effect of locus of control, non-physical work … · 2019. 3. 1. · effect of locus of control,...

International Journal of Humanities, Religion and Social Science ISSN : 2548-5725 | Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2019 www.doarj.org

17 www.doarj.org

EFFECT OF LOCUS OF CONTROL, NON-PHYSICAL WORK

ENVIRONMENT AND WORK DISCIPLINE

ON JOB SATISFACTION (Study of Government Employees with Work Agreements at

Institute of Domestic Administration, West Nusa Tenggara Campus, Indonesia)

Agussalim Mad Arab*, Siti Nurmayanti

**, LM Furqan

**

*Postgraduate Student of Master of Management Program, University of Mataram,

Indonesia **

Lecture of Economics and Business Faculty, University of Mataram, Indonesia

Email correspondence: [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]

Abstract: Job satisfaction reflects an individual’s feelings for his work. An employee who

has a high level of job satisfaction will show a positive attitude towards his work, on the

contrary an employee who has a low level of job satisfaction will show a negative attitude

towards his work. This study aims to analyze employee job satisfaction which is influenced

by locus of control, environment non-physical work, and work discipline. Data was

collected using a questionnaire given to 113 government employees with a work agreement

at the Institute of Domestic Administration of the West Nusa Tenggara Campus. Data

collection methods in this study were interviews, documentation, questionnaires. The data

analysis technique used in this study is multiple linear regressions which are then analyzed

using SPSS version 16.0. The findings of the study show that the non-physical work

environment and work discipline have a positive and significant effect on employee job

satisfaction at the Nusa Tenggara Campus Institute of Domestic Administration West.

Whereas locus of control has a positive but not significant effect on employee job

satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration Campus West Nusa Tenggara. This

study also concluded that the non-physical work environment is a factor that has the most

dominant influence on employee job satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration

of the West Nusa Tenggara Campus.

Keywords: Locus of Control, Nonphysical work environment, Work Discipline, Job

Satisfaction

I. INTRODUCTION

Human resources are the main elements in the organization compared to other

elements such as capital, technology, and money because humans are users who choose

technology, capital, and who use and maintain it (Hariandja, 2002), while according to

Mathis & Jackson (2006) states that human resources is a design of formal systems in an

organization to ensure the use of talents and human potential effectively and efficiently in

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Effect of Locus of Control, Non-Physical Work Environment and Work Discipline on

Job Satisfaction.

18 www.doarj.org

order to achieve organizational goals. Job satisfaction reflects an individual’s feelings for his

work. Employees can feel happy in their work if supported by a variety of conducive

situations, so they can develop the skills they have (Afianto & Utami, 2017). An employee

who has a high level of job satisfaction will show a positive attitude towards work, whereas

employees who have a low level of job satisfaction will show a negative attitude towards

their work.

Locus of control is one indicator that affects individual job satisfaction (Ferdyan,

2016). Potentially influenced by how individual perceptions of work. Locus of control can

increase or decrease the influence of anxiety on job satisfaction (Sari and Thanwill, 2016).

Luthans (1995) in Restuningdiah (2012) states that individual behavior can be explained

using locus of control. Employees with internal locus control tend to see challenges as

opportunities to learn, on the contrary if employees with external locus of control will ignore

challenges because they feel learning does not affect them, if someone has a strong belief in

their abilities, then this will cause someone it tries hard until the goal is achieved which will

eventually form positive behavior and abilities that will make employees feel satisfaction

with what they have done (Noviarini, 2013).

Job satisfaction is a reflection of employees’ feelings related to the perception of

pleasure or displeasure, comfortable or uncomfortable over the work environment in which

they work (Wibowo, et al., 2014). A study conducted by Vijayashree and Jagdischechandra

(2011) of 100 employees from various public sector companies in India found that there was

a positive correlation between locus of control on employee job satisfaction. Another study

was also conducted by Hans et al., (2013) in Oman found a positive effect of locus of control

on job satisfaction. This result was also found in the Gunaputri and Suana study (2016) that

locus of control had a significant positive effect on the satisfaction of Peguyangan Bali

employees at Warung Mina. While the research conducted by Engko et al., (2007) and Sarita

and Agustia (2010), and Dali et., In (2013) found that there was no partial effect of locus of

control on auditor job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is a reflection of employees’ feelings related to perceptions of

pleasure or displeasure, comfortable or uncomfortable over work environment in the

workplace (Wibowo, et al., 2014). According to Sedarmayanti (2009) in Untung &

Nugraheni (2017), the work environment is all that relates to the physical field related to the

workplace that can affect employees. The work environment is divided into two: physical

work environment and non-physical work environment. Physical work environment is all

physical conditions that exist around the workplace, while the non-physical work

environment is all conditions that occur, which are related to work both work relations with

superiors, relationships with subordinates, and or with colleagues.

In a study conducted by Taiwo (2010) in Lagos Nigeria found that non-physical

environmental work had a large contribution to job satisfaction. a study also conducted by

Leblebici (2012) in Turkey found that the non-physical work environment had a significant

effect on job satisfaction. This is also supported by Agbozo, et al., (2017) in Ghana which

deals with non-physical work environments that contribute to improving employee job

satisfaction. In another study conducted by Anggreani, et al., (2016), Aruan and Fakhri

(2015) and Pangarso and Ramadhyanti (2015), found that the non-physical work environment

had a significant impact on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction function to improve employee

discipline in carrying out their work. Employees will arrive on time and will complete their

tasks well and will increase employee morale and loyalty to the organization (Luthans, 2006).


Job Satisfaction.

19 www.doarj.org

Work discipline is an important factor in increasing job satisfaction, because work discipline

is important for organizations because discipline will make the work done more effectively

and efficiently.

According to Dessler (2011) Discipline is a procedure for correcting or punishing

someone for violating rules or procedures. The same thing expressed by Handoko (2011)

disciplining employees is a form of training that aims to improve and shape employee

knowledge, attitudes, and behavior so that voluntary employees can try to work with other

employees and improve their work performance. Discipline refers to circumstances that cause

and or encourage employees to do and do things in accordance with applicable norms or

rules. Work discipline is an activity or behavior carried out by employees to comply with,

obey, and respect written and unwritten provisions. In the study conducted by Arianto &

Utami (2016), Sasmita et al., (2017) found that there was an influence of work discipline on

job satisfaction. The same results were also found in the research conducted by Supriyadi et

al., (2017) and Cerdayana et al., (2018) found a positive influence between work disciplines

on job satisfaction. While in the research of Wuysang and Tawas (2016) there was no effect

between work disciplines on job satisfaction.

Based on observations related to the work satisfaction of Government Employees

with Work Agreements (P3K) working in the NTB Campus IPDN as many as 157 people,

that the salary provision is in accordance with the Input Fee Standard Regulation of 2018

issued by the Ministry of Finance of Republic of Indonesia namely Minister of Finance

Number 49 / PMK.02 / 2017, the existence of health insurance such as BPJS, free medical

facilities at the polyclinic unit, and pick-up / delivery of employees every working day and at

certain activities. This also affects locus of control (controlling individual attitudes) in

carrying out their duties. it can be seen that in some cases, the factors of other people who are

more powerful have more roles in terms of job determination, compared to the ability factor

possessed and the fate of the benefits they have. Meanwhile, related to the non-physical work

environment at the domestic government institute (IPDN) of the Southeast West Nusa

Tenggara campus, researchers saw a gap in the relationship between superiors and

subordinates and coworkers. Meanwhile regarding the work discipline in the NTB Campus

IPDN, each employee is required to attend the morning / ceremony. So that employees must

be present at the time before the apple / ceremony begins, the use of computers / laptops that

are given to employees in terms of utilization to support the smooth operation of activities but

in the writer’s observation often these facilities are used for personal gain. Based on the

results of previous research, researchers felt interested in conducting research to examine the

effect of locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline on the job

satisfaction of government employees with work agreements (P3K) working in domestic

government institutes (IPDN) of the Nusa Tenggara campus west.

Research purposes

1. To find out, analyze, and provide empirical evidence about the effect of Locus Of

Control on job satisfaction

2. To find out, analyze, and provide empirical evidence regarding the effect of non-physical

work environment on job satisfaction

3. To find out, analyze, and provide empirical evidence regarding the effect of work

discipline on job satisfaction

4. to know and analyze among these variables which have the most dominant influence


Job Satisfaction.

20 www.doarj.org

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Locus of control

The concept of locus of control was first raised by Rotter (1966), in Reffiany (2009), a social

learning theorist, who defined locus of control as an individual’s belief in the ability to control destiny

itself. The concept of locus of control developed by rotter consists of 4 basic concepts, namely: (1)

Potential behavior, Potential behavior that refers to the possibility that certain behaviors occur in

certain situations. The possibility is determined by reference to reinforcement or sequence that can

follow the behavior. (2) Expectancy, Expectation is an individual belief that he behaves specifically in

the given situation and is followed by predicted reinforcement, (3) Strengthening value

(Reinforcement value) A description of the level of choice for a reinforcement as a substitute. Each

individual can find an amplifier that has a different value depending on the activity. This

reinforcement comes from experiences that are connected to the past and that occur at this time, (4)

psychological situation (Psychological situation), an important thing in determining behavior. Rotter

believes that continuously a person can react to the internal environment and the external environment

but the merging of the two environments.

According to Mac Donald (1976) in Tsui and Gul (1996) as to the extent to which a person

feels the contingency relationship between the action and the results they get. Individuals who believe

they have control over their destiny are called internal. These individuals believe that control lies

within them, while individuals believe that the results obtained are determined by agents or extrinsic

factors outside of them. Like fate, luck, and other strengths or something that cannot be predicted.

Levenson (1973) in Reffiany (2009) asserts that there are 3 (three) dimensions of locus of control,

namely: (1) Internality is an individual’s belief in the events in his life which are determined by his

abilities such as skills and potentials, (2) change, individual beliefs about events in his life that are

determined by fate, opportunity, and luck, (3) Powerful Others, individual beliefs about events that

occur that are determined by other people who are more powerful.

2.2 Non-Physical Work Environment

Sedarmayanti (2011) in Pangarso and Ramadhyanti (2015), a non-physical work environment

is a condition that occurs in a work environment that is related to work relations, superiors,

subordinates, and coworkers. Whereas according to Mangkunegara and Prabu (2011) the non-physical

work environment is all the physical aspects of work, and the work rules that can affect job

satisfaction and achievement of productivity. Wursanto (2009) in Pangarso & Ramdhyanti (2015)

argues that the non-physical work environment is something that is related to the psychology of work

environment, there are several important elements in forming individual attitudes and behaviors in a

non-physical work environment , namely as follows: (1) Supervision is carried out continuously using

a strict supervision system, (2) A working atmosphere that can provide high fighting spirit, (3)

Reward systems, salaries and other attractive incentives, (4) Treat well and (5) There is a sense of

security from members / individuals, both in the office and outside the office, (6). ) Relationships with

other members take place in harmony; more informal like family, (7) Ach Members/individuals

receive fair and objective treatment. According to Nitisemita (2002) which states that non-physical

environment is a situation that occurs in work environment for work, good relations with superiors,

subordinates and fellow colleagues; this can be described as follows:

1. Relationship between superiors and employees (subordinates)

Good work relations between superiors and subordinates will affect employee morale and

employee job satisfaction. A boss may not be able to complete all of his own work without the

help of his staff Likewise, vice versa; subordinates may not be able to complete the work

properly without clear direction from a superior.

2. Employee Relations with coworkers

Colleagues who are able to be invited to work together and support in the implementation of

work tend to influence the completion of the work assigned to them. In addition, employees will


Job Satisfaction.

21 www.doarj.org

be satisfied if they can work quietly, in a mutually supportive work environment, so that the

work provided can be completed quickly.

2.3 Work Discipline

Davis in Mangkunegara (2013) defines "Discipline is Management action to enforce

organization standards". It can be interpreted that work discipline is the implementation of

management to strengthen organizational standards. Then according to Wursanto (2006) in Mardiono

(2014) that discipline is a condition that causes or gives encouragement to employees to do and do all

activities in accordance with the norms and rules that have been set. Work discipline is needed by

every employee, discipline is a prerequisite for the formation of attitudes, behaviors, and that makes

employees easy to work in and creates a conducive working atmosphere and supports efforts to

achieve goals (Cerdaryan et al., 2015). According to Terry (2008) there are several types of work

discipline, as follows: (1) self-discipline, Discipline arising from oneself on the basis of awareness

and willingness is not based on coercion, discipline that arises because someone feels fulfilled their

needs and has become part from an organization, so that the person will be moved to be aware and

voluntarily obey the rules set forth, (2) discipline command, Discipline arising on the basis of

coercion, order and punishment. This discipline is not on the basis of willingness / sincerity but arises

because of the threat / coercion.

2.4 Job Satisfaction

Spector (1997) in Neog and Barua (2014) states that job satisfaction is a combination of

psychological, physiological, and environmental conditions that cause a person to be honest and

satisfied with his work. Someone who has a high level of job satisfaction will have positive feelings

towards his work, while someone who is not satisfied will have negative feelings towards his work.

According to Rivai (2010) in Risma (2017) theories about job satisfaction are as follows: (1) theory of

discrepancy (discrepancy theory), this theory was first introduced by porters in Mangkunegara (2013).

This theory holds that to measure one’s job satisfaction can be done by calculating the difference

between something that should be and the reality that is felt. So that if the satisfaction is obtained

beyond what is expected, then people will become more satisfied, (2) Theory of justice (equity

theory), this theory is based on what is felt by individuals to certain situations, especially work

situations. According to this theory, each individual will compare the risk of his own results with the

input of the results of others. If the comparison is considered fair enough, then the employee will feel

satisfied. Conversely, if the comparison is not balanced but profitable can lead to satisfaction, or not.

But if the comparison is not balanced it will lead to dissatisfaction (3) the theory of two factors (two

factor theory), Herzberg is known as the developer of two-factor job satisfaction theory, which

divides a situation that affects a person to work into two factors namely factors that make people feel

dissatisfied and the factors that make people feel satisfied with their work (dissotisfiers - satisfiers).

Dissatisfiers are factors that are a source of dissatisfaction, which can be in the form of salary / wages,

supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, and status. These factors are needed to

meet the basic and biological needs of employees. If it is not fulfilled, then the employee will not be

satisfied. Satisfiers are factors or situations that are needed as a source of satisfaction consisting of

interesting work, the opportunity to achieve, a reliable workforce, an opportunity to get awards and

promotions. The fulfillment of this factor will lead to satisfaction, but when it is not fulfilled it will

cause dissatisfaction.

III. RESEARCH METHODS

This research is a quantitative research with explanatory types of research. Sukandarumidi

(2006) in Sugiyono (2016) explains that explanatory research (explanation) is research to test

hypotheses that state causal relationships between two or more variables. This research was conducted

at the Institute of Domestic Administration in the West Nusa Tenggara campus with the population in

this study being Government Employees with Work Agreements of 157 people. Then by using the


Job Satisfaction.

22 www.doarj.org

Slovin formula with a confidence level of 0.05 a sample of 113 people was obtained. The

questionnaire distributed was 113 questionnaires.

3.1 Research variable

1. Variable locus of control is measured using indicators developed by Levenson, H. (1981). The

indicator used to measure the dimensions of locus of control employees is (1) Internalization, (2)

change, (3) others powers

2. Non-physical work environment variables are measured using indicators developed by Nitisemito

(2002). The indicators used to measure the non-physical work environment perceived by

employees are (1) work relations between superiors and employees, (2) employee relations with

colleagues

3. Work discipline variables are measured using indicators developed by Soejono (2007) cited in

Moardiano and Supriyanti, 20014. Indicators used to measure employee discipline are (1)

timeliness, (2) utilization of facilities, (3) responsibility work, (4) compliance with regulations.

4. Variable job satisfaction is measured using indicators developed by Calluci and Davi (1978) cited

in Masud (2004). The indicators used to measure job satisfaction are: (1) The work itself, (2)

salary / income, (3) supervision / supervision, (4) coworkers.

Figure 1. Research variable

3.2 Scale of data measurement and analysis

The weight of each variable uses a five-level scale (Likert scale), which consists of strongly

agreeing, agreeing, agreeing enough, disagreeing, and strongly disagreeing. The results of the validity

and reliability tests of the research instruments used data processing with SPSS (statistical package for

socialscience) software version 16.0 for Windows. The results of the validity test instrument indicate

that all items of the research variable are valid because the calculated r value is greater than 0.30.

While the results of the instrument reliability test show that the overall study of variables can be relied

upon because it has a Cronbach Alpha value of more than 0.6. Data analysis in this study uses SPSS

(statistical package for social science) software version 16.0 for Windows.

3.3 Research Hypothesis

The research hypothesis formulated in this study is:

1. H1: Locus of control has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction

2. H2: Non-Physical Work Environment has a significant positive influence on job satisfaction

3. H3: Work Discipline has a significant positive effect on job satisfaction

4. H4: Non-Physical Work Environment has the most dominant influence on job satisfaction

Work Discipline (X3)

Locus of Control

(Loc) (XI)

Non Physical Work

Environment (X2) Job satisfaction (Y)


Job Satisfaction.

23 www.doarj.org

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Locus of control

Locus of control is the respondent’s perception of controlling individual attitudes (locus of

control) which is believed in his life such as the belief in destiny, self-ability, and the influence of

others on his life. This variable consists of three indicators; the following are presented the average

value of the score and category of variables regarding the respondents’ answers to each of the

indicators proposed.

Table 1. Average Score and Category Variable Locus of Control (X1)

No. Variable item Total Average Category

X1.1 Confidence in the ability to realize

planning 442 3,91 High

X1.2 Confidence in the implications of action 451 3,99 High

X1.3 The level of dependence of people around

him 274 2,72

High

enough

X1.4 Confidence in ability to determine what

will happen 336 2,97

High

enough

X1.7 Confidence in events that happened by

chance 288 2,55 Low

X1.9 Confidence in the influence of others in

his life 274 2,42 Low

X1.10 Confidence in one’s ability to deal with

influential people 306 2,71

High

enough

X1.11 Confidence in ability in planning

378 3,35 High

enough

Total 2.749 343.63

Average 24,32 3,04 High

enough

4.2 Nonphysical Work Environment

The non-physical work environment is the respondent’s response to the situation or situation

that occurs psychologically that is related to his working relationship both to superiors, subordinates,

and to colleagues. This variable consists of two indicators; the following are presented the average

value of the score and category of variables regarding the respondent’s answer to each proposed

indicator.

Table 2. Average Score of Variables and Categories of Non-Physical Work Environment Variables

(X2)


X2.1 Relationship between supervisor and

all employees 466 4,12 Good

X2.2 Work atmosphere between boss and

subordinates 466 4,12 Good

X2.3 Communication between superiors

and subordinates 456 4,04 Good

X2.4 Support from superiors to

subordinates 441 3,90 Good


Job Satisfaction.

24 www.doarj.org

X2.5 Freedom of subordinates in

expressing opinions 460 4,07 Good

X2.7 Motivation from superiors 480 4,25 Very good

X2.8 Attitude of superiors towards

subordinates 485 4,29 Very good

X2.9 Relations between employees 484 4,28 Good

X2.10 Proximity to coworkers 488 4,32 Very good

X2.12 Problem solving between employees 456 4,04 Comfortable

X2.14 Relationships between employees

outside the work environment 512 4,53 Very Good

X2.15 Cooperation between employees 454 4,05 Good

Total 5.648 471,41

Average 49.98 4,17 Comfortable

4.3 Work Discipline

Work discipline is the respondent’s response to attitudes and behaviors that reflect the extent

to which he adheres to the norms and rules set by the organization / agency. This variable consists of

four indicators; the following are presented the average value of the score and category of variables

regarding the respondents’ answers to each of the indicators proposed.

Table 3. Average Score of the Score and Category of Work Discipline Variables (X3)


X3.1 Timeliness of attendance 463 4,10 High

X3.3 Timeliness of return time 489 4,33 Very High

X3.4 Use of office facilities 469 4,15 Very High

X4.6 Use of facilities and infrastructure 475 4,20 Very High

X3.7 Post-treatment use of facilities and

infrastructure 479 4,24 Very High

X3.8 Implementation of duties 510 4,51 Very High

X3.9 The ability to be responsible 498 4,41 Very High

X3.10 Ability to run SOPs 446 3,95 High

X3.11 Ability to comply with regulations 485 4,29 Very High

X3.12 Uniformity of work clothes 481 4,26 Very High

Total 4.795 479,50

Average 42,43 4,24 Very

High

4.4 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is the respondent’s response to feelings / emotions towards the work that has

been done by being faced with the conditions and working environment. This variable consists of four

indicators; the following are presented the average value of the score and category of variables

regarding the respondents’ answers to each of the indicators proposed.


Job Satisfaction.

25 www.doarj.org

Table 4. Average Score and Variable Categories of Job Satisfaction (Y)


Y1 Work attractiveness 443 3,92 Satisfied

Y3 Potential development 385 3,41 Satisfied

Y4 Jobs that require responsibility 472 4,18 Satisfied

Y6 Salary suitability with Regional

Minimum Wages 428 3,79 Satisfied

Y8 Satisfaction with the salary received 388 3,43 Satisfied

Y9 Pengawasan dari atasan 432 3,82 Satisfied

Y10 Communication with superiors 433 3,83 Satisfied

Y11 Input from boss 466 3,95 Satisfied

Y12 Attention from superiors 431 3,81 Satisfied

Y13 Motivation from superiors 430 3,81 Satisfied

Y15 Colleagues who can work together 470 4,16 Satisfied

Y16 Support from coworkers 445 3,94 Satisfied

Y17 Mutual respect between employees 480 4,25 Very

satisfied

Y18 Nice atmosphere 449 3,97 Satisfied

Total 6.132 438

Average 54,26 3,87 Satisfied

4.5 Data Analysis

4.5.1 Classic assumption test

Based on the analysis tool used in this study, namely multiple linear regression analysis it

must be done with consideration of the absence of violations of classic assumptions, namely, among

others:

4.5.2 Data normality test

Based on the testing of the SPSS version 16.0 analysis tool, it is known that from the

regression test both independent variables and dependent variables are normally distributed. The

purpose of normally distributed data is that data follows the form of a normal distribution, with the

form of a normal distribution in which data is centered on the average and median values. Below is

shown the results of testing the normality of data using the SPSS version 16.0 analysis tools as

follows:

Table 5. Data Normality Test Results

Descriptive Statistics

N Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error

Unstandardized Residual 113 -.168 .227 -.025 .451

Valid N (listwise) 113

One method that can be used to determine data that is normally distributed or not is to use the

skewness ratio and kurtosis ratio. The skewness ratio is the result of the skewness value divided by

the standard error skewnes, and the ratio of kurtosis is the result of the kurtosis value divided by the

standard error kurtosis. If the skewness ratio and kurtosis ratio are between -2 to +2, then the data

distribution is classified as normal (Santoso, 2000: 53). From the table above it can be seen that the

skewness ratio = -0.168 / 0.227 = -0.740, and the kurtosis ratio = -0.025 / 0.451 = 0.055. Because the


Job Satisfaction.

26 www.doarj.org

ratio of skewness and kurtosis is between - 2 to + 2, it can be concluded that data distribution is

normal.

4.5.3 Heteroscedasticity test

Heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether in the regression model variance from residual

inequality occurs one observation to another observation (Ghozali, 2016). If the residual variance

from one observation to another observation remains, then it is called homoskedasticity and if it is

different it is called heteroscedasticity. A good regression model is that homoskedasticity or

heteroscedasticity does not occur. Below is shown the results of testing the normality of data using the

SPSS version 16.0 analysis tools as follows:

Table 6. Heteroscedasticity Test Results

Coefficients

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) -3.972 2.264 -1.754 .082

Locus of Control .043 .038 .106 1.116 .267

Work environment .003 .031 .010 .098 .922

Work Discipline .118 .051 .226 2.291 .024

a. Dependent Variable: abresid

One method that can be used to determine whether the data has a heteroscedasticity problem

or not is to use the glejser test. The performance test is done by regressing the absolute residual value

on the independent variable (Ghozali, 2016). If the significance probability value of the independent

variable is above the 5% confidence level, it can be concluded that the regression model does not

contain any heteroscedasticity. From the table above it can be seen that the tcount of all explanatory

variables is not significant, so it can be concluded that this model does not experience

heteroscedasticity problems.

4.5.4 Multicollinearity Test

The multicollinearity test aims to test whether the regression model found a correlation

between independent variables. A good regression model should not have a correlation between

independent variables (Ghozali, 2016). This study uses 3 (three) independent variables, namely locus

of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline. The following is shown by the

results of multicollinearity tests on the three independent variables using the SPSS version 16 analysis

tool.

Table 7. Multicollinearity Test Results

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std.

Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 5.110 3.904 1.309 .193

Locus of Control .103 .066 .090 1.554 .123 .948 1.055

Work environment .535 .053 .619 10.085 .000 .838 1.194

Work Discipline .467 .089 .316 5.271 .000 .880 1.137


Job Satisfaction.

27 www.doarj.org

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

Collinearity

Statistics

B Std.

Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 5.110 3.904 1.309 .193

Locus of Control .103 .066 .090 1.554 .123 .948 1.055

Work environment .535 .053 .619 10.085 .000 .838 1.194

Work Discipline .467 .089 .316 5.271 .000 .880 1.137

a. Dependent Variable: Job satisfaction

The existence of a linear relationship between independent variables can be detected from

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). If the VIF value is greater than 10 and the tolerance value is less than

0.1 then multicollinearity occurs. Conversely, if the VIF value is less than 10 and the value of

tolerance is greater than 0.1, it is said that there is no multicollinearity between independent variables.

Based on the table above, the Colinearity Statistics column shows that multicollinearity occurs

between independent variables, where the tolerance value listed is greater than 0.1 and the VIF value

is smaller than 10.

4.5.5 Data Autocorrelation Test

The autocorrelation test aims to test whether in the regression model there is a correlation

between confounding errors in period t with interfering errors in period t-1 (previously) (Ghozali,

2016). A good regression model is a regression that is free from autocorrelation. To detect whether

between residuals in the model have a linear relationship, the Durbin-Watson test statistic is used. The

following is the result of autocorrelation testing using the SPSS version 16.0 analysis tool.

Table 8. Autocorrelation Test Results

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .810a .656 .646 2.814 1.587

a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Discipline, Locus of Control, Work Environment

b. Dependent Variable: Job satisfaction

Ghozali (2016) states that to detect autocorrelation can be seen in table D-W (Durbin-Watson)

by paying attention to:

1. The D-W number below -2 means there is positive autocorrelation.

2. The D-W number between -2 to +2 means there is no autocorrelation.

3. The D-W number above +2 means there is negative autocorrelation.

Based on the table above, the Durbin-Watson value shows a number between -2 to +2 which

is equal to 1.587. So thus the multiple linear regression model used in this study is known to have no

autocorrelation.


Job Satisfaction.

28 www.doarj.org

4.5.6 Analysis of Multiple Linear Regression

In this analysis used a method of multiple linear regression analysis, which is used to

determine the effect of independent variables namely locus of control, non-physical work

environment, and work discipline symbolized by X1, X2, and X3 on the dependent variable, namely

job satisfaction symbolized by Y. Based on calculations performed using SPSS version 16.0, the

following data are obtained:

Table 9. Results of Multiple Linear Regression Tests

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 4.110 3.904 1.309 .193

Locus of Control .103 .066 .090 1.554 .123

Lingkungan Kerja .535 .053 .619 10.085 .000

Disiplin Kerja .467 .089 .316 5.271 .000


From the table above the regression equation is generated as follows:

Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 + e

Y = 4,110 + 0,103 X1 + 0,535 X2 + 0,467 X3 + e

based on the regression equation, it can be seen that the regression variables for independent variables

(X) consisting of locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline all have

positive signs. This shows an indication of a unidirectional relationship between the independent

variables (X) which consists of locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline

with the dependent variable namely job satisfaction (Y) at the Institute of Domestic Administration

(IPDN) Nusa Tenggara Campus West. This means that if there is no independent variable (X)

consisting of locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline that is worth 0

which is a constant price, the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) of the West Nusa

Tenggara Campus provides job satisfaction (Y) of 4,110. Meanwhile the explanation of each of the

coefficients of the independent variables above can be described as follows:

a. Coefficient of Locus of Control (X1)

Regression coefficient locus of control (X1) is positive that is equal to 0.103 which means that

the value variable (X1) has a positive influence, that is if the locus of control (X1) variable is very

high, then job satisfaction (Y) will increase, and vice versa if locus of control is very low, then

job satisfaction (Y) will be low.

b. Coefficient of Non-Physical Work Environment (X2)

The non-physical work environment regression coefficient (X2) is positive which is equal to

0.535, which means that the non-physical work environment variable (X2) has a positive effect, if

the non-physical work environment variable (X2) is very comfortable, then job satisfaction (Y)

will increase, and vice versa if the non-physical work environment (X2) is very bad then job

satisfaction (Y) will be low.

c. Coefficient of Work Discipline (X3)

The work discipline regression coefficient (X3) is positive which is equal to 0.467 which means

that the work discipline variable (X3) has a positive effect, namely if the work discipline variable


Job Satisfaction.

29 www.doarj.org

(X3) is very high, then job satisfaction (Y) will increase, and vice versa if the work discipline

(X3) low then job satisfaction (Y) will be low.

4.5.7 Simultaneous test (F-test)

The F test is used to determine the significance of the regression model used. The regression

model can be used if the F test results show a significance value below 0.005 or by comparing the F

value with the value of Ftable. Based on the results of testing using the SPSS 16.0 analysis tool, it can be

seen the results of the F test in the following table:

Table 10. F Test Results

ANOVAb

Model

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 1644.562 3 548.187 69.248 .000a

Residual 862.872 109 7.916

Total 2507.434 112



To be able to find out the value of Fcount can also be used as follows:

k)-(n / R)-(1

1)-(k / R Fh

2

From the calculation above obtained Fcount = 69,248 and Ftable = 2.69. From these calculations it is

concluded that the value of Fcount is greater than Ftable. In addition, the significance value generated is

0,000 or less than 0.005. This shows that the regression model used has met the model requirements

and can be used in this study.

4.5.8 Multiple Determination Analysis

The analysis of multiple variables that is used to calculate how dependent variable is job

satisfaction (Y) is influenced by the independent variable (X) which consists of locus of control, non-

physical work environment, and work discipline. The results of multiple multiple determination

analysis tests using SPSS version 16.0.

Table 11. Multiple Determination Test Results

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .810a .656 .646 2.814



Based on the table above, the number R = 0.810 is obtained. This shows that there is a very

strong relationship between variables locus of control (X1), non-physical work environment (X2), and

work discipline (X3) on job satisfaction (Y) at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) Nusa


Job Satisfaction.

30 www.doarj.org

Tenggara Campus West. In the table above the value of R is known as 0.810, then the coefficient of

determination (R square) is 0.810 x 0.810 = 0.656, this shows the ability of independent variables

consisting of locus of control (X1), non-physical work environment (X2), and discipline work (X3) in

explaining the variance of the dependent variable namely job satisfaction (Y) is 65.6%. Means there

are 34.4% (100% - 65.6%) of these results, meaning there are 34.4% of the influence of other

variables that can affect job satisfaction, including social, physical, and financial factors (Sutrisno,

2012).

4.5.9 Patient test (T-test)

The t test is used to determine whether or not the influence of the independent variable (X)

consists of locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work discipline partially on the

variable job satisfaction (Y). The test results of the SPSS 16.0 analysis tool can be seen the results of

the T test in the following table:

From the table above can be described as follows:

1) Determine Ho and Ha

Ho = bt = 0, meaning that there is no significant influence between locus of control, non-physical

work environment, and work discipline on job satisfaction. Ha = bt ≠ 0, meaning that there is a

significant influence between locus of control, non-physical work environment, and work

discipline on job satisfaction.

2) Determining the level of confidence / degree (α) of 5% and the degree of freedom (df) = n - k =

113 - 2 = 111. Because the test is two-way (two-tailed test), then alpha (α) is 0, 05/2 is equal to

0.025, thus the location of t table is at point (α / 2; df) which is (0.025; 111) equal to 1.98157.

3) From the results of the partial t test data analysis with the help of the SPSS version 16.0 program,

the t value calculated for each independent variable includes:

a. Locus of Control

The previous hypothesis states that:

H1 = locus of control has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction at the Institute

of Domestic Government (IPDN) Campus West Nusa Tenggara.

Based on table 22, it can be seen that the tcount of locus of control is 1.554 or lower than

table. In addition, the significance value of locus of control is also greater than 0.005 which

is 0.123. It can be concluded that the variable locus of control has a positive but not

significant effect on job satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN)

Campus West Nusa Tenggara.

So H1 is rejected

Tabel 12. Tcoefficients Test Resultsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients


1 (Constant) 4.110 3.904 1.309 .193

Locus of Control .103 .066 .090 1.554 .123

Work environment .535 .053 .619 10.085 .000

Work Discipline .467 .089 .316 5.271 .000



Job Satisfaction.

31 www.doarj.org

b. Non-Physical Work Environment


H2 = the non-physical work environment has a positive and significant effect on job

satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) of the West Nusa Tenggara

Campus.

Based on table 22, it can be seen that the tcount of the work environment is 10,085 or greater

than ttable. In addition, the significance value of the non-physical work environment is also

smaller than 0.005, which is 0,000. It can be concluded that the variable non-physical work

environment has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction at the Institute of

Domestic Administration (IPDN) Campus West Nusa Tenggara.

So H2 is accepted.

c. Work Discipline


H3 = discipline has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction at the

Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) of the West Nusa Tenggara Campus.

Based on table 22, it can be seen that the tcount of the work discipline is 5.271 or greater than

ttable. In addition, the significance value of the work discipline is also greater than 0.005,

which is 0,000. Then it can be concluded that the variable work discipline has a positive and

significant effect on job satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN)

Campus West Nusa Tenggara.

So H3 is accepted.

4) Testing the Fourth Hypothesis

The hypothesis made earlier said:

H4 = non-physical work environment is a variable that has the most dominant influence on

employee job satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) Campus West Nusa

Tenggara.

Based on table 22 above, it can be seen that the most dominant variable is to look at the value of

the Standardized Beta Coefficient. Based on these results, it is clear that the biggest coefficient is

the non-physical work environment (X2), which is the Standardized Beta Coefficient value of

0.619. Thus, the non-physical work environment variable is the variable that has the most

dominant influence on job satisfaction at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) of the

West Nusa Tenggara Campus.

So H4 is accepted.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the analysis and discussion presented in the previous chapter,

conclusions can be drawn as follows:

1. Locus of control does not have a significant effect on job satisfaction.

2. Non-physical work environment has a positive and significant influence on job satisfaction

3. Work discipline has a positive and significant influence on job satisfaction

4. The three independent variables studied, the non-physical work environment has the most

dominant influence on the job satisfaction of government employees with work agreements

(P3K) at the Institute of Domestic Administration (IPDN) of the West Nusa Tenggara Campus.

Research limitations

Some of the limitations faced in carrying out research are:

1. Factors that influence job satisfaction in this study only affect as much as 65.6%, which means

there are still 34.4% of other factors that can affect job satisfaction of government employees

with work agreements at the Institute of Domestic Administration, West Nusa Tenggara Campus


Job Satisfaction.

32 www.doarj.org

2. The sample used in this study was only carried out on government employees with work

agreements at the Institute of Internal Affairs of the Campus of West Nusa Tenggara, while

government employees with work agreements and State civil apparatus in other agencies or

regional organizations, and other private companies that not yet reached in this study, so that

further research is needed by researchers - researchers in the future.

3. Variables used in this study do not represent all the factors that influence job satisfaction

REFERENCES

Abdulsalam, Adil ABdulsalam Abhoob. 2015. “Effect of Locus of Control and

Organizational Culture Employee Satisfaction Lg Electronic Indonesia. IOSR Journal

of Business and management (IOSR-JBM) e-ISSN: 2278-487X, p – ISSN:2319 -7688.

Vol. 17, Issue 12. Ver. II (Dec. 2015)

Afianto dany izaz, Utami hamidah nayati. 2017. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja dan Komunikasi

Organisasi Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja dan Kinerja Karyawan studi pada karyawan divisi

marketing PT. Victory Internasional Futures Kota Malang. Jurnal Administarasi Bisnis

Vol. 50.No. 6 (2017)

Aggreani Marezza putri, Irwansyah, wahyuni nurul. 2016. Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Non

Fisik dengan Kepuasan Kerja Sebagai Variabel Intervening terhadap Turnover

Intention Karyawan PT. Andika Lintas Samudera Banjarmasin. Jurnal Bisnis dan

pembangunan, edisi juli – desember 2016. Vol. 5. No. 2 ISSN 2541-178X

Annakis, J., Lobo, A., & Pillay, S. (2011). Exploring monitoring, work environment and

flexibility as predictors of job satisfaction within Australian call centres. International

Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, no. 8 (Aug 2011), pp. 75-93 ISSN 1833-

3850

April, K.A., Dharani, B & Peters, K. 2012. “Impact of locus of control expectancy on level of

well-being”.Review of European Studies; 04(2).

Agbozo.George Kafui, Isaac Sakyi Owusu, Mabel A. Hoedoafia, Yaw Boateng Atakorah.

The Effect of Work Environment on Job

Satisfaction: Evidence from the Banking Sector in Ghana. Journal of Human Resource

Management. Vol. 5, No. 1, 2017, pp. 12-18.

Aruan quinerita stevani, Fakhri mahendra. 2015. Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Terhadap

Kepuasan Kerja Karyawan Lapangan Departemen Grasberg power distribution PT.

Freeport Indonesia. MODUS Vol. 27 (2):141-162, 2015

As’ad, Moh, 2004. Psikologi Industri: Seri ilmu Sumber Daya Manusia, Penerbit

Liberty, Yogyakarta.

Cedaryana. Luddin, muchlis R. SUpriyati, yeti. 2018. Influence of Work Discipline, Career

Development and Job Saticfaction on Employee Performance Directorate General

Research and Development of Ministry Research, Technology and Higher Education.

Internasional journal of scientific reseach and management (IJSRM) vol. 6 Issue 2

ISSN (e):2321-3418

Celluci, Anthony J, and David L. De Vries. (1978). Measuring Managerial

Satisfaction: A Manual for the MJSQ, Technical Report II (Center for

Creative Leadership)


Job Satisfaction.

33 www.doarj.org

Chen, jui-chen. SIlverhorne, colin. 2008. The Impact Of locus of control on job stress, job

performance and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development

journal, vol. 29 iss 7 pp. 572-582

Coomber B, Barriball KL. 2007. “Impact of job satisfactions on intent to leave

and turnover for hospital based nurses: a review of the

researchliterature”. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 44,pp. 297-314.

Crider, Andrew B, (2003). “Psychology”. Scott, Foresman & Company

Dessler, Gary.(2011). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, Alih Bahasa

Benyamin Molan Edisi Bahasa Indonesia, Jilid Kedua, Prenhallindo,

Jakarta

Dhermawan, anak agung ngurah bagus. Sudibya, I Gde adnyana. Utama, I wayan mudiartha.

2012. Pengaruh Motivasi, Lingkungan Kerja, Kompetensi, Dan Kompensasi Terhadap

Kepuasan Kerja dan Kinerja Pegawai Di Lingkungan Kantor Dinas Pekerjaan Umum

Provinasi Bali. Jurnal Manajemen, Strategi Bisnis, dan Kewirausahaan Vol. 6, No. 2

Agustus 2012.

Engko, Cecilia dan Gudono. 2007. Pengaruh Kompleksitas Tugas dan Locus of Control

Terhadap Hubungan Antara Gaya Kepemimpinan dan Kepuasan Kerja Auditor.

Simposium Nasional Akuntansi 10. Makassar. (AMKP-08)

Ferdyan, Firza. 2016. Pengaruh komitmen profesional, Komitmen organisasional, motivasi

Kerja dan locus of control terhadap Kepuasan kerja auditor. Universitas Trisakti

Fitria, Amar syamsul. 2015. Pengaruh Motivasi Kerja, Kepuasan Kerja dan Komitmen

Terhadap Displin Kerja Pegawai Pada Dinas Pendapatan Pengelolaan Keuangan Dan

Aset (DPPKA) Kabupaten Tanah Datar. Jurnal Riset Manajemen Bisnis dan Publik.

ISSN : 2337 – 5345. Vol 3. No. 3 2015

Fusda, Saugus Mariade (2016) Pengaruh Self-Efficacy, Internal Locus Of Control Dan

Kepuasan Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Guru Madrasah Di Kabupaten Kaur. thesis,

Universitas Terbuka.

GA. Wulandari Kusumaning Ayu Gunaputri , I Wayan Suana. 2016. Pengaruh self-efficacy,

locus of control dan goal commitment terhadap kepuasan kerja karyawan warung mina

peguyangan Denpasar. Universitas Udayana

Gaol, 2014. A to Z Human Capital: Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Grasindo, Jakarta.

Ghozali, Imam, Hengky Latan. 2015. Konsep, Teknik, Aplikasi Menggunakan Smart PLS 3.0

Untuk Penelitian Empiris. BP Undip. Semarang

Ghufron & Risnawita. 2011. Teori-teori Psikologi. Jogjakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.

Gjorgji Eliasaveta, 2012. Work – Related Behavioral Intentions in Mecedonia : Coping

Strategies, Work Environement, Love Of Money, Job Satisfaction, and Demographic

Variables. Management and Marketing, pp:373-931

Gujarati, N.D. (2003), Basic Econometrics. 4th

ed. New York: McGraw – Hill Companies,

ine

Handoko, T Hani. 2011. Manajemen Edisi 2. Yogyakarta: BPFE – Yogyakarta

Hans, Arvind Asra Mubeen, Amal Said AL Ghabshi, 2013. A Study on Locus of Control and

Job Satisfaction in Semi – Government Organizations in Sultanate of Oman, The SIJ


Job Satisfaction.

34 www.doarj.org

Transactions on Industrial, Financial & Business Management (IFBM), Vol. 1, No. 2,

May-June 2013

Hariandja, Marihot Tua Efendi, 2002, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, Grasindo, Jakarta

Henis Fiqih Amalini, Mochammad Al Musadieq,Tri Wulida Afrianty. 2016. pengaruh locus

of control terhadap kepuasan kerja dan kinerja (studi pada karyawan perusahaan

daerah air minum (pdam) kota malang) Universitas Brawijaya Malang

Hyatt, T.A. and Prawitt, D.F. 2001, “Does congruence between audit structure and

auditors locus-of-control affect job performance?”, The Accounting Review,

Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 263-74

Insani, Dwi Juwita, Fireda NRH. Locus of control internal dan job insecurity pada karyawan

cv. Elfana semarang. Jurnal empati, oktober 2015, volume 4 (4), 173-179

Jain ruchi, Kaur surinder. 2014. Impact Of Work Environment On Job Satisfaction.

Internasional journal of scientific and research publications, vol. 4, issue 1, januari

2014, ISSN 2250-3153

Jayasuriya Rohan, Whittaker Maxine, Halim Grace, Matineau Tim. 2012. Rural Health

Workers and their Work Environment : The role of inter-personal factors on job

satisfaction of nurses in rural papua new guinea, Health Services Reseach 2012

Karimi, R dan Alipour, F. 2011. Reduce Job Stress in Organization: Role of Locus of

Control. International Journal of Business and Social Science. Vol. 2 No. 18. Hal. 231-

236.

Kreitner, Robert dan Kinicki, Angelo 2003. Perilaku Organisasi, Terjemahan: Erly Suandy,

Edisi Pertama, Penerbit Salemba Empat, Jakarta

Levenson, H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In H.

M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 1, pp. 15-63).

New York: Academic Press

Luthans, Fred. 2006. Perilaku Organisasi. Yogyakarta. ANDI

Nitisemito, 2002, Manajemen Personalia. Cetakan ke 9. Edisi ke 4. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia

Malayu, SP. Hasibuan. 2012. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Edisi Revisi jakarta : Bumi

Aksara.

Mangkunegara, A.A. Anwar Prabu. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Perusahaan, Cetakan

Kesebelas, Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosdakarya, 2013.

Mas’ud, Fuad. (2004). Survai Diagnosis Organisasional Konsep & Aplikasi.

Semarang: UNDIP.

Mathis, R.L. & J.H. Jackson. 2006. Human Resource Management: Manajemen Sumber

Daya Manusia. Terjemahan Dian Angelia. Jakarta: Salemba Empat

Nasrullah Dali, Armanu, Margono Setiawan, Solimun, 2013. Professionalism and Locus of

Control Influence on Job Satisfaction Moderated By Sprituality At Work And Its

Impact On Performance Auditor. International Journal of Business and Management

Invention ISSN (Online): 2319 – 8028, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 801X

Nawawi, Hadari. 2003. Kepemimpinan Mengefektifkan Organisasi. Yogyakarta:Gajah Mada

University Press.


Job Satisfaction.

35 www.doarj.org

Neog, Bidyut, Bijoya., Barua, Mukulesh. 2014. “Factors Influencing Employee’s Job

Satisfaction: An Empirical Study among Employees of Automobile Service Workshops

in Assam”. The SIJ Transactions n Industrial, Financial & Business Management

(IFBM). Vol. 2, No. 7

Nitisemito, Alex S. Manajemen Personalia, Edisi Ketiga, Cetakan Kesembilan, Jakarta;

Ghalia Indonesia, 2002.

Noviarini, Ni made. 2013. Peran Locus Of Control dalam Hubungan Job Insecurity dengan

Komitmen Organisasi Dan Kepuasan Kerja Studi Kasus : Karyawan PLN Denpasar.

Thesis

Novita. Sunuharjo, bambang swasto. Ruhana, ika. 2016. Pengaruh Kepuasan Kerja dan

Komitmen Organisasional terhadap Kinerja Karyawan studi pada PT. Telekomunikasi

Indonesia, Tbk Witel Jatim Selatan, malang. Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis (JAB) vol. 34

Nol. 1 Mei 2016

Pangarso astadi, Ramdhyanti vidi. 2015. Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Non Fisik Terhadap

Kepausan Kerja dosen tetap studi pada fakultas komunikasi dan bisnis universitas

Telkom bandung. Kinerja, vol. 19, No. 1, th. 2015

Prastika Meilany, Mariaty Ibrahim. 2015. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Kinerja

Karyawan (Kasus Bagian Operasional PT. Indah Logistik Cargo Cabang Pekanbaru.

Jom Fisip Vol. 2 No. 2 Oktober 2015

Reffiany, 2009. Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi, Motivasi Kerja, dan Gaya Kepemimpinan yang

diinteraksikan dengan pengendalian sikap individu (Locus Of Control) terhadap

Prestasi kerja pada Pusat Penelitian Kelapan Sawit (PPKS) Medan, Thesis

Restuningdiah, Nurika, 2012. Pengaruh Locus Of Control Terhadap Hubungan Komitmen

Profesional dan Kepuasan Kerja Akuntan Pendidik, El Muhasaba Jurnal Akuntasi vol.

2 No. 2

Rivai, Veithzal. 2004. Kepemimpinan dan Perilaku Organisasi. Edisi Kedua Jakarta : Raja

Grafindo Persada

Risma, Nuansa. 2017. Peran Mediasi Komitmen Organisasional Pada Pengaruh Person-

Organization Fit dan Kepuasan Kerja Terhadap Turnover Intention (Studi Pada

Karyawan Marketing Funding PT. Bank NTB) Thesis. 2017

Robbbins dan Judge. 2007. Perilaku Organisasi, Jakarta : Salemba Empat

Shalley, Christine E, 2000. Matching Creativity requirements and the work environment:

Effects on satisfaction and intentions to leave. Business And economics – Management,

43(2), pp:215-223.

S Eka. Dwi silvia. Sunuharyo, bambang swasto. Utami, hamidah nayati. 2016. Pengaruh

Lingkungan Kerja FIsik Dan Non Fisik Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Dan Kinerja

Karyawan (studi pada Karyawan PT. Telkom Indonesia Witel Jatinm Selatan Malang)

Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis (JAB) vol. 40 nol 1 November 2016

Santoso, S. 2000. Latihan SPSS Statistik Parametrik. Jakarta: Elex Media Computindo

Sari, santi retno & Thanwil Sitti Marijam. 2015. Peran Locus Of Control Pada Hubungan Job

Insecurity, Komitmen Dan Kepuasan Kerja. Jurnal Riset Manajemen dan Bisnis Vol. 1,

No. 1, Juni 2016:2016: 71-80, ISSN 2527 - 7502


Job Satisfaction.

36 www.doarj.org

Sarita jena & dian agustia. 2010. Pengaruh Gaya Kepemimpinan Situasional, Motivasi kerja,

Locus Of Control terhadap Kepuasan kerja dan Prestasi kerja Auditor. Universitas

Airlangga Surabaya

Sasmita, devi Wirda. Lubis, A. Rahman. Idris, sofyan. 2017. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja,

Motivasi Kerja Dan Komitmen Anggota Terhadap Kepausan Kerja serta Dampaknya

Pada Kinerja Anggota Desa Prima Madani di Kota Banda Aceh dan Sekitarnya. Jurnal

Perspektif Manajemen dan Perbankan Vol. 8, No. 3, November 2017:95-110

Sedarmayanti, Sumber Daya Manusia dan Produktivitas Kerja, Bandung: Mandar Maju,

2009.

.2001. Tata Kerja dan Produktivitas Kerja. Bandung: CV Mandar Maju.

Soekamto, Soejono. (1997). Pengantar Sosiologi. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka.

Soejono. 2000. Sistem dan Prosedur Kerja. Edisi Kelima, Bumi Aksara, Jakarta

Sudan. Yonius. 2016. Pengaruh Motivasi dan Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Kepuasan kerja serta

implikasinya pada kinerja perawat di Rumah Sakit Umum Daerah Kabupaten

Sumendang.Tesis

Sugiyono, 2016. Metode Penelitian Bisnis (pendekatan Kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R & D),

cetakan keduabelas, Bandung :Alfabeta

Supriyadi, Moch.fachri. Priadana, sidik. Setia, bayu indra. 2017. Kompensasi Dan Disiplin

Kerja Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Karyawan Di Restoran Kampoeng Daun. Jurnal Bisnis

dan Maajemen (JRBM) Vol. 10, No. 2, Agustus 2017. ISSN 1979-0600

Sutrisno, E. 2012. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta : Kencana Prenada Media

Group

Taiwo, A.S. (2010). The Influence of work environment on workers productivity:

A case of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of

Business Management, Vol. 4 (3), pp. 299-307

Terry, George R. 2008. Dasar-Dasar Manajemen. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara

Tsui, J.S.L. dan F.A. Gul (1996), “Auditor’s Behavior in an Audit Conflict

Situation: a Research Note on the Role of Locus of Control and Ethical

Reasoning”. Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol 21 No. 1, hal. 41-51

Umar. H. 2008. Riset Akuntansi. PT. Gramedia Pustaka. Jakarta

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 13 Tahun 2003 Tentang Ketenagakerjaan

Untung, dasio & Nugraheni, rini. 2017. Pengaruh Lingkunga Kerja Fisik dan Lingkunga

Kerja Non Fisik Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan Dengan Kepuasan Kerja Sebagai Variabel

Invervening studi pada karyawan bagian Weaving PT. Primatexco Indonesia.

Dipenogoro Journal Of Management Vol. 6, No. 4 tahun 2017, ISSN : 2337-3792

Vijayashree Lakshman, Jagdischchandra Mali Vishalkumar, 2011. Locus Of Control And Job

Satisfaction : PSU Employees. Serbian Journal Of Management 6 (2) (2011) 193 - 203

Westerman, James W, 2007. The Effects of Work Environment on the Personality –

Performance Relationship : An Exploratory Study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19 (2)

pp : 288-305.


Job Satisfaction.

37 www.doarj.org

Wibowo, Mukti.,Musadieq, Mochammad Al.,Nurthahjono, Gunawan Eko. 2014. Pengaruh

Lingkunga Kerja terhadap Kepuasan Kerja studi pada karya PT. Telekomunikasi

Indonesia Tbk. Kandatel Malang. Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis. Vol. 15 No. 1

Wuysang, Pricilya E.B. Tawas, Hendra N. 2016. Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja, Perilaku

Kepemimpinan, Dan Motivasi Kerja Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja dan Prestasi Kerja

Karyawan KFC Bahu Mall Manado. Jurnal berkala Ilmiah efisiensi Vol. 16. No. 1

tahun 2016

effect of locus of control, non-physical work … · 2019. 3. 1. · effect of locus of control,...

Documents