CC BY
90
participative leadership style with a sample of 140 nurse teams, and the result of the research indicated a positive influence of participative leadership style, which subsequently may encourage team innovation. However, this leadership style decreases team's performance role. Fernandes and Awamleh (2009), in an article entitled The Impact of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Style on Employee's Satisfaction and Performance: An Empirical Test in a Multicultural Environment asserted that the transformational leadership style of the managers will improve employee job satisfaction. As the managers operationalize charisma and take advantage of inspiration, individual considerations, and intellectual stimulation, they get positive reactions from the employees. It seems that such transformational qualities certainly stimulate higher levels of employees ' needs and result in a higher sense of satisfaction. Biswas (2009), in an article entitled HR Practices as a Mediator between Organizational Culture and Transformational Leadership: Implications for Employee Performance presented the results of research in which culture and leadership are significant predictors of employee performance and their intents to quit. The results also show that the practice of human resources is an important mediator in transmitting the influence of predictor variables to the criterion variable.
Work Environment on Employee Performance. Ganapathi and Prasasd (2008), in an article entitled Effects of Working Environment on the Performance of Executives, with a sample of 200 executive employees working in various organizations, affirmed that the work environment positively affects the employee performance and plays an important role in improving individual performances and organizations as a whole. Meanwhile, according to Malik, et al. (2011) in an article entitled A Study of Work Environment and Employees' Performance in Pakistan, examining the object of 115 employees of telecommunication companies in Pakistan, also explained the positive influence between work environment and employee performance.
Compensation on Employee Performance. Sinclair (2004) in the article entitled The Effect of Director Compensation on Firm Performance explained the relationship between the compensation of the stock-based director and the performance of the company. Generally, stock compensation is negatively related to the performance of the company. However, to a higher extent, stock compensation has a positive effect on the performance of the company which indicates that if the directors are adequately compensated, it will have a positive effect on the performance of the company. Guo, et al. (2006) in the article entitled Stock Bonus Compensation and Firm Performance in Taiwan explained the evidence of positive findings in Taiwan between the number of stock bonuses and the performance of the company. It is also found in large companies with high growth opportunities; they tend to adopt stock bonuses. Companies with well-designed bonus compensations can produce better performance as well.
Shieh (2008) in the article entitled Effect of Corporate Compensation on Organizational Performance, with a sample of 600 employees in Taiwan, explained the significant relationship between the company's compensation and organizational performance. While Blazovich (2013) in the article entitled Team Identity and Performance-Based Compensation Effects on Performance explained that combinations based on individuals and teams in which based on performance results comparable to strong and weak team identities, showed that lower productivity levels—related to weak team identity—can be overcome with performance-based compensation.
The Research Gap of Transformational Leadership Style on Employee Performance. Started from Warrick (1973) showed that democratic leaders are more effective than other leaders in terms of Employee Performance Effectiveness and leaders with high adaptive skills tend to be more effective than low leadership adaptability. Finally, the findings revealed that Professional Leaders are consistently more effective in terms of the Employee Performance Effectiveness of all leaders. Followed by Shea (1999) explained that individuals work under caring leader outperform to individuals qualitatively work under charismatic leader and leadership structure in the first experiment. Those who work under the caring leader also outperform to individuals qualitatively work under the leadership structure in the
second experiment. This study supports that leadership style does affect the improvement of performance time over time.
Somech (2006) explained the positive influence of participative leadership style, which subsequently may encourage team innovation. However, this leadership style decreases the team's performance role. Followed by Fernandes and Awamleh, (2009) affirmed that the transformational leadership style of managers will improve employee job satisfaction. When managers operationalize charisma and take advantage of inspiration, individual considerations, and intellectual stimulation, they get positive reactions from the employees. It seems that such transformational qualities do stimulate higher levels of employees ' needs and result in a higher sense of satisfaction. Biswas (2009) showed the results of the research that culture and leadership are significant predictors of employee performance and their intents to quit. The results also showed that the practice of human resources is an important mediator in transmitting the influence of predictor variables to the criterion variable.
Work Environment Gap on Employee Performance. Ganapathi and Prasasd (2008) in an article entitled Effects of Working Environment on the Performance of Executives, with a sample of 200 executives working in various organizations, affirmed that work environment, positively affects the employee performance and plays an important role in improving the performance of individuals and organizations as a whole. Meanwhile, according to Malik, et al. (2011) in an article entitled A Study of Work Environment and Employees' Performance in Pakistan, examining the object of 115 employees of telecommunication companies in Pakistan, also explained the positive influence between work environment and employee performance.
Compensation Gap on Employee Performance. Sinclair (2004) explained the relationship between the compensation of the stock-based director and the performance of the company. Generally, stock compensation is negatively related to the performance of the company. However, to a higher extent, stock compensation has a positive effect on the performance of the company which indicates that if the directors are adequately compensated, it will have a positive effect on the performance of the company. Followed by Guo, et al. (2006), there was evidence of positive findings in Taiwan between the amount of stock bonus and the performance of the company. It is also found in large companies with high growth opportunities in which tend to adopt stock bonuses. Companies with well-designed bonus compensations can produce better performance as well. Shieh (2008) also explained a significant relationship between the company's compensation with organizational performance.
Meanwhile, Blazovich (2013) revealed that combinations based on individuals and teams in which based on performance results comparable to strong and weak team identities, showed that lower productivity levels—related to weak team identity—can be overcome with performance-based compensation. Another model, developed by Akhter, et al. (2016), explained that compensation plays an important role in training recruitment and retention; the research revealed that in some industries, there are findings or discrimination on the appointment of employees. In fact, it is possible for Engro Food practitioners and employees. Industry leaders reduce turnover rates and improve employee performance. Because retaining experienced employees is much better than hiring new people and training them.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
Mean-Cells Model. This research used non-hierarchical or mean-cells method analysis by using between-subject of 2x2 and applied the procedure of Univariate General Linier Model (GLM). In data analysis, basically it aimed to study the difference of mean of response variable or indicator of certain problem between individual groups including in conducting hypothesis testing about the difference in population under review. The mean-cells function has a reciprocal relationship with the mean-cells table, namely the table which presents the mean (average) of the dependent variable or indicator of a particular problem by a factor or multifactor (Kuludong, 2010).
General Linear Model (GLM) Univariate Method. This mean-cells test applies the General Linier Model (GLM) procedure to perform a null hypothesis testing in which some groups of data samples have the same average grade/score. The application of the General Linier Model (GLM) Univariate procedure aimed to conduct hypothesis testing on: 1) homogeneity; 2) the difference or similarity of all the observed mean-cells parameters; 3) the differences in some pairs of certain mean-cells parameters; 4) the influence of the main and interaction factors on response variables, especially those that cannot be tested by applying the One-Way ANOVA procedure (Kuludong 2016). Univariate General Linear Model Procedure (GLM), in the use of statistical software, is necessarily to analyze General Linear Model Univariate, then the dependent variable and fixed factor are included which are the coding of transformational leadership style, work environment and compensation variable, then it is analyzed in an estimate parameter in statistical calculations.
Sampling and Data Collection Techniques. In this research, the researcher used simple random sampling. The sampling process is conducted by giving equal opportunity to each member of the population to become a sample member. So, the process of selecting the n sample from the N population is conducted randomly. There are two ways: using Cointoss or using Random Numbers. When the population is small, it can be conducted by drawing "Cointoss". But if the population is large, it is necessary to use the label of "Random Numbers". In this research, the sampling technique used simple random sampling; the number of respondents who were going to be sample is 120 respondents. In this study, the researcher used the questionnaire as a data collection technique. Questionnaire is a technique of collecting data from consumers with a set of questions or statements that must be answered by respondents; in this case the respondents are the employee of PT. Seliu Multi Persada. In answering these statements and questions, Likert scale was used as the level of importance; according to Sugiyono (2013), Likert scale is used to measure attitude, opinion and perception of a person or group of social phenomena that occur. In Likert scale, the measured variables are elaborated by sub-variables. The sub-variables are used as indicators and then these indicators become the starting point for the preparation of the instrument items in the form of statements and questions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Median Split of Transformational Leadership Style and Compensation. The determination of median split values of transformational leadership style, work environment, compensation, and employee performance variables aims to divide groups within cells of the respondents being studied. Determining the median split was obtained from 120 respondents being studied with valid results and the note of each respondent value; transformational leadership style variable is abbreviated to GKT, work environment is abbreviated to LK, compensation variable is abbreviated to KOMP, and employee performance variable is abbreviated to KK; and then median split calculation was performed by using statistical software. After the median split number is obtained from the transformational leadership style and the compensation variables, it can be seen that the respondent may be included into a good leadership style with the number 1; or if the value of the respondent variable is lower than the median split or the transformational leadership style is poor, the number is 2. As for compensation variable, to know the respondents being studied to be included in the group of high compensation perception with the number 1 if the value of the respondent variable is higher than the median split and low compensation with the number 2 if the value of the respondent variable is lower than the median split.
In this study, from 120 respondents, 60 respondents were found having a good leadership style and 60 respondents having poor leadership style. It is followed by 60 respondents having high compensation and 60 respondents having low compensation as shown in table 1.
The results of this test indicate that the variables being studied have no influence in determining the level of employee performance. Hypothesis testing uses the F test statistic at "GKTCODE" line, where F0 = 0.042 (Sig. 0.838) with the free degree of 1/116. It indicates
the rejection of H1, so it can be concluded that the data do not support the proposed hypothesis. It shows that a good transformational leadership style does not affect employee performance.
Table 1 - Statistics of Median Split
- GKT code KOMP code KK code
N Valid 120 120 120
Missing 0 0 0
Median -.0291278 -.0876468 .1148187
Table 2 - Between-Subject Factors
- Value Label N
GKT MEDIAN 1,00 Good 60
2,00 Poor 60
KOMP MEDIAN 1,00 High 60
2,00 Low 60
Table 3 - Parameter Test of Between-Subject Effects
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Source df F Sig.
Corrected Model 3 40.432 .000
Intercept 1 .040 .842
GKTCODE 1 .042 .838
KOMPCODE 1 112.938 .000
GKTCODE * KOMPCODE 1 .738 .392
Error 116
Total 120
Corrected Total 119
Table 4 - Estimate Parameter Design A (AB)
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Parameter Description B ß t Sig.
Intercept - -.676 ß0 -5.809 .000
[GKTCODE=1.00] GKT = 1 -.087 ß1 -.463 .645
[GKTCODE=2.00] GKT = 2 0a - -
[KOMPCODE=1.00] KOMP = 1 1.299 ß2 6.907 .000
[KOMPCODE=2.00] KOMP = 2 0a - -
[GKTCODE=1.00] * [KOMPCODE=1.00] - .228 ß3 .859 .392
Based on the above table, can be obtained the following equation of regression model: Y = ß0 + ß1 (GKT = 1) + ß2 (KOMP = 1) + ß3 (GKT = 1) (KOMP = 1) + Description:
GKT = 1 is a good transformational leadership style; GKT = 2 is a poor transformational leadership style; KOMP = 1 is high compensation; KOMP = 2 is low compensation.
Table 5 - Intercept Parameter ßi Design A (AB)
- GKT = 1 (Good) GKT = 2 (Poor) Difference Hypothesis
KOMP = 1 (High) ß0 + ß1 + ß2 + ß3 ß0 + ß2 ß1 + ß3 -
KOMP = 2 (Low) ß0 + ß1 ß0 ß1 H3a
Difference ß2 + ß3 ß2 ß3 -
Hypothesis - H3b H3c -
The contents of each cell are the intercepts so that the difference is the difference between the intercepts.
Table 6 - Intercept Value
ß0 ß1 ß2 ß3
-0.676 -0,087 1.299 0.288
Table 7 - Intercept Value Calculation
- GKT = 1 GKT = 2 Difference
KOMP = 1 0.824 0.623 0.201
KOMP = 2 -0.763 -0.676 -0.087
Difference 1.587 1.299 0.288
Description:
GKT = 1 is a good transformational leadership style; GKT = 2 is a poor transformational leadership style; KOMP = 1 is high compensation; KOMP = 2 is low compensation.
Table 8 - Summary Results, Significant Effect between Subjects
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Parameter ß Sig.
Intercept ß0 .000
[GKTCODE=1.00] ß1 .645
[KOMPCODE=1.00] ß2 .000
[GKTCODE=1.00] * [KOMPCODE=1.00] ß3 .392
Table 9 - Results of ß1, ß2, and ß3
Description
ß1 Especially for groups of employees with a perception of a good transformational leadership style, even with low compensation, it will improve employee performance. The intercept calculation table shows that there is a difference between [COMP = 1] [GKT = 2] and [KOMP = 2] [GKT = 2] on employee performance; the result is pi. The significant level at pi is 0.645; it means the significant value > 0.05 so pi is not significant.
ß2 Especially for groups with a perception of a poor transformational leadership style, highly compensated groups perform better than the low compensated groups. The intercept calculation table shows that there is a difference between [KOMP = 2] [GKT = 1] and [KOMP = 2] [GKT = 2] on employee performance; the result is p2. The significant level at p2 is 0.000. So, p2 is significant.
ß3 Especially for a group with a perception of a good transformational leadership style, high compensation is no more satisfied than those who receive low compensation. The intercept calculation table shows that there is a difference between [COMP = 1] [GKT = 1], [KOMP = 1] [GKT = 2] and [KOMP = 2] [GKT = 1], [KOMP = 2] [GKT = 2] on employee performance; the result is p3. The significant level of p3 is 0.392; it means the significant value > 0.05. So, p3 is not significant.
Source: Test results on data analysis tool.
Median Split Variable of Work Environment and Compensation. Determination of the mean or median split value of work environment and compensation variables aims to divide the group in the cells of the respondents being studied. The determination of median split was obtained from 120 respondents with valid results and the value of each respondent. Work environment variable is changed to LK, compensation is changed to KOMP, and employee performance is changed to KK. Then median split calculations was conducted by using statistical software.
After the median split is obtained from work environment and the compensation variables, it can be seen that the respondents are included in a good work environment group with number 1 (if the value of respondent's variable is higher than the median split) or included in a poor work environment with number 2 (if the value of respondent's variable is
lower than the median split); and for compensation variable, the respondents being studied are included in high compensation perception group with number 1 (if the value of respondent variable is higher than median split) and low compensation perception with number 2 (if the value of respondent variable is lower than median split).
From 120 respondents of the research, 60 respondents were at good work environment, 60 respondents were at bad work environment, and 60 respondents with high compensation, and 60 respondents with low compensation as shown in the following table:
Table 10 - Statistics of Median Split
- Lkcode KOMPcode KKcode
N Valid 120 120 120
Missing 0 0 0
Median .1059118 -.0876468 .1148187
Table 11 - Between-Subjects Factors
- Value Label N
LKCODE 1,00 Good 60
2,00 Poor 60
KOMPCODE 1,00 High 60
2,00 Low 60
Table 12 - Parameter Test of Between-Subject Effects
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Source df F Sig.
Corrected Model 3 55.534 .000
Intercept 1 .765 .384
LKCODE 1 21.515 .000
KOMPCODE 1 28.182 .000
LKCODE * KOMPCODE 1 1.561 .214
Error 116
Total 120
Corrected Total 119
The results of this test indicate that the variables being studied have an influence in determining the level of employee performance. Hypothesis testing by using the F-Test statistic at LKCODE row where F0 = 21,515 (Sig. 000), with degrees of freedom of 1/116. It indicates a rejection of H0, so it can be concluded that the data support the proposed hypothesis. It shows that a good working environment affects employee performance. It means that the better a work environment, the higher the employee performance.
Table 13 - Estimate Parameter Design A (AB)
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Parameter Description B ß t Sig.
Intercept - -0.856 ß0 -9.423 0.000
[LKCODE=1.00] LK = 1 0.977 ß1 4.163 0.000
[LKCODE=2.00] LK = 2 0 - -
[KOMPCODE=1.00] KOMP = 1 1.088 ß2 4.637 0.000
[KOMPCODE=200] KOMP = 2 0 - -
[LKCODE=1.00]* [KOMPCODE=1.00] - -0.414 ß3 -1.249 0.214
Based on the above table, can be obtained the following equation of regression model:
Y = ¡30 + ¡31 (LK = 1) + ¡32 (KOMP = 1) + ¡33 (LK = 1) (KOMP = 1) + Description:
LK = 1 is a good working environment;
LK = 2 is a poor work environment; KOMP = 1 is high compensation; KOMP = 2 is low compensation.
Table 14 - Intercept Parameter ßi Design A (AB)
- LK = 1 (Good) LK = 2 (Poor) Difference Hypothesis
KOMP = 1 (High) ß0 + ß1 + ß2 + ß3 ß0 + ß2 ß1 + ß3 -
KOMP = 2 (Low) ß0 + ß1 ß0 ß1 H4a
Difference ß2 + ß3 ß2 ß3 -
Hypothesis - H4b H4c -
The contents of each cell are the intercepts so that the difference is the difference between the intercepts.
Table 15 - Intercept Value
ß0 ß1 ß2 ß3
-0.856 0.977 1.088 -0.414
Source: Test results on data analysis tool.
Table 16 - Calculation Intercept Value
- LK = 1 LK = 2 Difference
KOMP = 1 0.795 0.232 0.563
KOMP = 2 0.121 -0.856 0.977
Difference 0.647 1.088 -0.414
Source: Test results on data analysis tool.
Notes: LK = 1 is a good working environment; LK = 2 is a poor work environment; KOMP = 1 is high compensation; KOMP = 2 is low compensation.
Table 17 - Summary Results, Significant Effect between Subjects
Dependent Variable: Employee Performance
Parameter ß Sig.
Intercept ß0 0,000
[LKCODE=1,001 ß1 0,000
[KOMPCODE=1,001 ß2 0,000
[LKCODE=1,00] * [KOMPCODE=1,00] ß3 0,214
Source: Test results on data analysis tool.
Table 18 - Results of ß1, ß2, and ß3
- Description
ß1 Especially for a group of employees with a perception of good work environment, getting poor compensation does not improve employee performance than a well-compensated group of employees. The intercept calculation table shows the difference between the [COMP = 1] [LK = 2] and [KOMP = 2] [LK = 2] on the employee performance; the result is p1. The significant level at p1 is 0.000; it means that the significant value < 0.05. So, pi is significant.
ß2 Especially for groups of employees with a perception of high compensation, poor work environment improves the employee performance more than the group of low compensated employee. The intercept calculation table shows that there is a difference between [KOMP = 2] [LK = 1] and [KOMP = 2] [LK = 2] on employee performance; the result is p2. The significant level at p2 is 0.000; it means that the significant value < 0.05. So, p2 is significant.
ß3 Especially for a good working environment, a group of employees with good compensation does not improve the employee performance than in a poor work environment. The intercept calculation table shows there is a difference between [KOMP = 1] [LK = 1], [KOMP = 2] [LK = 2] on employee performance; the result is p3. The significant level at p3 is 0.214; it means that the significant value > 0.05. So, p3 is not significant.
Table 19 - Hypothesis Testing of Research Model
Hypothesis Hypothesis Statements Value of Sig. Description
H1 The transformational leadership style improves employee performance. 0.838 The data do not support the hypothesis
H2 Work environment improves employee performance. 0.000 The data support the hypothesis
H3a Especially for a good transformational leadership style, the group of employees who get low compensation will improve their employee performances. 0.645 The data do not support the hypothesis
H3b Especially for a poor transformational leadership styles, high-compensated employee groups perform better than low-compensated employees. 0.000 The data support the hypothesis
H3c Especially for a good transformational leadership style, high-compensated employee groups are no more satisfied than low-compensated employee groups. 0.392 The data do not support the hypothesis
H4a Especially for a good work environment, low compensation does not improve employee performance compared with high compensation. 0.000 The data support the hypothesis
H4b Especially for high compensation, poor working environment improves performance compared to low compensation. 0.000 The data support the hypothesis
H4c Especially for a good working environment, high compensation does not improve employee performance compared with poor work environment. 0.214 The data do not support the hypothesis
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Transformational Leadership Style Improves Employee Performance. In the results of hypothesis testing, it is found that the analysis does not support H1 hypothesis; transformational leadership style improves employee performance with Sig. value of 0.838 (>0.05). The results of this study are not in line or inconsistent with the result of the research conducted by Fernandes and Awamleh (2009) where they asserted that when a manager/leader makes use of inspiration, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation, they will get a positive reaction from the employees. It seems that such transformational qualities do stimulate a higher level of employee's demand and result in a sense of satisfaction and a high level of performance. So, in this hypothesis, even though an employee has a high level of performance, it does not guarantee that the employee will be rewarded. With the results of the above hypothesis, the researchers concluded that in the manufacturing industry, employees do not require leadership style from their leaders, but employee performance is more required on the skill or ability of the employee.
Work Environment Improves Employee Performance. In the results of hypothesis testing, it is found that the analysis supports H2 hypothesis; the work environment improves employee performance with Sig. value of 0.000 (<0.05). The results of this study are in line with the research conducted by Ganapathi and Prasad (2008), they confirmed that the work environment plays an important role in improving the performance of individual employees and the organization as a whole.
The conclusion of this hypothesis is that an employee who is in a good and comfortable work environment and is supported by colleagues and other supported facilities will improve the performance of the employees.
Especially for a Good Transformational Leadership Style, Group of Employees Getting Low Compensation Improves Employee Performance. In the hypothesis testing of 3a, it is found that the result of analysis does not support H3a hypothesis, especially for a good leadership style; group of employees getting low compensation will improve employee performance, with Sig. value of 0.645 (>0.05). Although a leader applies a transformational leadership style to the employees, it does not affect the employee performance. Because employees expect more high compensation rewards, because with higher compensation will further improve the employee's performance. Leaders are expected to pay more attention
and review the level of compensation given to employees in accordance with employee performance and to have a different style of leadership to the employees.
Especially for a Poor Transformational Leadership Style, Highly Compensated Employees are better than Low-compensated Employees. In the result of hypothesis testing of 3b, it is found that the result of analysis supports H3b hypothesis, especially for poor transformational leadership style; high compensation employee performs better than low compensation employee, with Sig. value of 0.000 (<0.05). The results of this hypothesis support the research conducted by Yukl (2009) stated that by having transformational leadership, the employees will have trust, admiration, and respect for the leadership, and they will do more than what is expected. Leaders with transformational leadership styles transform and motivate the employees by making them more aware to the importance of the end result of a job, encouraging them to transcend their own personal interests for the benefit of the organization or team, and activating their higher order needs. By providing high compensation, it will make the employees more motivated in improving their performances, even though transformational leadership style is run by poor leaders, it does not affect the level of employee performance.
Especially for a Good Transformational Leadership Style, highly compensated employees are no more satisfied than low-compensated employees. In the result of hypothesis testing of 3c, it is found that the analysis result does not support H3c hypothesis, especially for a good leadership style; employees getting high compensation is no more satisfied than employees who get low compensation, with the Sig. value of 0.392 (> 0.05). The results of this hypothesis are in contrast to the results of the research conducted by Fernandes and Awamleh (2009), they asserted that the transformational leadership style applied by leaders will improve employee work satisfaction, and it seems that such transformational qualities stimulate higher levels of employees' higher satisfaction. In this research, there is dissatisfaction experienced by the employees even though they get high compensation.
Especially for a Good Work Environment, Low Compensation Does Not Improve Employee Performance Compared with Higher Compensation. In the result of hypothesis testing of 4a, it is found that the analysis result supports H4a hypothesis, especially for a good work environment; low compensation does not improve employee performance compared with high compensation, with Sig. value of 0.00 (<0.05). The results of this hypothesis are in line with the research conducted by Milkovich and Newnan (2005), stated that the payroll system can translate strategy into practice to achieve the basic objectives of the company, including efficiency, fairness and compliance with government and legal requirements. Efficiency is expressed as performance improvement, quality improvement, satisfying the consumers and stakeholders as well as cost control. Meanwhile, the performance of an employee plays an important role for an organization because it contributes to the achievement of the company objectives.
Especially for a High Compensation, Poor Work Environment Improves Employee Performance Compared with Low Compensation. In the result of hypothesis testing of 4b, it is found that the result of the analysis supports H4b hypothesis, especially for a high compensation; poor work environment improves employee performance more than low compensation with Sig. value of 0.00 (<0.05). This hypothesis supports the research conducted by Philip, et al. (2010) who revealed that a fair compensation can spur the employee participation so that employees can work with full responsibility and have work participation towards the company. An employee who has worked with full responsibility and high dedication to the company will certainly expect the award, no matter how small the award will be very beneficial for these employees in motivating other employees in improving their performances.
Especially for a Good Work Environment, Higher Compensation Does Not Improves Employee Performance Compared with Poor Work Environment. In the result of hypothesis testing of 4c, it is found that the result of the analysis does not support H4c hypothesis, especially for a good work environment; high compensation does not improve employee performance compared with poor work environment, with Sig. value of 0.214 (>0.05). The
results of this hypothesis support the statement of Carnahan, et al. (2010), said the lack of attention of the companies in providing fair and reasonable compensation to employees and inadequate work environment will impact on the declining performance of the employees. Higher compensation provided by the company does not necessarily improve the employee performance. In addition, a work environment that does not support these employees in doing their work will further make the employee performance even worse.
CONCLUSION
This study examines the influence of leadership style and work environment on employee performance that is moderated by compensation at PT. Seliu Multi Persada Tangerang. This research used non-hierarchical method or mean-cells method analysis by using between-subject of 2x2 and applied the procedure of Univariate General Linier Model (GLM). The transformational leadership style does not improve employee performance (the first hypothesis is not supported). Because, the transformational leadership style that is shown or implemented by the leadership of PT. Seliu Multi Persada does not affect employee performance. Work environment will improve employee performance. The better work environment will further enhance employee performance (second hypothesis is supported). The work environment gives a big impact on employee performance. A good working environment will provide a sense of security for employees in performing or carrying out their duties. A third conclusion from the results of this research found that especially for a good transformational leadership style groups, groups of employees getting low compensation will improve employee performance (the third hypothesis is not supported). Even though a leader has a good transformational leadership style, it does not improve employee performance; in addition, with low compensation.
For a poor transformational leadership style, high-compensated employee groups perform better than low-compensated employees (the fourth hypothesis is accepted). Employees at PT. Seliu Multi Persada do not measure their level of performance loyalty from the leadership style implemented by a leader, but they measure with a high level of compensation. The fifth conclusion of the results of this research found that especially for good transformational leadership styles, high-compensated employee groups are not satisfied more than low-compensated employee groups (the fifth hypothesis is rejected). The higher levels of compensation the company provides to employees, it will improve the employee's performance.
In a good work environment, low compensation does not further improve employee performance compared to high compensation (the sixth hypothesis is accepted). By having a good working environment provided by the company, providing a sense of security to employees in the work and giving a low compensation, it will not necessarily improve the performance of employees in the company. The seventh conclusion from the results of this research found that especially for high compensation, poor work environment further improves employee performance compared to low compensation (the seventh hypothesis is accepted). In spite of poor work environment, when the compensation provided by the company is high it will improve employee performance. In a good work environment, high compensation does not improves performance more than a poor work environment (the eighth hypothesis is rejected). The employee performance is measured not by how high the level of compensation, but with how a poor work environment will improve employee performance.
REFERENCES
1. Akhter, N., Ijaz, M., Siddiqi, U. I., Shouqat, U., & Raza, A. (2016). Impact of Compensation Discrimination on Employees Performance in Engro Food Limited, Alhamd Food Limited and Leader industry Sahiwal of Pakistan. International Review of Management and Business Research, 5(2), 547.
2. Anit, S. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management 32: 132.
3. Biswas, S. (2009). HR Practices as a Mediator Between Organizational Culture and Transformational Leadership: Implications for Employee Performance.
4. Blazovich (2013). Team identity and performance - based compensation effects on performance. Team Performance Management, Vol. 19, No.3/4, 153-184.
5. Carnahan Seth, Agarwal, Campbell, and Franco. (2010). The Effect of Firm Competation Structures on Employee Mobility and Employee Enterpreneurship of Extreme Employers. CES. 10(06): 1-40.
6. Fernandes, C., & Awamleh, R. (2009). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Style on Employee's Satisfaction and Performance: An Empirical Test in a Multicultural Environment. International Business & Economics Research Journal.
7. Ganapathi and Prasad. (2008). Effects of working environment on the performance of executives. Asia-Pacific Business Review, Vol. IV, No.3, 117-123.
8. Ganapathi and Prasad. (2008). Effects of working environment on the performance of executives. Asia-Pacific Business Review, Vol. IV, No.3, 117-123.
9. Guo, W. C., Shiah-Hou, S. R., & Yang, Y. W. (2006). Stock bonus compensation and firm performance in Taiwan. Managerial finance, 32(11), 862-885.
10. Kuludong, F. (2016). Pengaruh Communication Skill Dokter Terhadap Kepuasan Pasien yang dimoderasi oleh Implicit Self Theorist (Studi Mayapada Hospital Jakarta Selatan).Tesis. Jakarta: Universitas Esa Unggul.
11. Malik, M. I., Ahmad, A., Gomez, S. F., & Ali, M. (2011). A study of work environment and employees' performance in Pakistan. African Journal of Business Management, 5(34), 13227.
12. Philip, Stacey & Ling Tsai. (2010). The Impact of Job Mobility, Hourly Compensation, & Work Hours on Job Satisfaction. Institute for Research in Training & Development.
13. Shea, C.M. (1999). The effects of leadership style on performance improvement on a manufacturing task. The Journal of Business, Vol.72, No.3, 407-422.
14. Shieh. (2008). Effect of corporate compensation design on organizational performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (6), 827-840.
15. Shieh. (2008). Effect of corporate compensation design on organizational performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 36 (6), 827-840.
16. Sinclair (2004). The effect of director compensation on firm performance. Temple University, Doctoral Dissertation Approval on Behalf of the Graduate Board.
17. Sugiyono. (2013). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfbeta.
18. Warrick, D. D. (1973). The effect of leadership style and adaptability on employee performance and satisfaction.
19. Yukl, G. (2009). Kepemimpinan dalam Organisasi. Jakarta : PT Indeks Kelompok Gramedia.
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2017-11.41
ПРОБЛЕМЫ ПРОФЕССИОНАЛИЗАЦИИ В УПРАВЛЕНИИ И ПЛАНИРОВАНИИ УСТОЙЧИВОГО РАЗВИТИЯ СЕЛЬСКОХОЗЯЙСТВЕННЫХ ПРЕДПРИНИМАТЕЛЬСКИХ СТРУКТУР
PROBLEMS OF PROFESSIONALIZATION IN THE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS STRUCTURES
Парушина Н.В.*, Лытнева Н.А., доктора экономических наук Parushina N.V., Lytneva N.A., Doctors of Economic Sciences Паршина О.В., аспирант Parshina O.V., Post-graduate student Среднерусский институт управления, Российская академия народного хозяйства
и государственной службы при Президенте России, Орёл, Россия Central Russian Management Institute, Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of Russia, Orel City, Russia *E-mail: parushinan@mail.ru
АННОТАЦИЯ
В статье рассматриваются вопросы профессионализации в управлении и планировании устойчивого развития сельскохозяйственных предпринимательских структур. Решение проблем профессионализации предусматривает подбор кадров, распределение полномочий и ответственности, разработку стратегических планов. Обосновано формирование стратегии устойчивого развития для сельхозпроизводителей на основе планирования преемственности и профессионализации. Определены принципы эффективного стратегического планирования для решения проблем профессионализации.
ABSTRACT
The article deals with the issues of professionalization in the management and planning of sustainable development of agricultural entrepreneurial structures. Solving the problems of professionalization involves recruitment, distribution of powers and responsibilities, development of strategic plans. The formation of sustainable development strategy for farmers based on succession planning and professionalization is grounded. The principles of effective strategic planning for solving the problems of professionalization are defined.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА
Индикативное планирование, корпоративное управление, профессионализация, преемственность, сельскохозяйственные товаропроизводители, труд.
KEY WORDS
Indicative planning, corporate governance, professionalization, continuity, agricultural producers, labor.
Сельскохозяйственные товаропроизводители в последние годы наблюдают положительные изменения в системе государственной поддержки предпринимательских структур, которые связаны с объективными причинами введения продовольственного эмбарго на ввоз отдельных видов сельскохозяйственной продукции. Эти меры касаются доступности кредитных ресурсов, субсидирования сельхозпроизводителей, развития системы страхования, развития племенного животноводства и элитного семеноводства, роста производства продукции животноводства, обеспечение закладки многолетних насаждений, осуществление обновления основных средств сельскохозяйственных товаропроизводителей, обеспечение мероприятий по повышению плодородия почв; формирование механизмов устойчивого развития сельских территорий. Ощутимую поддержку
