The Influence of Leadership Style, Organizational Culture, and

Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance Department of

Education and Culture of Yapen Islands
Edison Musa Kayoi1, Bonifasia Elita Bharanti2, Sri Listyarini3
1,2,3Faculty
of Economics, Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Email: kayoiedison@[Link], elitabharanti@[Link], listyarini@[Link]

Abstract:
The Department of Education and Culture of the Yapen Islands Regency as an extension of the
local government in dealing with education has attempted to provide maximum public services.
However, in its implementation, there are several obstacles, including not optimal services
provided due to less-than-optimal employee performance. The objective of the study is to analyze
the influence of leadership style, organizational culture, and job satisfaction on the performance
of the employees of the Department of Education and Culture of the Yapen Islands Regency.
Collecting data used a questionnaire. The research sample was calculated using the Slovin
formula and obtained a total sample of 60 employees of the Department of Education and
Culture of the Yapen Islands Regency. The data were tested with research instrument tests,
classical assumption tests, and multiple linear regression tests using SPSS software version 25.
The results showed that 1) leadership style had a positive and significant effect on employee
performance, 2) organizational culture had a positive and significant effect on the performance
of employees, 3) job satisfaction has no effect on employee performance
Keywords: leadership style; organizational culture; job satisfaction; employee performance

I. Introduction

The implementation of good governance requires the development and

implementation of an appropriate, clear, measurable and legal accountability system; hence,
government administration and development can take place in an efficient, effective, clean and
responsible manner (Nanwani & McIntyre, 2019). Government organizations are required to
have good performance in order to realize good governance (Bird, 2001). When government
organizations have good performance, it will have a good impact on people's lives and restore
public confidence in the government (Asencio, 2016).

The main resources in public services are human resources which include staff
employed, expertise, problem-solving capacity and ability to implement policies (Arnaboldi et
al., 2015). Therefore, managing human resources is important and must be considered by
every agency in order to improve employee and organizational performance (Nasution, 2019).
Performance can be interpreted as the importance of a job, a person's required skill level,
ability, progress, and completion rate of a job (Panggabean, 2002). Good employee
performance becomes useful and desirable in organizations because it can increase the
effectiveness of organizational goals, not least for the Department of Education and Culture
of the Yapen Islands Regency, because employee performance affects the success of the
agency in achieving its goals (Puluhulawa, 2013). It can be seen from various phenomena that
occur such as the dissatisfaction of teachers due to obstacles related to the service such as
promotions, incentive problems, and matters relating to school needs (Liana, 2012). In facing
these challenges, reliable human resources are needed because employee performance will
affect the high and low productivity of the agency (Patterson et al., 2004).

_______________________________________________________
DOI: [Link] -370-
 Britain International of Humanities and Social Sciences (BIoHS) Journal
ISSN: 2685-3868(Online), 2685-1989(Print)
Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2021, Page: 370-383

Based on the archives of the Department of Education and Culture of the Yapen
Islands Regency, the attendance rate of employees of the Education and Culture Office is
quite low as seen from the high percentage of permits, leaving early, being late, and being
absent only once. The low level of attendance can affect the achievement of good service
performance, because the more absent employees are, the more work targets that must be
completed are not achieved. Hence, all employees can achieve the desired performance, many
factors may influence one of them is leadership style, where this leadership style can affect
employee behaviors in an organization (Pawirosumarto et al., 2017).

The 2019 Yapen Islands Regency Education and Culture Office's Performance
Accountability Report (LAKIP) explained the position, main tasks, and functions of the
Education and Culture Office. The position of the service is an element of implementing
government affairs in the field of education which is the authority of the region. The service is
led by the head of the service who is under and responsible to the regent through the regional
secretary. The leadership of an office head has the task of helping the regent carry out
government affairs in the field of education which is the authority of the region and the
assistance tasks given to the district (Rahmatiah et al., 2019).

Based on previous studies that examined the influence of leadership style,

organizational culture, and job satisfaction on employee performance, it was found that there
were differences in research results between one researcher and another, known as the
research gap. The existence of this research gap provides an opportunity for researchers to
conduct further research on the effect of each variable on employee performance. Ohemeng
et al. (2018) and Ugheoke (2019) found a significant positive effect of leadership style on
employee performance. Meanwhile, research by Ogbonna and Harris (2000) and Wibowo and
Saputra (2017) found that leadership style did not have a significant effect on employee
performance. Moreover, Fithriana and Adi (2017) and Lolowang et al. (2019) found a positive
influence of organizational culture on employee performance, while Syauta et al. (2012)
discovered the opposite, organizational culture does not have a significant influence on
employee performance. Furthermore, Siengthai and Pila-Ngarm (2016) and Hendri (2019)
revealed that job satisfaction had a significant positive effect on employee performance, while
Crossman and Abou‐Zaki (2003) found job satisfaction did not affect employee performance.

Given the phenomena related to employee performance and the research gap of
previous studies, the researchers are interested in seeing the importance of applying leadership
style, organizational culture, and job satisfaction to improving employee performance,
especially at the Education and Culture Department of Yapen Islands Regency. The objective
of this study is to analyze the effect of leadership style, organizational culture, and job
satisfaction on employee performance.

II. Review of Literature

2.1 Performance
Improving the performance of government institutions has become an important issue
in recent decades (Vermeeren et al., 2013). Performance is a quantitative and qualitative
expression where the work performed by individuals, groups or companies can achieve goals
(Leković & Marić, 2015). In line with the opinion of Prawirosentono (2014), performance is
the result of work that individuals or groups achieve in the organization as an effort to achieve
legally relevant goals, in accordance with their rights and responsibilities without violating the
law and morals or ethics.

-371-
 Performance is a concept that describes how a person can use his own potential or real
knowledge, skills and abilities to be able to achieve his own goals or expectations (Altındağ &
Kösedağı, 2015). Gibson et al. (1996) explained that the ability and motivation of employees in
conducting their duties also determine performance. Employee performance measurement is
useful for improving the quality and accountability of decision-making and is useful for
evaluating goals and objectives (Whittaker, 1995).

2.2 Leadership Style

Leadership is the ability of individuals to influence a group to achieve goals (Robbins
& Coulter, 2010). Leaders are considered to be the main drivers of performance in the public
sector and organizations (Brewer & Selden, 2000). Choosing the right leadership style is an
important factor because it affects performance both at the organizational and individual
levels (Sauer, 2011). Leadership style and job satisfaction of subordinates have been shown to
affect employee performance (Spector, 2000). Thus, it is important to adopt a leadership style
that is suitable for the organization so that the organization can achieve its goals effectively
and efficiently (Babalola, 2016). The organizational system created by the leader will determine
the success of employee performance profitably or unfavorably (Ibrahim et al., 2017).

When a leader has a leadership style that is appropriate and liked by employees, it will
be able to improve employee performance (Erniwati et al., 2020). An effective leadership style
will inspire and empower employees so that they will be able to produce a very high level of
effort, commitment, and willingness of employees to take risks and provide better
performance for the organization (Ohemeng et al., 2018). Ugheoke (2019) examined
organizational culture at the Ministry of Higher Education in Oman and found that
bureaucratic culture and supportive culture have a positive and significant impact on employee
performance in the public sector. Other studies also found a positive and significant influence
of organizational culture on employee performance (Erniwati et al., 2020; Ohemeng et al.,
2018; Zeb et al., 2015). Referring to the theory and previous empirical findings, the first
hypothesis proposed in this study is:
H1: It is suspected that there is a positive and significant influence of leadership style on
employee performance.

2.3 Organizational Culture

Organizational culture has a major influence on individual behavior in organizations
(Barney, 1986; Trice & Beyer, 1993). A good culture will ensure that employees know exactly
what the organization expects of them (Budhwar & Sparrow, 1998). Brown (1998) defined
organizational culture as the beliefs, values, and methods for effectively addressing the
experiences that developed throughout the history of the organization and demonstrating
them in the regulation of member behavior within the organization. According to Ravasi and
Schultz (2006), organizational culture is a set of mental tendencies that guide interpretation
and action in organizations. If an organization has a strong culture, it can bring the
organization to develop in a better direction (Robbins, 2006).

When organizational culture can support participation, it will result in job satisfaction
which encourages employees to be more creative in improving their performance (Erniwati et
al., 2020). Fithriana and Adi (2017) discovered that organizational culture has the most
dominant influence on employee performance in the Malang City Government. Lolowang et
al. (2019) found a positive and significant influence of organizational culture applied to
employee performance at the Jayapura Village Office. Furthermore, several other researchers
also found that organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on employee

-372-
performance (Altındağ & Kösedağı, 2015; Asria & Amali, 2018; Sulaefi, 2019; Ugheoke, 2019).
Therefore, the second hypothesis proposed is:
H2: It is suspected that there is a positive and significant influence between organizational
culture on employee performance

2.4 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a positive emotional state of evaluating one's work experience
(Mathis & Jackson, 2011). According to Bailey et al. (1991), job satisfaction is a person's level
of feeling either positive or negative towards their work. Meanwhile, the notion of job
satisfaction according to Kreitner and Kinichi (1992) is an effective or emotional response
that leads to a job. Job satisfaction also refers to the extent to which individual needs and
values are met by the work environment and how individuals respond to that environment
(Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006).

Employee satisfaction with his current job will make employees feel that their work is
important and affect employee integrity which is manifested in honesty in working in
accordance with company regulations (Hendri, 2019). Erniwati et al. (2020) found that job
satisfaction has a positive effect on employee performance at the Regional Secretariat of South
Sulawesi Province, if job satisfaction is high, employees will show a positive attitude towards
their work and produce high performance. Other previous studies conducted by Ali and
Farooqi (2014) and Mira et al. (2019) also found a positive effect of job satisfaction on
employee performance. Therefore, referring to the previous empirical findings, the third
hypothesis proposed is:
H3: It is suspected that there is a positive and significant effect between job satisfaction on
employee performance.

The three hypotheses proposed in this study are summarized in the following research
model (Figure 1).
Leadership Style
(X1)
H1

Employee
Organizational Culture H2
Performance
(X2)
(Y)
H3

Job Satisfaction (X3)

Figure 1. Research Model

-373-
 III. Research Methods

This research used a quantitative approach with the type of causality research, which is
to reveal the causal effect between variables and to prove the research hypothesis. The
population of this study were all employees at the Department of Education and Culture of
the Yapen Islands Regency. The sample is calculated using the Slovin formula so that the
resulting number of samples is 60 employees. The research instrument used to collect data was
a questionnaire that was prepared on a 5-point Likert scale from 1-strongly disagree to 5-
strongly agree. The data of this research were analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis
method. Previously, the data was first tested for validity and reliability. Then, the classical
assumption test was performed which included normality, multicollinearity, and
heteroscedasticity tests. There are three independent variables in this study, namely leadership
style, organizational culture, and job satisfaction, and one dependent variable, which is
employee performance.

IV. Results and Discussion

Characters of respondents that will be discussed include gender, age, education and
years of service. The presentation of the respondent's characteristic data aims to identify the
special characteristics of the respondent so that it is easier for researchers to conduct analysis.
Based on table 1, it can be concluded that the majority of employees at the Education and
Culture Department of Yapen Islands Regency are male, aged 36-40 years, and with the
highest level of education, which is high school or equivalent. The number of employees with
the latest high school education level reflects the poor quality of education of employees.
However, if employees have the appropriate skills and expertise, they are still expected to be
able to provide the best performance.

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics of Respondents

Number of Percentage
Category Alternative Answer
Respondents (%)
Male 31 51,7%
Sex
Female 29 48,3%
18 - 25 year old 2 3,3%
31 - 35 year old 11 18,3%
Age 36 - 40 year old 28 46,7%
> 40 yeard old 19 31,7%
High School 30 50,0%
Educational Diploma 3 8 13,3%
Background Bachelor Degree 19 31,7%
Master Degree 3 5,0%

Descriptions of respondents' answers are used to determine the opinions or

perceptions given by respondents on each variable of leadership style, organizational culture,
and job satisfaction on employee performance. Therefore, an analysis was performed to
calculate the average value of the results of respondents' responses to each question. The
results of the respondent's answers were categorized by calculating the maximum value minus
the minimum value then divided by the number of class 5, so that the interval results were 0.8
(Riduwan, 2002). With an interval of 0.80, the categorization system is as follows: 1.00-1.80
(very low); 1.81-2.60 (low); 2.61-3.40 (moderate); 3,41-4.20 (high); and 4.21-5.00 (very high).
From table 2, it can be seen that all variables have an average value that is in the high category.

-374-
The average value of leadership style is 3.75, work culture is 3.47, job satisfaction is 3.54, and
employee performance is 3.58.

Table 2. Distribution of Respondents' Opinions

Item Leadership Style (X1) Total Mean Category
X1.1 I respect and trust the leader 217 3,62 High
X1.2 My boss can be a good example at work 212 3,53 High
X1.3 My boss often gives motivation 222 3,70 High
Leaders really support innovation and
X1.4 226 3,77 High
creativity of employees
Leaders always listen to input and pay
X1.5 233 3,88 High
attention to employee needs
X1.6 Leaders give awards to employees who excel 247 4,12 High
Leaders always direct employees according to
X1.7 standards
223 3,72 High
X1.8 My boss intervenes if standards are not met 218 3,63 High
Average 3,75 High
I am encouraged to have the initiative in
X2.1 205 3,42 High
getting work done
X2.2 I am encouraged to think creatively 204 3,40 Moderate
I am given full confidence in completing the
X2.3 213 3,55 High
work
X2.4 I am required to complete work accurately 206 3,43 High
The leader motivates me to pay more
X2.5 216 3,60 High
attention to detail in doing my job
The organization makes employees feel that
X2.6 201 3,35 Moderate
they are the most important asset
Organizations always encourage employees to
X2.7 211 3,52 High
increase their competitive advantage
Employees care about problems faced by the
X2.8 organization and create solutions to solve 210 3,50 High
them
Average 3,47 High
X3.1 Work done according to your wishes. 216 3,60 High
You get the opportunity to use your own
X3.2 207 3,45 High
method in completing the given task.
The benefits provided by the government are
X3.3 208 3,47 High
in accordance with the workload.
The benefits received are in accordance with
X3.4 214 3,57 High
government regulations ketentuan
X3.5 The office designs a clear career path for you. 210 3,50 High
Bosses are able to provide direction
X3.6 209 3,48 High
according to your abilities and skills
X3.7 Have solid co-workers in working together 214 3,57 High
X3.8 Good communication with co-workers 219 3,65 High
Average 3,54 High
You carry out work in accordance with
Y1 212 3,53 High
applicable regulatory procedures
Y2 You are able to complete any given job. 197 3,28 Moderate
You are able to achieve the specified job
Y3 207 3,45 High
target

-375-
 You have the skills needed to get the job
Y4 206 3,43 High
done
You are able to work together with a team in
Y5 completing the work that must be done 222 3,70 High
together
You can be trusted in completing the given
Y6 216 3,60 High
job
Y7 You are able to do the work independently. 226 3,77 High
You put work interests above personal
Y8 230 3,83 High
interests
Average 3,58 High

Information: X1 = Leadership Style; X2 = Organizational Culture; X3 = Job Satisfaction; Y

= Employee Performance.

Furthermore, the data is first tested for validity and reliability. Validity test is a test to
see whether the research instrument is valid or not. The research instrument or questionnaire
meets the validity test if the questionnaire questions can represent what is measured by the
questionnaire (Ghozali, 2011). The questionnaire is said to be valid if it has an r-statistical
value > r-table (0.254). From the test results in Table 3, it can be seen that all items in the four
variables have an r-statistical value > 0.254. Therefore, it can be concluded that all variable
items are valid.

Reliability test is used to measure the level of reliability of a research instrument

consisting of variable indicators. The questionnaire is declared reliable if the respondent's
answer to the statement is consistent or stable from time to time (Ghozali, 2011). To measure
reliability, it used Cronbach Alph statistical test. A variable is said to be reliable if it gives a
Cronbach Alpha value > 0.60. The results of the reliability test in Table 3 show that all
variables have a Cronbach Alpha coefficient value greater than 0.60. Therefore, it can be
concluded that all variables are reliable and can be used to measure the variables in this study.

Table 3. Validity and Reliability Test Results

Item R Statistic Cronbach’s Alpha
Leadership Style 0,942
X1.1 0,941
X1.2 0,940
X1.3 0,884
X1.4 0,847
X1.5 0,859
X1.6 0,403
X1.7 0,941
X1.8 0,940
Organizational Culture 0,945
X2.1 0,857
X2.2 0,902
X2.3 0,919
X2.4 0,790
X2.5 0,863
X2.6 0,760
X2.7 0,857
X2.8 0,902

-376-
 Job Satisfaction 0,946
X3.1 0,880
X3.2 0,862
X3.3 0,820
X3.4 0,861
X3.5 0,861
X3.6 0,824
X3.7 0,876
X3.8 0,850
Employee Performance 0,803
X3.8 0,632
X3.8 0,602
X3.8 0,622
X3.8 0,582
X3.8 0,692
X3.8 0,728
X3.8 0,728
X3.8 0,615

The classical assumption test consists of testing for normality, multicollinearity, and
heteroscedasticity. The normality test is a test used to determine whether the residual variable
in the regression model has a normal distribution. The results of the normality test using the
Kolmogorov Smirnov formula show the Asymp value. Sig > 0.05, thus, it can be concluded
that it has fulfilled the normality assumption. Then, the multicollinearity test aims to test
whether a regression model has a correlation between the independent variables. To
determine whether there is multicollinearity, it was by looking at the tolerance value and
variance inflation factor (VIF). If the tolerance value is > 0.10, or equal to the VIF value < 10,
the regression model used in this study is free from multicollinearity (Ghozali, 2011). Based on
Table 4, all independent variables have a tolerance value > 0.10 and a VIF value < 10, thus, in
this study there is no multicollinearity problem. Heteroscedasticity test was conducted to test
whether in the regression model there was an inequality of variance from the residual of one
observation to another observation. The heteroscedasticity test was performed using the Park
test method, which regressed the residual value with each independent variable. The test
results in Table 4 show that all independent variables have a significance value > 0.05. Hence,
it can be concluded that there is no heteroscedasticity problem.

Table 4. Classical Assumption Tes Results

Multicollinearity Heteroscedasticity
Normality Test
Test Test
Kolmogorov Asymp. Sig
Variable Tolerance VIF Sig Score
Smirnov Sig Limt
Leadership Style 0,545 1,836 0,644 0,05
Organizational
0,076 0,200 0,867 1,153 0,889 0,05
Culture
Job Satisfaction 0,509 1,963 0,375 0,05

To test the research hypothesis, the researcher conducted multiple regression analysis.
This analysis used data obtained from the research instrument/questionnaire. Multiple
regression test was administered with the help of the SPSS program. Testing the leadership
style hypothesis on employee performance obtained t-statistics of 2.311 greater than t-table
1.670 with a significance of 0.025 less than a significance level of 0.05. Therefore, it can be

-377-
concluded that leadership style has a positive and significant effect on employee performance
and accepts the first hypothesis. These results are in line with previous researchers who also
found a positive and significant influence of leadership style on employee performance
(Erniwati et al., 2020; Ohemeng et al., 2018; Zeb et al., 2015). The better the leadership style,
the leader can empower his subordinates and ultimately the better the employee's
performance.

This study supports the transactional leadership style theory in which the leader
motivates employees to achieve organizational goals by promising rewards for good
performance (Robbins, 2006). With this leadership that rewards employee achievements,
employees at the Education and Culture Department of Yapen Islands Regency are motivated
to provide the best performance. These results also support the research of Şen and Eren
(2012) related to innovative leadership. Innovative leaders possess and utilize values to
develop, communicate, and motivate followers to develop successful innovations (Şen &
Eren, 2012). Innovative behavior of individuals in the workplace is the foundation for high-
performing organizations (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Howell (2005) suggests that the success of an
innovative idea is based on individuals emerging informally to promote the idea with
confidence, persistence, and energy, and are willing to risk their position and reputation to
ensure the success of the innovation.

The results of testing the second hypothesis show that the t-statistic value is 6.742 > t-
table 1.670 with a significance of 0.000 which is smaller than the 0.05 significance level.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a positive and significant influence of
organizational culture on employee performance and accepts the second hypothesis. This
finding is in line with previous research which also found a positive and significant influence
of organizational culture on employee performance (Altındağ & Kösedağı, 2015; Asria &
Amali, 2018; Sulaefi, 2019; Ugheoke, 2019). The better the organizational culture, the more
employees will be encouraged to improve their performance.

The organizational culture applied at the Education and Culture Department of Yapen
Islands Regency is a supportive and role culture. Supportive characteristics are in accordance
with the theory put forward by Robbins (2006) which explains that support from management
is the extent to which leaders provide clear communication, assistance, and support to
subordinates. It is also in accordance with the supporting cultural theory proposed by
McKenna and Beech (2002). With a supportive culture, employees feel cared for and continue
to be motivated by leaders who ultimately want to work hard to produce even better
performance. Moreover, employees are given separate roles and are trusted to complete their
work. By being given this trust, employees feel they are given responsibility and finally try to
fulfill these responsibilities so that it has an impact on better performance.

Table 5. Results of Multiple Regression Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 6,689 2,286 2,926 0,005
Leadership Style 0,197 0,085 0,254 2,311 0,025
Organizational 0,453 0,067 0,588 6,742 0,000
Culture
Job Satisfaction 0,116 0,087 0,153 1,341 0,185
Adjusted R Square 0,611
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance

-378-
 Furthermore, the results of testing the third hypothesis in table 5 show that the t-
statistic value is 1.341 < t-table 1.670 with a significance of 0.185, which is greater than a
significance level of 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that job satisfaction has no
significant effect on employee performance and rejects the third hypothesis. This study is not
in line with previous research which found a positive and significant effect of job satisfaction
on employee performance (Ali & Farooqi, 2014; Erniwati et al., 2020; Hendri, 2019; Mira et
al., 2019).

No effect of job satisfaction on employee performance can be caused by many things.

When viewed from the results of the descriptive analysis of respondents' answers, the
statement with the lowest score is "You get the opportunity to use your own method in
completing the given task" with an average value of 3.45. According to Weiss et al. (1964) one
of the indicators in the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire is the opportunity to use one's
own method in doing a job. It shows that employees are not given the opportunity to use their
own methods in completing tasks, even though their methods may be able to complete tasks
better. Employees do not feel satisfied enough from the side or factors of their work (the
work itself).

The statement with the next low score is “Benefits provided by the government in
accordance with the workload” with an average score of 3.47. It shows that employees are not
quite satisfied with the benefits or rewards provided, or the benefits provided are not in
accordance with the workload they are doing. Whereas, reward is one of the most important
factors in influencing employee job satisfaction and is always mentioned in various job
satisfaction theories such as the theory proposed by Ranupandojo and Husnan (1995), Smith
et al. (in Luthans, 2002), and Wexley and Yukl (1992). Salaries/wages include financial benefits
received regularly, premiums, bonuses or other financial benefits. If employees feel that their
salaries are sufficient and in accordance with their workload, employees will feel satisfied and
will work better which results in high performance.

The results of this study support the research of Bercu and Onofrei (2017) that
employee intrinsic factors are a priority. The main motivation for civil servants in realizing
work performance is work stability followed by authority, responsibility and autonomy in
work, comfort, advancement prospects, benefits packages, professional development, job
attractiveness, and remuneration (Bercu and Onofrei, 2017). The lack of authority to do work
using their own methods and allowances that are not in accordance with the workload causes
employees at the Education and Culture Department of Yapen Islands Regency to not have
enough job satisfaction which in the end does not significantly affect employee performance.

V. Conclusion

Based on the results of research that has been conducted regarding the influence of
leadership style, organizational culture, and job satisfaction on employee performance, it can
be concluded as follows: 1) The better the leadership style, the more the leader can empower
his subordinates which can ultimately improve employee performance. 2) If the cultural values
created by the organization are increasingly held by employees, the employee's performance
will also increase. 3) Job satisfaction cannot explain the performance of employees at the
Education and Culture Department, Yapen Islands Regency. Whether employees feel satisfied
or dissatisfied, it will not affect their performance.

-379-
 The limitations of this study are that it was only conducted at the Education and
Culture Department of the Yapen Islands Regency, so that it was less representative of all
existing services in the Yapen Islands Regency and the small number of samples caused the
results of this study to not be generalized to a wider research object. Furthermore, this study
only used a questionnaire research instrument, not equipped with interviews so that it cannot
explain in detail to support the results of quantitative analysis. Therefore, for further
researchers, this research can be reconducted with different research objects and the number
of samples is reproduced. Then, other variables or job satisfaction variables can be used as
mediating variables to better explain their effect on employee performance. Regarding the
leadership style, the leadership at the Education and Culture Department of the Yapen Islands
Regency must maintain and improve the awarding of employees who excel and listen to the
input and needs of employees so that they can further improve employee performance. In
addition, leaders must also have good performance and can be role models for employees.

Moreover, the leadership at the Department of Education and Culture of the Yapen
Islands Regency must pay attention to the organizational culture that is applied because these
variables have a positive and significant effect on employee performance. The Department of
Education and Culture of the Yapen Islands Regency should pay more attention to employee
job satisfaction so that it has a significant influence on employee performance. Leaders at the
Education and Culture Department of Yapen Islands Regency should provide more
opportunities for employees to do their work according to their own methods and provide
allowances that are in accordance with the workload given so that job satisfaction is met and
ultimately can affect employee performance.

References

Ali, S., & Farooqi, Y. A. (2014). Effect of work overload on job satisfaction, effect of job
satisfaction on employee performance and employee engagement (a case of public
sector University of Gujranwala Division). International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Sciences and Engineering, 5(8), 23–30.
Altındağ, E., & Kösedağı, Y. (2015). The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence of
Managers, Innovative Corporate Culture and Employee Performance. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210, 270–282.
[Link]
Arnaboldi, M., Lapsley, I., & Steccolini, I. (2015). Performance Management in the Public
Sector: The Ultimate Challenge. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 1–22.
[Link]
Asencio, H. (2016). Leadership, trust and organizational performance in the public sector.
Transylvanian review of administrative sciences, 12(SI), 5–22.
Asria, M., & Amali, H. (2018). The Influence of Job Involvement, Perceptions Of
Organizational Support, And Organizational Culture On Employee Performance At
The Village Community Empowerment Office Of West Sumatera Province. European
Journal of Business and Management, 10(34), 84–90.
Babalola, S. S. (2016). The effect of leadership style, job satisfaction and employee-supervisor
relationship on job performance and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Business Research (JABR), 32(3), 935–946. [Link]
Bailey, J., Schermerhorn, J., Hunt, J., & Osborn, R. (1991). Managing organisational
behaviour. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons.
Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive
Advantage? Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 656–665.
[Link]

-380-
Bercu, A.-M., & Onofrei, M. (2017). The empirical research on civil servants’ motivation:
Evidence from Romania. Managing Global Transitions, 15(4), 399–417.
[Link]
Bird, F. (2001). Good Governance: A Philosophical Discussion of the Responsibilities and
Practices of Organizational Governors. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences /
Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration, 18(4), 298–312.
[Link]
Brewer, G. A., & Selden, S. C. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting
organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of public administration
research and theory, 10(4), 685–712.
[Link]
Brown, A. D. (1998). Organizational Culture. London: Financial Times Management.
Budhwar, P. S., & Sparrow, P. R. (1998). National factors determining Indian and British
HRM practices: an empirical study. In Management and International Review (hal.
105–121). Springer. [Link]
Crossman, A., & Abou‐Zaki, B. (2003). Job satisfaction and employee performance of
Lebanese banking staff. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
Erniwati, S., Ramly, M., & Alam, R. (2020). Leadership style, organizational culture and job
satisfaction at employee performance. Point Of View Research Management, 1(3), 9–
18.
Fithriana, N., & Adi, A. N. (2017). Dominant Effect Between Compensation, Leadership And
Organizational Culture On Employee Performance Improvement. Journal of Applied
Management (JAM), 15(4), 670–676. [Link]
Ghozali, I. (2011). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program SPSS. Semarang: Badan
Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly Jr, J. H. (1996). Organisasi: Perilaku, struktur,
proses (Edisi kedelapan). Jakarta: Bina Aksara.
Hendri, M. I. (2019). The mediation effect of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
on the organizational learning effect of the employee performance. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(7), 1208–1234.
[Link]
Howell, J. M. (2005). The right stuff: Identifying and developing effective champions of
innovation. Academy of Management Perspectives, 19(2), 108–119.
[Link]
Ibrahim, R., Boerhannoeddin, A., & Kazeem Kayode, B. (2017). Organizational culture and
development: Testing the structural path of factors affecting employees’ work
performance in an organization. Asia Pacific Management Review, 22(2), 104–111.
[Link]
Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1992). Organizational Behavior. Irwin: Homewood, IL.
Leković, B., & Marić, S. M. (2015). Measures of small business success/performance–
importance, reliability and usability. Industrija, 43(2), 7–26.
[Link]
Liana, Y. (2012). Iklim organisasi dan motivasi berprestasi terhadap kepuasan kerja dan kinerja
guru. Jurnal manajemen dan Akuntansi, 1(2).
Lolowang, N. L., Troena, E. A., Djazuli, A., & Aisjah, S. (2019). The effect of leadership and
organizational culture on employee performance that is educated by motivation (study
on the implementation empowerment programs in Jayapura city). Problems and
Perspectives in Management, 17(1), 268–277.
[Link]
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and

-381-
 Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 23(6), 695–706.
[Link]
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2011). Human resource management: Essential perspectives.
Cengage Learning.
McKenna, E., & Beech, N. (2002). Human Resource Management: A Concise Analysis.
Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Mira, M., Choong, Y., & Thim, C. (2019). The effect of HRM practices and employees’ job
satisfaction on employee performance. Management Science Letters, 9(6), 771–786.
[Link]
Nanwani, S., & McIntyre, O. (2019). Independent Accountability Mechanisms: Promotion of
Standards, Good Governance and Accountability. In The Practice of Independent
Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs) (hal. 339–372). Brill | Nijhoff.
[Link]
Nasution, N. L. (2019). Analisis Loyalitas Kerja Pegawai Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten
Labuhanbatu. ECOBISMA (Jurnal Ekonomi, Bisnis dan Manajemen), 6(2), 1–13.
Ohemeng, F. L. K., Amoako-Asiedu, E., & Obuobisa Darko, T. (2018). The relationship
between leadership style and employee performance. International Journal of Public
Leadership, 14(4), 274–296. [Link]
Panggabean, M. S. (2002). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity:
The role of employee affect and employee level. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77(2), 193–216.
[Link]
Pawirosumarto, S., Sarjana, P. K., & Gunawan, R. (2017). The effect of work environment,
leadership style, and organizational culture towards job satisfaction and its implication
towards employee performance in Parador Hotels and Resorts, Indonesia.
International Journal of Law and Management, 59(6).
Prawirosentono. (2014). Kepemimpian dan Motivasi. Jakarta: Ghalia Indonesia.
Puluhulawa, J. (2013). Regional Performance Allowance; Its Effect to Employee Performance
and the Success of Local Government in Gorontalo Province, Indonesia. Public Policy
and Administration Research, 3(12), 85–93.
Rahmatiah, D. J., Surya, I., & Hasanah, N. (2019). Peranan Kepala Dinas Pendidikan dan
Kebudayaan dalam Meningkatkan Kualitas Pendidikan Sekolah SDN 025 Di Desa
Sungai Tuak Kecamatan Tanah Grogot Kabupaten Paser.
Ranupandojo, H., & Husnan, S. (1995). Manajemen Personalia. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring
the Role of Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433–458.
[Link]
Riduwan. (2002). Skala Pengukuran Variabel-Variabel Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2010). Manajemen. Edisi Kesepuluh. Jakarta: Penerbit
Erlangga.
Sauer, S. J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on
team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 574–587.
[Link]
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of
Individual Innovation in the Workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–
607. [Link]
Şen, A., & Eren, E. (2012). Innovative Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41, 1–14.
[Link]

-382-
Siengthai, S., & Pila-Ngarm, P. (2016). The interaction effect of job redesign and job
satisfaction on employee performance. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for
Empirical Scholarship, 4(2), 162–180. [Link]
0001
Spector, P. E. (2000). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sulaefi, S. (2019). The Influence of Organizational Culture and Work Motivation toward
Employee Performance at Lestari Raharja Hospital Magelang Indonesia. American
Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS),
53(1), 145–163.
Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G. E. (2006). Examining the Effect of Emotional Dissonance on
Work Stress and Satisfaction With Supervisors Among Correctional Staff. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 17(3), 290–301. [Link]
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The Cultures of Work Organizations. New Jersey,
Prentice-Hall.
Ugheoke, S. O. (2019). Organizational culture and employee performance: moderation effect
of transformational leadership style. Academic Journal of Business and Social Sciences,
3(1), 1–26.
Vermeeren, B., Kuipers, B., & Steijn, B. (2013). Does Leadership Style Make a Difference?
Linking HRM, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Performance. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 34(2), 174–195.
[Link]
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V, England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1964). Construct validation
studies of the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational
Rehabilitation.
Wexley, K. N., & Yukl, G. A. (1992). Leadership in Organizations. Organizational Behavior
and Personnel Psychology, 143–171.
Whittaker, J. B. (1995). Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Virginia:
Educational Services Institute.
Zeb, A., Saeed, G., Ullah, H., & Rabi, F. (2015). Transformational and Transactional
Leadership Styles and its Impact on the Performance of the Public Sector
Organizations in Pakistan. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 8(1), 37–46.

-383-