has a
positive and significant effect on employee performance, the same is also
stated in research conducted by Henri, (2018) with a study entitled "The
Effect of Work Motivation on the Performance of Gunung Kidu Regency Regional
Secretariat Office Employees". These results support this study which
states that work motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee
performance. This shows the acceptance of hypothesis 2 in research.
The
effect of the physical work environment (X3) on employee performance (Y)
Based on the
results of research conducted by researchers, it was found that the physical
work environment had a positive and significant effect on employee performance.
This is evidenced by the t-test test of physical work environment variables on
employee performance showing t-count t-table > (2.258 > 1.660), regression
coefficient of 0.170 and probability value of 0.026 which is smaller than 0.05
(0.026 < 0.05). This positive influence indicates that the better the
physical work environment provided to its employees, it will affect the
performance of employees in the Finance and Equipment Section of the
Secretariat of the Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health of the
Ministry of Agriculture. The results of the assessment of 110 respondents regarding
the physical work environment questionnaire given, on average, answered in
agreement with a mean average value of 4.36. From the largest mean obtained on
the safety indicator in the workplace where respondents answered in the
affirmative and got an average answer of 4.48 with a statement that employees
feel very safe while working and agencies always pay attention to safety in the
employee work environment. While the lowest indicator is found in the work
atmosphere with a value of 4.27 which states that the building used for me to
work is very concerned about work safety and the workspace that supports my
work activities with good enough lighting. This also has an impact on the level
of employee performance statements which state that employees can complete work
on time and come and go to work according to the specified time.
The physical work
environment itself can be divided into two categories. The first category is an
environment that is directly related to employees and is near employees (such
as tables, chairs and so on). The second category is the intermediate environment
or the general environment can also be called the work environment that affects
the human condition, for example: temperature, humidity, air circulation,
lighting, noise, mechanical vibrations, unpleasant odors, colors, and others.
The results of the study that state that the physical work environment has a
positive and significant effect are also supported by research conducted by
Yacinda Chresstela Prasidya Norianggono Djamhur Hamid Ika Ruhana (2014), which
states that physical work environment variables have a positive and significant
influence on employee performance. This shows the acceptance of hypothesis 3 (H3) in research.
CONCLUSION
Research on employees of the
Finance and Equipment Section of the Secretariat of the Directorate General of
Livestock and Animal Health of the Ministry of Agriculture concluded that
workload, work motivation, and physical work environment have a positive and
significant effect on employee performance. Research suggestions include
setting workloads by setting targets, increasing work motivation by paying
attention to physiological needs and employee rewards, special attention to
security and safety factors in the work environment, and proposals for future
research that can develop models by adding other variables that affect employee
performance.
REFERENCES
A. Anwar Prabu Mangkunegara. (2011). Manajemen Sumber Daya
Manusia. PT. Remaja Rosdakarya.
A.F.Stoner James, D. (1996). manajemen (Indonesia). PT.
Prenhallindo.
Abdul Rachman, S., & Hardi, U. (2018). Pengaruh Disiplin
Kerja, Motivasi Kerja, Etos Kerja Dan Lingkungan Kerja Terhadap Produktivitas
Kerja Karyawan Bagian Produksi Di PT Inko Java Semarang. Among Makarti, 11(21),
28–50. Afandi, P. (2016). Concept & Indicator Human Resources Management
for Management Researchle (Deepublish).
As’ad. (2001). Seri Ilmu Sumber Daya Manusia Psikologi
Industri. Liberty.
Billy Rubianto Irawan. (2016). Dampak Inovasi Produk Terhadap
Kinerja Pemasaran (Agora Vol).
Fajarullaili, N. A. (2018). Pengaruh Beban Kerja Dan
Lingkungan Kerja Terhadap Loyalitas Karyawan Pada Unit Pelayanan Dinas
Kesehatan Provinsi Jawa Timur. Fakultas Ekonomi Dan Bisnis Islam Universitas
Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya.
Garniwa. (2007). Perilaku Organisasional. Graha Ilmu.
Ghozali, I. (2012). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate dengan
Program IBM SPSS. Universitas Diponegoro.
Griffin. (2003). Manajemen. Erlangga.
Handoko, T. H. (2001). Manajemen Personalia dan Sumber Daya
Manusia. BPFE Yogyakarta.
Harpitasari, D. R. (2010). Manajemen SDM. Rineka cipta.
Hasibuan, M. S.. (2003). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bumi
Aksara. Herman Sofyandi. (2018). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Graha Ilmu.
Hs, S., & Risa, M. (2020). Pengaruh Kepemimpinan,
Kompetensi, Beban Kerja, dan Lingkungan Kerja, Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Lembaga
Layanan Pendidikan Tinggi (LLDIKTI) Wilayah III Jakarta. Jurnal Riset Manajemen
Dan Bisnis (JRMB), 5(3), 399–408.
Khairunnisa, V. (2018). Pengaruh Efikasi Diri dan Kompetensi
Kewirausahaan Terhadap Intensi Berwirausaha (Studi pada Mahasiswa Aktif
Universitas Pasundan Bandung). 15–52.
Kiolol, C. C. (2018). Pengaruh Beban Kerja Terhadap
Produktivitas Kerja Karyawan Pada Siloam Hospital Manado. Jurnal Manajemen.
Maslikha, H., Puspitaningtyas, Z., & Prakoso. (2016).
Pengaruh Inflasi dan BI Rate terhadap IHSG. Vol. IV Edisi, 1, 62–67.
Mathis, R. L. & J. H. J. (2006). Human Resource Management
(salemba em). Meilinda, T. (2017). Pengertian Beban Kerja.
Minarni, E. (2017). Pengaruh Profesionalisme dan Motivasi
Terhadap Produktivitas Kerja Karyawan Pada Kantor Badan Pusat Statistik Kota
Medan. Ekonomi, 11–12, 18–19.
Munandar, S. A. (2011). psikologi industri dan organisasi.
Universitas Indonesia. Nitisemito, A. S. (1992). Manajemen dan Sumber Daya
Manusia. BPFE UGM. Pujiati. (2018). Pengaruh Kompetensi, Beban Kerja Dan
Kompensasi Terhadap Kinerja Perawat Rumah Sakit Umum (Rsu) Avisena Cimahi.
28–29.
Robbins, Stephen, P. (2003). Prinsip-Prinsip Perilaku
Organisasi. Erlangga. Siagian, S. P. (2003). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia
edisi satu (cetakan ke). Bumi Aksara.
Sugiyono. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif
dan R&D. PT. Alfabet.
Syamsu, N. N., Soelton, M., Nanda, A., Putra, R. L., &
Pebriani, P. (2019). Bagaimanakah Konflik Peran Dan Beban Kerja Mempengaruhi
Kinerja Karyawan Dengan Burnout Sebagai Variabel Intervening. Jurnal Ilmiah
Manajemen Dan Bisnis, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.22441/jimb.v5i1.5621
Tarwaka. (2014). Manajemen dan Implementasi K3 di Tempat
Kerja. Harapan Press.
Umar, H. (2013). Metode Penelitian untuk Skripsi dan Tesis.
Rajawali.
V.Hubeis, M.. dan A. (2007). Manajemen Mutu sumber daya
Manusia. GHALIA INDONESIA.
|
Copyright holder: Indah Fitriyani, Herry Krisnandi, Kumba
Digdowiseiso (2024) |
|
First publication rights: International
Journal of Social Service and Research (IJSSR) |
|
This article is licensed under:
|
