INFLUENCE OF WORK ENVIRONMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, AND MOTIVATION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES OF BANK YUDHA BHAKTI MAIN BRANCH JAKARTA

A. Fauzan Fadlan ¹ , Asep Munajat ²

Tangerang Raya University ¹ , Funding Manager Corp & Retail Bank Yudha Bhakti,Tbk ²

Email: [email protected] , [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO		ABSTRACT
Received:	02-04-2022	This study aims to determine the effect of the work environment, organizational culture and motivation on employee performance at Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. This study uses a quantitative approach and uses primary data through distributing questionnaires to employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. The population in this study were 80 respondents with a sampling technique using simple random sampling with Likert scale measurements. The data is processed through SPSS version 19.0 program with multiple linear regression analysis technical. From the results of the t test, it proves that partially the work environment has no effect on employee performance with a significance value of 0.113 > 0.05, organizational culture has no effect on employee performance with a significance value of 0.640 > 0.05, while motivation has a significant effect on employee performance as indicated by the acquisition value. significant 0.000 > 0.05. Then the results of the F test prove that the work environment, organizational culture and motivation simultaneously have a significant effect on the performance of the employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta with a significance value of 0.000 < 0.05. The magnitude of the contribution of all independent variables simultaneously to the dependent variable is 67.4%, while the remaining 32.6% is influenced by other variables not examined.
Accepted:	09-04-2022
Published:	20-04-2022
Keywords:	Work Environment, Organizational Culture, Motivation and Performance.

Corresponding Author : A. Fauzan Fadlan , Asep Munajat

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

At the time this competent source of power human owned by banking need upgraded return especially in places researchers works namely Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. This thing needs to be addressed in order to achieve the desires by the company. Strengthening the performance of employee is one that must be done. A number of predictable factor could Upgrade performance employee of them is environment work , culture organization and motivation .

In organization or company naturally have personality and personality the is a organization . According to (Robbins & Judge, 2017) states that culture organization refers to a system mean shared by the distinguishing members organization the with organization other . Culture organization is one� element in empowerment employee in company . Organizations that have strong culture _ could have meaningful influence for behavior and attitude its members (Robbins & Judge, 2017). Culture organization could influence employee in act behavior , way work with team and way describe job . Without existence culture organization , a employee tend feel disinclined for carry out something Duty with good whatever status in organization that , because not enough clear agreement commitment (Sulaksono, 2015). So that performance high employees are highly influenced factor culture organization. Draft culture organization is one tool for Upgrade performance employees, because culture organization influence pattern thoughts , feelings and ways employee Act in company.

Motive is something encouragement need in self necessary employee _ fulfilled so that employees the could adapt self to environment , while motivation is moving conditions _ employees to be able reach objective from the motive (Widiarko, 2017). In a organization, leader in Thing this sued play more roles _ in give stimulation and encouragement so that employees the more motivated in produce satisfactory and continuous output attempted more Upgrade again results it works. According to (Suwati, Minarsih, & Gagah, 2016) motivation given as power pusher for employee for deploy ability , expertise , skills , energy and time in To do various activities that become not quite enough responsibilities and obligations , so that goals and objectives organizations that have set could achieved . Motivation according to �(Parijat & Bagga, 2014) is a process as a step beginning somebody To do action consequence lack by physical and spiritual or in other words is something directed encouragement for fulfil objective certain.

Researchers are interested in the elements that determine organizational effectiveness. Prior studies have established organizational culture as a crucial factor (Kim & Kim, 2015) (Mathew, 2018). Misalignment of an organization's culture with its principles, beliefs, methods of accomplishing tasks, communications, and strategic direction can limit its effectiveness (Shao, 2019) (Upadhyay & Kumar, 2020). Recognizing the archeology, cultural dimensions, and behaviors and thought processes that build and maintain organizational culture is critical to improving the target organization's effectiveness (Cameron, Quinn, DeGraff, & Thakor, 2014). Furthermore, organizational culture influences how workers communicate at work. Workplace culture also encourages healthy competitiveness at the workplace (Kim & Kim, 2015), (Al Halbusi, Williams, Mansoor, Hassan, & Hamid, 2020), (Hassani & Mosconi, 2022). Consequently, a supportive organizational culture encourages workers to form positive relationships (Chow, 2012) (Meng & Berger, 2019). Therefore, an organization's culture extracts the best (or worst) out of each team member and increases its effectiveness individually and collectively (Aktas & Cicek, 2011) (Taylor, 2014). Organizational culture is a product of the simultaneous contact between employees and managers (Cameron et al., 2014) (Klammer, Grisold, & Gueldenberg, 2019).

Besides culture organization and motivation, influencing factors performance employee is environment work (Fernandes, 2018). Environment work Becomes facility employee in carry out something activities in order to create suitable performance with hope company, on the other hand environment work that doesn't adequate could lower performance employees. According to (Sedarmayanti & Elianie, 2015) states that broadly speaking, type environment work divided Becomes two that is environment work physical , that is all shaped state physical surroundings the place work that can influence employee good by direct nor no direct and environment non- physical work , namely all related circumstances with connection work good connection superior or connection fellow colleague work , or connection with subordinates .

Table 1.

Achievement Target Employee Funding Period January until November 2020

Month	Marketing Name
	Halimah	Danu Gumelar	Strong Son	Ekawati	Riki Daulay
January	2,000,000,000	3,600,000,000	1.100,000,000	5,000,000,000	4,400,000,000
February	1,800,000,000	1,000,000,000	3,200,000,000	4,200,000,000	3,200,000,000
March	500,000,000	3.100,000,000	250,000,000	600,000,000	300,000,000
April	1,400,000,000	2,050,000,000	500,000,000	800,000,000	200,000,000
May	300,000,000	900,000,000	700,000,000	400,000,000	1,230,000,000
June	700,000,000	1,200,000,000	1,500,000,000	1.0500.000.000	100,000,000
July	1900,000,000	3,300,000,000	3,300,000,000	3,350,000,000	6,500,000,000
August	2,500,000,000	4,000,000,000	3,400,000,000	4,120,000,000	4,000,000,000
September	1,200,000,000	1,250,000,000	1,300,000,000	900,000,000	2,200,000,000
October	1,300,000,000	3,800,000,000	1,950,000,000	6,000,000,000	2,850,000,000
November	2,000,000,000	4,200,000,000	3,950,000,000	3,500,000,000	3,352,000,000
Total	15,600,000,000	28,400,000,000	21,150,000,000	29,920,000,000	28,332,000,000
Target	16,500,000,000	33,000,000,000	33,000,000,000	33,000,000,000	33,000,000,000

Source : Funding Data, processed author .

Based on table 1 above performance Funding division marketing employee yet achieve company targets in period January until November 2020 with prove it the number that has been set every marketing for period the not yet realized . This research is in line with the research conducted by (Feel, Herlambang, & Rozzaid, 2018) in this study has an equation that is the object of research studied. So it can be concluded that this study is a follow-up study that distinguishes it is employees who work in different fields this will certainly have differences, especially in work culture.

METHODS

This research uses quantitative research (Sugiyono, 2017). Population study this is 100 employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. Referring to opinion (Sugiyono, 2017) is meant with sample is as following this : � Sample is part from the number and characteristics possessed by the population that . For that sample taken _ from population should really representative (represent). Sample used in study this taken from population at Bank Yudha Bakti Main Branch Jakarta, with total considered sample _ already represent / representative from existing population. For count sample, formula used _ in study this is formula slovin with limit 5% error. From opinion that, then study this take sample as many as 80 people.

As for the method data analysis using Data Validity Test, Data Reliability Test, Data Normality Test, Data Linearity Test, Autocorrelation Test, Multicollinearity Test, Heteroscedasticity Test, Coefficient Test Determination , Coefficient Test Correlation , F test, t test and analysis Multiple Linear Regression.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A. Result

1. Test Data Validity

�������������������������������������������

Validity test results seen that correlation between each indicator data every variable show valid results .

2. Test Data Reliability

Table 2. Reliability Test Results

Variable	Cronbach Alpha	Status
Environment work (X1)	0.824	Reliable
Culture Organization (X2)	0.948	Reliable
Motivation (X3)	0.918	Reliable
Performance (Y)	0.921	Reliable

Source : Data processed by SPSS (Ghozali, 2018)

Based on testing , known that the reliability test for all variable have mark Cronbach Alpha more big from 0.7 then could concluded that whole variable in study this is reliable.

3. Test Data Normality

Table 3. Normality Test Results

		X1	X2	X3	Y
N	Valid	80	80	80	80
	missing	0	0	0	0
Skewness		317	857	420	121
Std. Error of Skewness		269	269	269	269
kurtosis		636	805	269	311
Std. Error of Kurtosis		532	532	532	532

Source : Data processed by SPSS (Ghozali, 2018)

From the above calculation , the value of Skewness Ratio for each variable is as following :

a. Ratio X1 = -0.317 / 0.269 = -1.178. So variable X1 is normally distributed.

b. Ratio X2 = -0.857 / 0.269 = -3.186. So variable X2 is not normally distributed.

c. Ratio X3 = -0.420 / 0.269 = -1.563. So variable X3 is normally distributed.

d. Ratio Y = -0.121 / 0.269 = -0.450. So variable Y is normally distributed.

Because the skewness ratio of the X2 variable has not been normally distributed, then done data transformation with use method.

4. Test Data Normality

Data transformation test is carried out to variable not yet normally distributed . In study this , the data transformation test is carried out to variable culture organization (X ₂ ).Test data transformation on this data done with method.

Table 4.

Variable Data Transformation Test Results Culture Organization (X2)

N	Valid	80
	missing	0
Skewness		167
Std. Error of Skewness		269
kurtosis		1-.674
Std. Error of Kurtosis		532

Source : Data processed by SPSS (Ghozali, 2018)

Based on transformation test table above , get Skewness value of 0.167 and the value of Standard Error of Skewness of 0.269. So that obtained mark The Skewness X2 ratio is 0.620. Which means variable X2 already normally distributed .

5. Test Linearity

Table 5. Linearity Test Results

			Sum of Square	df	Mean Square	F	Sig
Y= Performance	between	(combined)	2084,433	17	122.614	10.055	.000
X3= Motivation	Groups	linearity	1915,194	1	1915,194	157.055	.000
		Deviation From Linearity	169,239	16	10,577	867	607
	Within groups		756,054	62	12,194
	Total		2840,488	79

Based on� the above test , obtained mark Deviation from Linearity is of 0.607. It means in a regression test involving motivation with performance , meet assumption test assumptions linearity .

6. Test Autocorrelation

Table 6. Model Summary

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Durbin-Watson
1	.821 ^a	.674	.670	3,444	2012

Based on table above , can seen Durbin-Watson value is 2.012 while the value of dL is 1.6114 (n=80, k=1, = 0.05) and dU is 1.6620 (n=80, k=1, =0.05). The results of the autocorrelation test research this is as following :

Based on equality above , then could is known that no there is autocorrelation positive / negative .

7. Test Multicollinearity

Table 7 . Multicollinearity Test Results

						Collinearity Statistics
Model		B	Std. Error	t	sig	Tolerance	VIF
1	(Constant)	11.862	2,967	3.998	.000
	X3= Motivation	914	.072	12,700	.000	1,000	1,000

Based on table above , we get mark Tolerance for variable Motivation (X3) is of over 1,000 big from 0.10 (1,000 > 0.10 ) . Whereas variable VIF value Motivation (X3) is of over 1,000 small of 10 (1,000 < 10), where detection existence multicollinearity occur if VIF value > 10. So that based on tolerance value and VIF regression test this fulfil assumption because no occur multicollinearity .

8. Test Heteroscedasticity

Heteroscedasticity Test Results

Is known from scatter plot graph above is known that point spread by evenly and not there is pattern specific on the graph represented by performance . Point performance on graphics meaningful spread _ that no there is disturbance heteroscedasticity on the research model this .

9. Multiple Linear Regression Results

a. Coefficient Determination

Table 8 Coefficient Determination

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Durbin-Watson
1	.821 ^a	.674	.670	3,444	2012
a. Predictors : (constant), X3= Motivation
b. Dependent Variable Y= Performance

Based on results the output table above , looks that mark coefficient determination (R2 ⁾ of 0.674 . Which means that by 67.4% Performance is influenced by motivation , the rest that is of 32.6% is influenced by variables that do not listed .

b. Coefficient Correlation

Table 9 Coefficient Correlation

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Durbin-Watson
1	.821 ^a	.674	.670	3,444	2012
a. Predictors : (constant), X3= Motivation
b. Dependent Variable Y= Performance

Based on the above output results, obtained mark coefficient correlation (R) is 0.821. This thing showing that there is very strong and significant relationship Among variable motivation to variable performance, which can seen from criteria determination strength connection coefficient correlation in the interval 0.80 - 1000 which shows very strong.

1) F Uji test

Table 10. F Test Results

Anova ^b

Model		Sum of Square	df	Mean Square	F	Sig
1	Regression	1950,858	3	650,286	55.553	.000 ^a
	Residual	889,630	76	11.706
	Total	2840,488	79

a. Predictors : (constant), X2= Culture Organization , X1= Environment

b. Dependent Variable : Y= Performance

Based on summary results regression multiple from table above , shows that mark significant 0.000 < 0.05. Calculation the showing that variable Environment Work (X1), Culture Organization (X2), and Motivation (X3) together have positive and significant influence to Performance variable (Y).

1) t test

		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig
Model		B	Std.Error	Beta
1	Constant	10,842	3.007		3.606	.001
	X1= Environment	.142	.089	.146	1,602	.113
	X3= Motivation	.804	.102	.722	7.906	.000
	X2= Culture Organization	.240	.510	.031	-470	.640

a. Dependent Variable : Y=Performance

The results of the t test ( partial ) show that mark significance for every variable independent . From result 3 variable test independent could is known that :

a. Environment Work , have mark significance of 0.113, the value of this more big from 0.05 so that H _{01 is} accepted . Meaning , Environment Work no influential to performance

b. Culture Organization have significance of 0.640, the value of this more big from 0.05 so that H _{02 is} accepted . That is , culture organization no influential to performance .

c. Motivation have significance of 0.000, value this more small from 0.05 so that H _{03 is} rejected . That is , motivation influential to performance .

5) Analysis Multiple Linear Regression

Based on the SPSS output table coefficient above , then obtained equality linear regression as following :

Y = 10,842 + 0.142 X1 - 0.240 X2 + 0.804X3

Interpretation from equality on is as following:

a. Constant value of 10,842 ��������� = If mark whole variable X = 0, then mark performance will constant of 11,862 units.

b. X1 coefficient value is 0.142 = If environment work increase of 1 (one) unit, then variable performance will increase of 0.142 units.

c. X2 coefficient value is -0.240 = If culture organization increase of 1 (one) unit, then variable performance will down of 0.240 units .

X3 coefficient value is 0.804 = If motivation increase of 1 (one) unit, then variable performance will increase of 0.804 units

CONCLUSION

From testing by statistics that have been done , then could drawn conclusion that the test results by statistics has prove that variable environment work no influential to variable performance employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. Test results by statistics has prove that variable culture organization no influential to variable performance employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. Test results by statistics has prove that variable motivation influential to variable performance employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta. Test results by statistics has prove that variable environment work , culture organization and motivation influential to variable performance employees of Bank Yudha Bhakti Main Branch Jakarta .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aktas, E., & Cicek, I. (2011). Kiyak. M.(2011). The effect of organizational culture on organizational efficiency: The moderating role of organizational environment and CEO values. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 2, 1560, 1573.

Al Halbusi, Hussam, Williams, Kent A., Mansoor, Hamdan O., Hassan, Mohammed Salah, & Hamid, Fatima Amir Hammad. (2020). Examining the impact of ethical leadership and organizational justice on employees� ethical behavior: Does person�organization fit play a role? Ethics & Behavior, 30(7), 514�532.

Cameron, Kim S., Quinn, Robert E., DeGraff, Jeff, & Thakor, Anjan V. (2014). Competing values leadership. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Chow, Irene Hau Siu. (2012). The roles of implementation and organizational culture in the HR�performance link. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3114�3132.

Feel, Nico Harumanu, Herlambang, Toni, & Rozzaid, Yusron. (2018). Pengaruh Disiplin Kerja, Budaya Organisasi Dan Lingkungan Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai. Jurnal Penelitian IPTEKS, 3(2), 176�185.

Fernandes, Adji Achmad Rinaldo. (2018). The effect of organization culture and technology on motivation, knowledge asset and knowledge management. International Journal of Law and Management.

Ghozali, Imam. (2018). Aplikasi analisis multivariate dengan program IBM SPSS 25.

Hassani, Abdeslam, & Mosconi, Elaine. (2022). Social media analytics, competitive intelligence, and dynamic capabilities in manufacturing SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121416.

Kim, Hougyun, & Kim, Jungin. (2015). A cross-level study of transformational leadership and organizational affective commitment in the Korean Local Governments: Mediating role of procedural justice and moderating role of culture types based on competing values framework. Leadership, 11(2), 158�185.

Klammer, Adrian, Grisold, Thomas, & Gueldenberg, Stefan. (2019). Introducing a �stop-doing�culture: How to free your organization from rigidity. Business Horizons, 62(4), 451�458.

Mathew, Jossy. (2018). Organisational culture and effectiveness: A multi-perspective evaluation of an Indian knowledge-intensive firm. Employee Relations: The International Journal.

Meng, Juan, & Berger, Bruce K. (2019). The impact of organizational culture and leadership performance on PR professionals� job satisfaction: Testing the joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 64�75.

Parijat, Pranav, & Bagga, Shilpi. (2014). Victor Vroom�s expectancy theory of motivation�An evaluation. International Research Journal of Business and Management, 7(9), 1�8.

Robbins, P. Stephen, & Judge, Timothy A. (2017). Organizational Behaviour, Edisi 13, Jilid 1. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Sedarmayanti, Sedarmayanti, & Elianie, Ertis Lita. (2015). Pengaruh Kompetensi Pegawai Terhadap Efektivitas Penatausahaan Barang Persediaan Di Pusat Sains Dan Teknologi Nuklir Terapan�Badan Tenaga Nuklir Nasional (Pstnt-Batan) Bandung. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi: Media Pengembangan Ilmu Dan Praktek Administrasi, 12(2), 251�266.

Shao, Zhen. (2019). Interaction effect of strategic leadership behaviors and organizational culture on IS-Business strategic alignment and Enterprise Systems assimilation. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 96�108.

Sugiyono, P. D. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis: Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi, dan R&D. Penerbit CV. Alfabeta: Bandung.

Sulaksono, Hari. (2015). Budaya Organisasi dan Kinerja. Deepublish.

Suwati, Suwati, Minarsih, Maria Magdalena, & Gagah, Edward. (2016). Influence of motivation work, career development and cultural organization on the job satisfaction and implications on the performance of employees (Case on BABINMINVETCADDAM IV/Diponegoro). Journal of Management, 2(2).

Taylor, Jeannette. (2014). Organizational culture and the paradox of performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(1), 7�22.

Upadhyay, Parijat, & Kumar, Anup. (2020). The intermediating role of organizational culture and internal analytical knowledge between the capability of big data analytics and a firm�s performance. International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102100.

Widiarko, Alief Anggar. (2017). Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi, Komitmen Organisasi, Kompensasi Kerja Dan Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan (Studi Kasus Pada Cv. Indomachine Makmur Abadi). Jurusan Manajemen Bisnis Syariah Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis Islam, Institut ï¿½.