ANALISIS PSIKOLOGIS KONDISI SISWA TAMAN KANAK-KANAK SEBELUM DAN SESUDAH MENEMPATI GEDUNG TK PROGRAM PENGEMBANGAN KECAMATAN (PPK) REHABILITASI PASCA GEMPA 2006

Corresponding Author: Endah Andriani Pratiwi

INTRODUCTION

In an increasingly complex and competitive world of work, organisations need to pay attention to employee workplace well-being. According to Bekker & Demeroutim, workplace well-being is the mental health of employees that is influenced by personal growth, life goals, positive relationships with others, mastery of the environment, social integration, and social contribution (Agustin & Maryam, 2022). Meanwhile, workplace well-being is the most closely related component to workers and the work environment because workers spend most of their time in the work environment (Fridayanti et al., 2019). According to Sri Devi, those with a better level of well-being tend to achieve higher customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, productivity, and lower employee turnover rates (Marpaung, 2020). Therefore, companies must pay attention to workplace well-being as a crucial factor.

Efforts to face company business competition require capital assets and must be supported by human resources with optimal performance (Kustya & Nugraheni, 2020). The company's resources are implemented in the form of job performance. Job performance is a dimension that indicates how well they do their job, how much initiative they have and how much effort they put into solving problems. Can be seen in the way employees complete tasks and give their energy, time, and ability to solve problems (Carmelia et al., 2017). Employee performance is assessed based on their effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out work tasks and the extent to which they make quality contributions and align with organisational goals.

The role of human resources is crucial in determining the success of a company's goals (Pashiera & Budiono, 2023). The company's goals can be achieved through work engagement. Work engagement is an attitude that describes an individual who is fully involved with his work, both emotionally and physically, by showing enthusiastic, dedicated and enthusiastic behaviour in carrying out work (Mufarrikhah et al., 2020). Several concepts are considered similar or overlapping with work engagement, but all differ (Man & Hadi, 2013). These concepts are workaholic, job satisfaction, flow, and organisational commitment.

Previous research was conducted that workplace friendship has a positive and significant effect on employee engagement, workplace well-being has a positive and significant effect on employee engagement, employee engagement mediates the effect of workplace friendship on employee performance, employee engagement mediates the effect of workplace well-being on employee performance in non-PNS professional employees at General University Sudirman (Rizki et al., 2021). Other research also shows that work engagement mediates the effect of psychological well-being on employee performance (Pashiera & Budiono, 2023). However, work engagement does not mediate the influence of the work environment on employee performance. Previous studies measured workplace well-being variables with workspace friendship and psychological well-being. Hence, no research specifically addresses the impact of workplace well-being on job performance, with work engagement as a mediating variable, which is a novelty in this study. This study aimed to examine the impact of workplace well-being on job performance, with work engagement as a mediating variable.

METHODS

This research uses quantitative research methods. In research with a quantitative approach, the data collected is based on a positivistic paradigm that prioritises the use of concrete data (Sugiyono, 2019). The research data obtained in this method are numbers that will be measured and analysed using statistical tools as a calculation test tool. Using statistics in data analysis aims to identify relationships between variables, test hypotheses, and reach conclusions based on the analysis performed.

Data was collected through a literature study and a survey using a questionnaire. The population involved in this research is production division employees at PT. Leading Garment Industries Bandung with a total population of 1,800 employees. Meanwhile, researchers used a purposive sampling technique to determine the research sample.

The purposive sampling technique is a sampling technique using certain characteristics/criteria (Sugiyono, 2019). The sample criteria are permanent employees in PT's production department. Leading Garment Industries Bandung and Employees with a minimum of SMA/SLTA/equivalent education. Departing from the sample criteria above, the population in the study was narrowed down to 289 employees. As for determining the research sample, the researcher refers to the determination of the sample proposed by Krejcie and Morgan (Hua, 2016). Based on this, the sample used in this study was 165 respondents. The data collected was then analysed using statistical analysis techniques.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RESULTS

Simple Linear Regression Test

In testing the research hypothesis of the effect of workplace well-being on job performance with work engagement as a mediating variable, hypothesis testing was carried out using simple linear regression analysis with the help of JASP version 14 software and the following results were obtained:

Table 1. Anova Workplace Well-being on Work Engagement

ANOVA
Model		Sum of Squares	df	MeanSquare	F	P
H_a	Regression	247,355	1	247,355	23,984	< .001
	residual	1681093	163	10.313
	Total	1928,448	164

Source: Processed data, 2023

Based on the table above, it is known that there is a significant influence between workplace well-being on work engagement. This explains that H0 is rejected and Ha is accepted with a p-value of <.001. Meanwhile, the regression equation between workplace well-being and work engagement is significant with the regression coefficient as follows:

Table 2. Workplace Well-being Regression Coefficient on Work Engagement

Coefficients
Model		Unstandardised	Standard Error	standardised	t	P
H₀	(Intercepts)	49,370	0.267		184,936	< .001
H₁	(Intercepts)	31,743	3,608		8,798	< .001
	WWB	0.431	0.088	0.358	4,897	< .001

Source: Processed data, 2023

�� Table 2 above explains that the regression coefficient of workplace well-being on work engagement is 0.431 and has a significant p-value <.001, so it can explain that there is a linear equation between workplace well-being on work engagement. As for testing the second hypothesis, a simple linear regression analysis was also carried out between work engagement and job performance.

Table 3. Anova Work Engagement on Job Performance

ANOVA
Model		Sum of Squares	df	MeanSquare	F	P
H_a	Regression	72,127	1	72,127	6,750	0.010
	residual	1741.122	163	10,682
	Total	1813.248	164

Source: Processed data, 2023

�� Based on the table above, it can be seen that there is an influence between work engagement on job performance with a significance p-value of 0.010 (<0.05). This proves that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted. Meanwhile, to find out the regression coefficient can be seen in Table 4 below:

Table 4. Work Engagement Regression Coefficient on Job Performance

Coefficients
Model		Unstandardised	Standard Error	Standardised	t	P
H₀	(Intercepts)	52,230	0.259		201,771	< .001
H₁	(Intercepts)	42,582	3,683		11,589	< .001
	WWB	0.193	0.074	0.199	2,599	0.010

Source: Processed data, 2023

Based on the table above, it is known that the regression coefficient of the work engagement variable on job performance is 0.193 with a significance p-value of 0.010. Meanwhile, a simple linear regression analysis was also carried out to test the third hypothesis between workplace well-being variables and job performance.

Table 5. Anova Workplace Well-being on Job Performance

ANOVA
Model		Sum of Squares	df	MeanSquare	F	p.s
H1	Regression	4,950	1	4,950	0.446	0.505
	residual	1808299	163	11,094
	Total	1813.248	164

Table 5 above explains that H₀ is accepted and Ha is rejected because the significance of the p-value of 0.505 is greater than 0.05. So there is no influence between workplace well-being on job performance. Regarding the regression coefficient between workplace well-being variables on job performance, it can be seen from the table below:

Table 6. Workplace Well-being Regression Coefficient on Job Performance

Coefficients
Model		Unstandardised	Standard Error	Standardised	t	P
H₀	(Intercepts)	52,230	0.259		201,771	< .001
H₁	(Intercepts)	49,737	3,742		13,292	< .001
	WWB	0.061	0.091	0.052	0.668	0.505

Source: Processed data, 2023

The regression coefficient for the influence of workplace well-being on job performance is 0.061, with a significance p-value of 0.505. This explains that the value of the regression coefficient from workplace well-being on job performance is unacceptable.

Mediation Test

In research on the Effect of Workplace Well-being on Job Performance with Work Engagement as a mediating variable, researchers used mediation analysis with the help of Jamovi software version 2.2.5.

Table 7. Path Estimates

Path Estimates
						95% Confidence Intervals
			Label	Estimates	SE	Lower	Upper	Z	P
WWB	→	WE	a	0.4308	0.0874	0.2594	0.602	4,927	< .001
WE	→	JP	b	0.2010	0.0792	0.0458	0.356	2,538	0.011
WWB	→	JP	c	-0.0257	0.0953	-0.2124	0.161	-0.269	0.788

Source: Processed data, 2023

Based on the table above, the label a or the influence of workplace well-being on work engagement results in the conclusion that there is a significant effect. This can be seen from the p-value of <.001, which is smaller than 0.05. Meanwhile, label b, which is the effect of work engagement on job performance, also concludes that there is a significant influence between the two variables, with a p-value of 0.011 less than 0.05. Whereas for label c, which is the result of the influence of workplace well-being on job performance, it was found that there was no effect between the two variables, with a p-value of 0.788 (> 0.05).

Table 8. Mediation Estimates

				95% Confidence Intervals
effects	Label	Estimates	SE	Lower	Upper	Z	p.s	% Mediation
Indirects		a � b		0.0866		0.0384		0.0114
Direct		c		-0.0257		0.0953		-0.2124
Total		c + a � b		0.0609		0.0907		-0.1168

Based on the table above in the indirect effect column explains that there is an indirect effect between workplace well-being on job performance which is mediated by work engagement. This can be seen from the significance of the p-value of 0.024 (<0.05), with a large influence of 77.1% (estimated 0.0866). Meanwhile, the direct effects column in the table above explains that there is no direct influence between workplace well-being on job performance. This can be seen from the significance of the p-value of 0.788 (> 0.05) with a large influence of 22.9% (estimate -0.0257). The negative sign on the point estimate means that other variables have a greater influence on these variables.

If you look at the table above, you get the result that the total effect on the sum of the independent variables on the dependent variable and the mediating variables on the independent variables and then multiplied by the independent variables on the mediating variable has a significance of 0.502 with a point estimate of 0.061 or an influence of 6.1% in a positive direction.

�� The results showed that workplace well-being did not affect job performance. This study's results differ from previous studies, which show a positive and significant relationship between work well-being and mental health on employee performance at PT Mega Hotel Lestari (Rafifah et al., 2022). Other research also shows that workplace well-being is quite significant in the performance of elementary school teachers (Herwanto & Ummi, 2017). The results showed that workplace well-being positively and significantly affected work engagement. These findings support previous research which proves workplace well-being has a positive and significant effect on work engagement (Rizki et al., 2021). The study results show that work engagement positively and significantly affects job performance. These findings support previous research, which proves that work engagement has a positive and significant effect on job performance (Sucahyowati & Hendrawan, 2020). Research similar to previous studies shows that work engagement mediates the effect of workplace well-being on job performance (Tjahjaningsih, 2016). This study's results are supported by previous studies showing that employee engagement mediates the effect of workplace well-being on employee performance in non-PNS professional employees at Jenderal Soedirman University (ALVINA, 2021). The study results show that work engagement does not mediate the effect of workplace well-being on job performance. This finding supports the results of previous studies, which stated that employee engagement does No mediate employees well-being on performance employee (Sumarno, 2022).

CONCLUSION

The study results show interesting findings related to the relationship between workplace well-being, work engagement, and job performance. Specifically, the findings are as follows: 1) This study found no direct effect between workplace well-being and job performance. This means that the level of work well-being does not directly affect worker performance in the context studied. 2) Effect of Work Engagement on Job Performance: The study results show that work engagement positively and significantly affects job performance. This means that the higher the employee's involvement in their work, the better their performance. The Role of Work Engagement as a Mediation Variable : This study found that work engagement mediates between workplace well-being and job performance. This means there is an indirect effect between workplace well-being and job performance, which is bridged by the level of employee work engagement. An increase in workplace well-being can increase work engagement, increasing job performance. These findings indicate that while workplace well-being does not directly affect job performance, workplace well-being can indirectly affect employee job performance through work engagement. This emphasises the importance of paying attention to and increasing employee involvement in their work to improve their performance, regardless of the existing level of work welfare.

REFERENCES

Agustin, I., & Maryam, E. W. (2022). Well-Being Workplace for Pt X Employees in Sidoarjo. Academia Open, 6, 10�21070. https://doi.org/10.21070/acopen.6.2022.2195

ALVINA, N. R. N. (2021). Analisis Pengaruh Workplace Friendship dan Workplace Well Being terhadap Employee Performance yang dimediasi oleh Employee Engagement studi pada pegawai profesional non PNS di Universitas Jenderal Soedirman. Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.

Carmelia, T., Tiatri, S., & Wijaya, E. (2017). Hubungan Antara Kecerdasan Emosional Dan Prestasi Akademik Dengan Job Performance Pada Mahasiswa Aktif Organisasi Kemahasiswaan. Jurnal Muara Ilmu Sosial, Humaniora, Dan Seni, 1(2), 184�197. https://doi.org/10.24912/jmishumsen.v1i2.918

Fridayanti, F., Kardinah, N., & Fitri, T. J. N. (2019). Peran workplace well-being terhadap mental health: Studi pada karyawan disabilitas. Psympathic: Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi, 6(2), 191�200. https://doi.org/10.15575/psy.v6i2.5754

HERWANTO, H., & UMMI, F. T. U. L. (2017). Pengaruh Workplace Well-Being Terhadap Kinerja Guru Sd. Jurnal Penelitian Dan Pengukuran Psikologi: JPPP, 6(1), 55�60. https://doi.org/10.21009/JPPP.061.07

Hua, A. K. (2016). Pengenalan rangkakerja metodologi dalam kajian penyelidikan: Satu kajian komprehensif. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 1(4), 42�52. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v1i4.30

Kustya, N. D., & Nugraheni, R. (2020). Analisis Pengaruh Work Engagement dan Kepemimpinan terhadap Kinerja Karyawan melalui Komitmen Organisasional sebagai Variabel Intervening (Studi pada Kantor Pusat PDAM Tirta Moedal Kota Semarang). Diponegoro Journal of Management, 9(2).

Man, G. S., & Hadi, C. (2013). Hubungan antara perceived organizational support dengan work engagement pada guru SMA swasta di Surabaya. Jurnal Psikologi Industri Dan Organisasi, 2(2), 90�99.

Marpaung, J. (2020). Gambaran workplace well-being di PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia cabang belawan.

Mufarrikhah, J. L., Yuniardi, M. S., & Syakarofath, N. A. (2020). Peran perceived organizational support terhadap work engagement karyawan. Gadjah Mada Journal of Psychology (GamaJoP), 6(2), 151�164.

Pashiera, R. S., & Budiono, B. (2023). Peran work engagement sebagai variabel intervening pada pengaruh psychological well being dan work environment terhadap employee performance pada PT Pelabuhan Indonesia (Persero) Regional 3 Kantor Surabaya. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen, 393�405. https://doi.org/10.26740/jim.v11n2.p393-405

Rafifah, P. S., Maulana, A., & Gunawan, E. (2022). Pengaruh Workplace Well-Being dan Kesehatan Mental terhadap Kinerja Karyawan pada PT Mega Hotel Lestari. SOSMANIORA: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 1(4), 448�456. https://doi.org/10.55123/sosmaniora.v1i4.1157

Rizki, N., Wulandari, S. Z., & Suryani, A. I. (2021). Pengaruh Workplace Friendship Dan Workplace Well Being Terhadap Employee Performance Yang Dimediasi Oleh Employee Engagement. Jurnal Ekonomi, Bisnis, Dan Akuntansi, 23(3), 1�20. https://doi.org/10.32424/jeba.v23i3.2858

Sucahyowati, H., & Hendrawan, A. (2020). Pengaruh Employee Engagement Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan pada PT MK Semarang. Jurnal Sains Teknologi Transportasi Maritim, 2(2), 9�15. https://doi.org/10.51578/j.sitektransmar.v2i2.21

Sugiyono. (2019). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. ALFABETA.

SUMARNO, A. D. I. (2022). Pengaruh Komunikasi Internal Dan Employee Well-Being Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan Yang Di Mediasi Oleh Employee Engagement (Study Pada Pt Wuza). Universitas Mercu Buana Jakarta.

Tjahjaningsih, C. C. E. (2016). Pengaruh employee engagement dan modal sosial terhadap kinerja karyawan dengan OCB (Organizational Citizenship Behaviour) sebagai mediasi (Studi pada Bank Jateng kantor pusat). Media Ekonomi Dan Manajemen, 30(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.24856/mem.v30i2.242

� 2023 by the authors. It was submitted for possible open-access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -sa / 4 .0/ ).