ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE ...count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77...
Transcript of ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE ...count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77...
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE
COMMITMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT ON
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE OF PT. BANK DKI, JUANDA -
JAKARTA PUSAT
Sarwani,1 Dayat Hidayat,2 Aziz Mauliawati3
Abstract
Analysis of the Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development on the
Performance of Employees PT. Bank DKI, Juanda-Central Jakarta. The purpose of this research is
to determine the effect of self-efficacy, employee commitment, and career development partially
or simultaneously on employee performance. This research was conducted using descriptive and
quantitative analysis methods. The sampling technique used was proportional random sampling
with a sample of 75 respondents. The results of the partial hypothesis test obtained the value of
count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77 and the Commitment of Employees of a count of 5.71
and Career Development of a count of 21.16; while the value of t table = 1.67. The probability values
for all independent variables were all less than 5% (p <5%). Simultaneous hypothesis test results
obtained F count value of 207.56 and probability value <5%, while Ftable value = 3.12. Based on the
calculation of the coefficient of determination partially, the results obtained the variable self-
efficacy of 87.7%, variable employee commitment of 30.9% and career development variables of
86%, and the simultaneous calculation of the coefficient of determination was 89.8%. Based on
the results, it can be concluded that partially the variables of self-efficacy, employee commitment,
and career development had a significant effect on employee performance. Self-efficacy variables
had the most dominant influence (87.7%) on employee performance, while employee
commitment had the weakest influence (30.9%) on employee performance. Simultaneously, the
variables of self-efficacy, employee commitment, and career development had a significant effect
on employee performance by 89.8% and the regression equation of Y = 7.969 + 2.733X1 + 0.109X2
+ 1.726 X3.
Index Terms: Self Efficacy, Employee Commitment, Career Development, Employee Performance
1 Sarwani is a senior lecturer at Pamulang University (UNPAM), Banten, Indonesia. E-
mail: [email protected]. 2 Dayat Hidayat is a researcher and graduate of Pamulang University (UNPAM), Banten,
Indonesia. 3 Aziz Mauliawati is Employee of PT. Bank DKI, Pamulang Indonesia.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3289
1. Introduction
The dynamic condition of banking competition requires a lot of improvement and excellent
service to provide customer satisfaction, especially many state-owned banks, region-owned
banks, and private banks that are competing to launch new programs that can provide
convenience for their customers. Therefore, banking companies must continue to improve and
develop the performance of their employees to be able to provide satisfying services for
customers. Several factors can be developed to improve employee performance, namely, the
companies motivate the employees to produce mature self-efficacy so that the employees can
work confidently, the companies encourage the employees to increase their commitment, and the
employers provide an attraction for employees to work well by developing career development
programs open to all employees.
Self-efficacy is considered important in encouraging employee performance because of its
relationship with life in an organization in which the self-confidence and firm belief are needed
from the employees. The higher the level of efficacy of the employees on the values of self-
confidence, meaning that the employees will know what to do and what can be expected of
themselves, so they always act quickly to overcome various existing problems.
Another factor that can affect employee performance is employee commitment.
Commitment also drives the employees to be loyal and have a sense of ownership of the
organization. Thus, every time they work, they are orientated to work well and then produce
appropriate work, to provide high work performance and deliver the organization to achieve its
goals. Furthermore, to improve employee performance, the career development factor has a
significant influence.
Bank DKI (Daerah Khusus Ibukota/Capital Special Region) continues to improve the quality
and competence of its human resources through various education and training programs, both
regular and non-regular programs [1]. The training programs are provided through in-house
training, as well as training programs in collaboration with leading educational institutions [2].
To accelerate the empowerment and creation of cadres of future leaders, Bank DKI has
carried out various human resource development programs, namely the Staff Development
Program, Manager Development Program, and Executive Program Development [2]. Although
the development system has been implemented to improve employee performance such as self-
efficacy, employee commitment, and career development, changing times demand continuous
improvements coupled with the increasingly complex patterns of thought and behavior of
customers that demand more advantages [3]. Thus, improvement efforts to meet customer needs
cannot be seen as a simple matter and the internal parts of the company must have awareness
because otherwise, the customers will look away to other banks.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3290
To implement a more objective performance assessment system, Bank DKI continues to
harmonize the valid and objectively accountable system through key performance indicators
(KPI). The KPI program is also intended to measure the mapping of the strength of human
resources currently owned by Bank DKI, as well as a cascading map of company-level strategies
that are broken down into work unit strategy maps and work targets [4]. The KPI, as a measure
of the success of the performance, will also be a reference for the application of reward and
punishment which will later be related to the CASH (Cara Agar Semua Happy/Ways to Make
Everyone Happy) program [5] [6].
Based on the explanation above, it is interesting and challenging to conduct research related
to the theory and empiricism that have relevance to performance, self-efficacy, employee
commitment, and career development. The title of this research that will be held is: "Analysis of
the Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development on Employee
Performance of Bank DKI-Case Study of Bank DKI Jakarta Central Bank employees" [7].
The problem formulation of the case above is; Does self-efficacy significantly influence
employee performance? Does employee commitment significantly influence employee
performance? Does career development significantly influence employee performance? Do self-
efficacy, employee commitment, and career development simultaneously significantly influence
employee performance?
2. Literature Review
a. Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy as in “one’s beliefs about the ability to produce levels of performance”
influences events that affect one’s life. Besides, self-efficacy is defined as “self-assessment of the
ability to regulate and carry out actions desired to achieve the goal.” In this sense, self-efficacy
can determine how a person feels, motivates himself, and behaves so that it can influence
behavior.
Based on the definitions, it can be concluded that self-efficacy is one’s belief in one’s ability
to organize and display effective performance behaviors so that one can complete certain tasks
well. Self-efficacy is also a personal factor that mediates between behavioral factors and
environmental factors. Factors that influence self-confidence can originate from four principles of
information sources, namely performance attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,
and physiological state. There are three dimensions of self-efficacy in individuals in determining
taken actions, namely: a). The dimension of magnitude (difficulty level), 2). Dimension of strength,
3). Dimension of generality [8].
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3291
b. Employee Commitment
Employee commitment is the desire of the employees to maintain their membership in the
organization and to be willing to make efforts for the achievement of organizational goals.
Employment commitment consists of work commitment, career/professional commitment, and
organizational commitment. Organizational Commitment, according to Luthans (2006) in Wijaya
[9], is defined as the desire to maintain oneself to remain a member of the organization and to be
willing to try hard as part of a work organization.
Career/Professional Commitment is a perception that is centered on a person's loyalty,
determination, and expectations, guided by a system of values or norms that direct the person to
act or work according to certain procedures to carry out their duties. Employees who work longer
hours will have a higher professional commitment than those who are new to the same
profession. Work/Job Commitment refers to a commitment given not to the organization or one's
career, but to the job itself. Someone who feels attached to the job has a strong sense of duty or
obligation from the job, and puts intrinsic value on the job as a "central life interest."
Employees who are committed to their company will be responsible for their duties and
have the possibility to leave the company are smaller than employees whose commitment levels
are lower. In connection with high employee commitment, Steers in Wijaya [9] stated that
employee commitment to the company will show four things, namely:
1. High level of participation in company activities.
2. Strong desire to keep working so they can continue to achieve the goals they believe in.
3. Full involvement in the work, because the work is a key mechanism and means for
individuals to contribute to the achievement of company goals.
4. Willing to put forth a lot of effort for the benefit of the organization.
Commitment, as the nature of an individual's relationship with the organization that
allows a person to have a high commitment, shows: a). Strong desire to remain a member of the
organization; b). Willingness to do their best in the interests of the organization; c). Strong trust
and acceptance of the organization's values and goals [10].
c. Career Development
According to Rivai [11], career development is the process of increasing individual work
skills to achieve the desired career. Furthermore, career development based on Rivai’s statement
is an increase in workability in the context of achieving a higher job position in an organization.
Usually, this career development attracts employees to work, with a high position or a position
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3292
guaranteeing financial adequacy and adequate work facilities plus a sense of pride in having a
respected work position.
Based on the explanation, it can be concluded that career development is a certain position
to be achieved by every employee who requires certain abilities and certain qualifications
according to specified career criteria. Besides, the existence of career development is used as a
tool to attract employees to work in totality, namely employees put out all their best abilities at
work.
Two dominant factors can affect one's career in addition to other factors, namely:
1. Life Stages, which can be classified into four stages:
a. The first stage is identity placement. Someone is at this stage at the age of 10 to 20 years
old. Individuals investigate choices and begin careers to move into the adult world.
b. The second stage is growth and placement in a career. This stage begins at the age of 20
to 40 years old. In this stage, a person chooses a placement and a position on a career path.
c. The third stage is maintaining and adjusting. This stage generally ends at the age of 50
years and older. Career change and separation occurred during this phase because people
seriously question their quality of life.
d. The fourth stage is the decline. The reduction in physical and mental abilities might
accelerate to this stage. At this stage, a person has low aspirations and motivation even
though extra careers are always possible and can be adjusted [12].
2. Career Anchor
Edgar Schein identifies five different motives that explain how to choose and prepare for a
career which came to be called a career anchor, which includes [13]:
a. Managerial competence. The career goal of managers is to develop interpersonal, analytical,
and emotional competence qualities. People who use this anchor want to manage other
people.
b. Technical or functional competence. The anchor for engineering people is to continue
developing their technical talent.
c. Security anchor. For individuals who deliberately seek safety is to adjust their career
circumstances to a particular organization and geographical location.
d. Creativity. Creative individuals have entrepreneurship. They want to create everything
they have.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3293
e. Autonomy and independence. The career anchor for independent people is a desire to be free
from the organization. Their value of autonomy and desire to become leaders or work for
themselves.
d. Performance
Performance is a universal concept which is the operational effectiveness of an
organization, parts of the organization, and its employees based on predetermined standards and
criteria. Organizations are run by humans, hence performance is human behavior in playing the
role that they perform in an organization to meet the standards of behavior that have been set to
produce the desired results and actions. According to Dessler [14], there are at least six
dimensions that can be used to build employee performance, namely Quality, Productivity, Job
knowledge, Reliability, Availability, and Independence [15].
3. Research Methodology
This research was conducted with a descriptive data analysis method in which the
descriptive data were grouped and tabulated, and then explained and analyzed quantitatively in
terms of causal relationships (influences) between the variables being studied using the Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis tools [16].
The population in this research was 292 Bank DKI employees. With the sampling technique
using the proportional stratified random sampling and the Slovin formula with an error value of
5%, the number of respondents was obtained, namely 169 people [17]. They are distributed as
follows:
Table 4.1: Number of Respondents
No Employee Number of
Employees
Respondents
1 Corporate Secretary 24 14
2 Change Management Office 6 4
3 Human Resource Group 69 40
4 Treasury Group 30 17
5 Information Technology Group 49 28
6 Strategic Planning Group 19 11
7 General Affair Group 48 28
8 Financial Budgeting Group 47 27
Total 292 169
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3294
4. Results and Discussion
a. Results of Descriptive Analysis
Table 4.2: Self-Efficiency Questionnaire Data
Dimension Indicator Statement
SA A QA D SD Total
Magnitude (Ability in doing difficult work)
Able to complete a work in progress
F 50 108 9 2 0 169
% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100
Work challenge F 63 104 2 0 0 169
% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Pride for the work F 52 115 2 0 0 169
% 30.67 68.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Initiative F 45 110 14 0 0 169
% 26.67 65.33 8.00 0.00 0.00 100
Ability in executing work program
F 45 120 2 2 0 169
% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 255 557 29 4 0 845
% 30.13 65.87 3.47 0.53 0.00 100
Strength
(Stable belief)
Considering suggestions F 45 95 29 0 0 169
% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Subordinate motivation F 83 50 36 0 0 169
% 49.33 29.33 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Firm action F 50 108 9 2 0 169
% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100
Belief in abilities F 63 104 2 0 0 169
% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Evaluation F 61 95 13 0 0 169
% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 302 452 89 2 0 845
% 35.73 53.33 10.67 0.27 0.00 100
Generalization(Mature preparation)
Readiness for risks F 59 74 36 0 0 169
% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Additional tasks F 59 81 29 0 0 169
% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3295
Overtime F 61 72 36 0 0 169
% 36.00 42.67 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Work productivity F 59 79 31 0 0 169
% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100
Risk abilities F 59 81 29 0 0 169
% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 297 387 161 0 0 845
% 34.93 45.87 19.20 0.00 0.00 100
TOTAL SUM ∑ F 854 1396 279 6 0 2535
% 33.6 55.02 11.11 0.27 0 100
Source: Processed primary data
Table 4.3: Response Criteria
Dimension N Mean Standard Deviation
Minimum Maximum Response Criteria
Magnitude 169 4.26 0.54 3.72 4.80 High to Very High
Strength 169 4.25 0.64 3.60 4.89 High to Very High
Generalization 169 4.16 0.72 3.44 4.88 High to Very High
Source: Processed primary data
From the responses (Table 4.2), of the 3 dimensions and 15 indicators given, the Magnitude
dimension has the most dominant value in which 65.87% of the respondents stated: "agree". On
the Strength dimension, 53.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The Generalization dimension had
the lowest value with the answer "agree" amounting to 45.87%. Furthermore, in Table 4.3, it can
be seen that the dimension of Magnitude moved from 3.72 to 4.80, meaning that the criteria of
responses about the Magnitude dimension moved in the range of "High to Very High". The
strength dimension had a value moving from 3.60 to 4.89, which means the criteria of the
responses about the Strength moved in the range of "High to Very High". The Generalization
dimension moved from 3.44 to 4.88, which means that the criteria of responses about the
Generalization dimension moved in the range of "High to Very High.”
From the responses in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, it can be concluded that for all statements about
the Self-Efficacy variable, the majority of respondents answered "agree" (55.02%) and "strongly
agree" (33.6%). This illustrates that Bank DKI already had a strong Self-Efficacy that was
embedded in each of its employees, making it easier to achieve goals and objectives.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3296
Table 4.4: Employee Commitment Questionnaire Data
Dimension Indicator Statement
SA A QA D SD Total
Affective Commitment
Responsibility F 68 95 4 2 0 169
% 40.00 56.00 2.67 1.33 0.00 100
Comfort F 79 79 11 0 0 169
% 46.67 46.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 65 77 7 1 0 150
% 43.33 51.33 4.67 0.67 0.00 100
Continuance Commitment
Totality in working F 77 88 2 2 0 169
% 45.33 52.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 100
Maintain working F 79 79 11 0 0 169
% 46.67 46.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 69 74 6 1 0 150
% 46.00 49.33 4.00 0.67 0.00 100
Normative Commitment
Working with best performance
F 70 77 20 2 0 169
% 41.33 45.33 12.00 1.33 0.00 100
Oriented in optimum results
F 59 79 31 0 0 169
% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100
Sum ∑ F 57 69 23 1 0 150
% 38.00 46.00 15.33 0.67 0.00 100
TOTAL SUM ∑ F 191 220 36 3 0 450
% 42.44 48.89 8 0.67 0 100
Source: Processed primary data
Table 4.5: Response Criteria
Dimension N Mean Standard Deviation
Minimum Maximum Response Criteria
Affective 169 4.37 0.61 3.77 4.98 High to Very High
Continuance 169 4.41 0.60 3.80 5.01 High to Very High
Normative 169 4.21 0.72 3.49 4.93 High to Very High
Source: Processed primary data
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3297
From the responses (Table 4.4), of the 3 dimensions and 6 indicators given, the Affective
Commitment dimension was the most dominant in which 51.33% of respondents stated: "agree".
In the Continuance Commitment dimension, 49.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The
Normative Commitment dimension had the lowest value with the "agree" answer amounting to
46.00%.
From Table 4.5, it can be seen that the dimensions of Affective Commitment moved from
3.77 to 4.98. This means the criteria of the responses about the Affective dimension moved in the
range of "High to Very High". The Continuance dimension moved from 3.80 to 5.01 which means
that the responses were in the range of "High to Very High". Furthermore, the Normative
Dimension moved from 3.49 to 4.93, meaning that the criteria moved in the "High to Very High"
range.
From the responses in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, it can be concluded that in all statements about
the Employee Commitment variable, the majority of respondents answered “good” (48.89%) and
“very good” (42.44%). This illustrates that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to upholding the
regulations in carrying out the work.
Table 4.6: Career Development Questionnaire Data
Dimension Indicator Statement
SA A QA D SD Total
Training
Material F 50 108 9 2 0 169
% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100
Career development F 63 104 2 0 0 169
% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Training and education F 52 115 2 0 0 169
% 30.67 68.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Individual training F 45.0723 110.4077 13.52 0 0 169
% 26.67 65.33 8.00 0.00 0.00 100
Needs analysis F 45 120 2 2 0 169
% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100
Sum F 113 247 13 2 0 375
% 30.13 65.87 3.47 0.53 0.00 100
Work Assessment
Opportunity F 45 95 29 0 0 169
% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Development program F 83 50 36 0 0 169
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3298
% 49.33 29.33 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Target achievement F 50 108 9 2 0 169
% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100
Reward F 63 104 2 0 0 169
% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Assessment F 61 95 13 0 0 169
% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100
Sum F 134 200 40 1 0 375
% 35.73 53.33 10.67 0.27 0.00 100
Work Experience
Skill F 59 74 36 0 0 169
% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Potential F 56 79 32 2 0 169
% 33.33 46.67 18.67 1.33 0.00 100
Opportunity F 61 72 36 0 0 169
% 36.00 42.67 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Sum F 78 100 46 1 0 225
% 34.67 44.44 20.44 0.44 0.00 100
Work Relationship
Support Career development
F 59 79 31 0 0 169
% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100
Self-potentials F 58.5923 81.12 29.2877 0 0 169
% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Self-adaptation F 63.0877 103.6477 2.2477 0 0 169
% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Environmental adaptation F 60.84 94.64 13.52 0 0 169
% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100
Awareness F 58.5923 74.36 36.0477 0 0 169
% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100
Sum F 133 192 50 0 0 375
% 35.47 51.20 13.33 0.00 0.00 100
TOTAL SUM ∑ F 458 739 149 4 0 1350
% 33.92593 54.74074 11.03704 0.296296 0 100
Source: Processed primary data
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3299
Table 4.7: Response Criteria
Dimension N Mean Standard Deviation
Minimum Maximum Response Criteria
Training 169 4.26 0.54 3.72 4.80 High to Very High
Work Assessment 169 4.25 0.64 3.60 4.89 High to Very High
Work Experience 169 4.13 0.74 3.39 4.13 Medium to High
Work Relationship 169 4.22 0.66 3.56 4.22 High to Very High
Source: Processed primary data
From the respondent's answer (Table 4.6), of the 4 dimensions and 18 indicators provided,
the Training dimension had the most dominant in which 65.87% of respondents stated: "agree".
In the dimension of Work Assessment, 53.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The dimension of
Work Relationship had a value of 51.20%. The dimension of Work Experience had the lowest
value with the answer "agree" amounting to 44.44%.
Furthermore, Table 4.7 shows that the Training dimension had a value of 3.72 to 4.80,
meaning that the criteria of responses moved in the range of "High to Very High". The dimension
of Work Assessment moved from 3.60 to 4.89, meaning that the criteria of responses moved in
the range of "High to Very High". The dimension of Work Experience moved from 3.39 to 4.13,
meaning that the criteria of responses moved in the "Medium to High" range. Whereas, the
dimension of Work Relationship moved from 3.56 to 4.22, meaning that the criteria of responses
moved in the range of "High to Very High". From the responses in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, it can be
concluded that in all statements regarding the Career Development variable, the majority of
respondents answered "good" (54.74%) and "very good" (33.93%). This illustrates that the
employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different positions within a certain time, in
preparing career development programs and preparing for a higher level.
Table 4.8: Performance Questionnaire Data
Dimension Indicator Statement
SA A QA D SD Total
Performance
Target F 54 113 2 0 0 169
% 32.00 66.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Mistake F 47 106 16 0 0 169
% 28.00 62.67 9.33 0.00 0.00 100
Working well F 43 119 5 2 0 169
% 25.33 70.67 2.67 1.33 0.00 100
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3300
Readiness F 45 95 29 0 0 169
% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100
Achievement F 81 50 38 0 0 169
% 48.00 29.33 22.67 0.00 0.00 100
Punctuality F 54 113 2 0 0 169
% 32.00 66.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 100
Attendance F 45 108 16 0 0 169
% 26.67 64.00 9.33 0.00 0.00 100
Co-worker F 45 120 2 2 0 169
% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100
Leader adaptation F 54 90 23 2 0 169
% 32.00 53.33 13.33 1.33 0.00 100
TOTAL F 208 405 59 3 0 675
% 30.81 60.00 8.74 0.44 0.00 100
Source: Processed primary data
Table 4.9: Response Criteria
Dimension N Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum Response Criteria
Performance 169 4.21 0.61 3.60 4.82 High to Very High
Source: Processed primary data
From the responses (Table 4.8) of the 9 indicators given, the Working Well and Having
Good Relations with Co-workers were the most dominant dimensions with the same value in
which 70.67% of the respondents stated: "agree". The dimensions of Target Achievement and
Punctuality also had the same value in which 66.67% of respondents stated: "agree". Furthermore,
Table 4.9 shows that the Performance dimension moved from 3.60 to 4.82. It means that the
criteria of responses about the dimension of Performance moved in the range of "High to Very
High"
From the answers of respondents presented in Tables 4.8 and 4.9, it can be concluded that
in all statements about the Performance variable, the majority of respondents answered "good"
(60.00%) and "very good" (30.81%). This illustrates that the employees of Bank DKI were able to
work well and to adapt and build good relations with co-workers to achieve the company's goals
and objectives.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3301
b. Verificative Testing
1). Analysis of Variable Constructions
To find out the questionnaire data testing, it was necessary to test the construct of each
variable. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) testing was performed to determine the
constructed model that forms the overall measurement model using the LISREL statistical
application. There are three independent variables in this research, namely Self-Efficacy,
Employee Commitment, and Career Development.
The results of data processing for the exogenous construct using the SEM method with
the LISREL 8.70 statistical application obtained the model as in Figure 4.1 and explained in Table
4.10.
Figure 4.1: Overall Relationship Structure of Exogenous Variables
Based on the results of processing using the LISREL 8.70 application, the measurement
model (CFA) for each variable and indicator relationships shown by the loading factor of each
indicator is presented in Table 4.10 as follows.
X1
X11
Ko0.746
0.764
0.694
0.642
0.724
0.562
0.947
0.931
0.913
0.924
0.416
X12
KoX13
KoX21
KoX22
KoX23
KoX31
KoX32
KoX33
KoX34
Ko
0.444
0.201
0.587
0.684
7 0.475
0.147
0.167
0.103
0.134
X2
X3
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.238
0.271
0.325
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3302
Table 4.10: Analysis Results of the Exogenous Variable Measurement Model
Dimension
Standardized Solution
(Loading Factor) T-value R2 Error
Self -Efficacy
Employee Commitmen
t
Career Development
X11, Magnitude 0.764 14.308 0.799 0.416
X12,Strangth 0.746 11.282 0.584 0.444
X13,Generalization 0.694 10.895 0.556 0.201
X21,Affective Commitment
X22,Continuance
Commitment
X23,Normative
Commitment
0.642
0.724
0.562
8.081
9.313
6.918
0.413
0.525
0.285
0.587
0.684
0.475
X31, Training
X32, Work Assessment
X33, Work Experience
X34, Work Relationship
0.947
0.931
0.913
0.924
16.312
15.811
15.281
15.599
0.897
0.853
0.826
0.833
0.147
0.167
0.103
0.134
Source: LISREL data processing results
a). Self-efficacy (X1)
Table 4.10 illustrates that Self-Efficacy (X1) with the Magnitude dimension (X1.1) with a
loading factor of 0.764 with an R2 of 79.9% had the highest degree of importance compared to
other dimensions, while the Generalization dimension (X1.3) with loading factor of 0.694 and R2
value of 55.6% had the lowest degree of importance. Such a situation illustrated that Bank DKI
had the ability and stable confidence in completing difficult work. This means that employees of
Bank DKI already had a strong Self-Efficacy that was embedded in each of its employees so that
it was easier for Bank DKI to achieve goals and objectives.
b). Employee Commitment (X2)
Table 4.10 illustrates that Employee Commitment with the dimension of Continuance
Commitment (X2.2) with a loading factor of 0.724 and an R2 of 52.5% had the highest degree of
importance on the variable of Employee Commitment compared to other dimensions. While the
Normative Commitment dimension (X2.3) with a loading factor of 0.562 and an R2 of 28.5% had
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3303
the lowest degree of importance. This illustrated that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to
completing work and upholding regulations in carrying out work.
c). Career Development (X3)
Table 4.10 illustrates that Career Development with Training dimension (X3.1) with a
loading factor of 0.947 and an R2 of 89.7% had the highest degree of importance on career
Development variables compared to other dimensions. While the dimension of Work Experience
(X3.3) with a loading factor of 0.913 and an R2 of 82.6% had the lowest degree of importance. This
illustrated that the employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different positions within a
certain time, in preparing career development programs and preparing for a higher level.
2). Structural Model Analysis
Analysis of the formulated structural models of the research was carried out by taking
into account the values or the relationship coefficients calculated from each model. In this
analysis, the values of the Fit Indices are discussed as the LISREL 8.70 output.
The next analysis was the Full Model SEM analysis which was intended to test the models
and hypotheses developed in this research. Testing the model in the SEM was conducted with
two tests, namely the model fit test and the causality significance test through the regression
coefficient test. The test results are presented in Figure 4.2 below.
Figure 4.2: Full Structural Equation Model (SEM)
X11
KoX1 0.746
2.733 0.694
0.642
0.724
0.562
0.947
0.931
0.913
0.924
0.416
X12
KoX13
KoX21
KoX22
KoX23
KoX31
KoX32
KoX33
KoX34
Ko
0.444
0.201
0.587
0.684
7 0.475
0.147
0.167
0.103
0.134
X2
X3
Y
Y1
0.854
0.186
1.726
0.109
0.764
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3304
The research model, as stated in the figure, was then tested for fit by using various goodness-
of-fit criteria to obtain an adequate level of conformity. The fit tests on the full SEM model are
summarized in Table 4.11 as follows.
Table 4.11: Goodness of Fit Test Results for Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
No GOF Measure Model Criteria Estimate Description
1 χ2(Chi-Square)
df=169
P-Value >0.05 144.546 with P-
Value=0.000
Sample size≥100
2 GFI 0.8≤GFI≤0.9 0.847 Good
3 AGFI 0.8≤AGFI≤0.9 0.809 Good
4 NNFI ≥ 0.95 0.968 Good
5 CFI ≥ 0.95 0.972 Good
6 RMSEA ≤ 0.08 0.0615 Good
Source: Processed data
Table 4.11 shows the results of the goodness of fit calculations of the full model and the results
were classified as good, with a GFI value of 0.847; AGFI = 0.809; NNFI = 0.968; CFI = 0.972; and
the RMSEA value = 0.0615, while the P-count value was smaller than 0.05. This value indicates
that the overall measurement model in this research had a marginal fit with the data. This means
that the GFI, AGFI, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA measurement indices were within the expected value
range.
b. Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Personal Development, on Performance
The results of processing using the Lisrel application are:
Y = 7.969 + 2.733*X1 + 0.109*X2 + 1.726*X3, Errorvar. =0.491, R²=0.898
1). Hypothesis testing
Based on the conceptual framework of the research, the hypothesis of this research is X1
(Self-Efficacy), X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career Development) on Y (Performance)
either partially or simultaneously [18]. To test the hypothesis, statistical tests were performed by
calculating the SEM Analysis as quantitative analysis.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3305
a). Simultaneous Test (Overall)
H0: ρYX1 = ρYX2 =ρYX3 = 0; Meaning: Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career
Development do not influence Employee Performance
H1: ρYX1 ≠ ρYX2 ≠ρYX3 ≠ 0; Meaning: Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career
Development Influence Employee Performance
To test whether there is a strong simultaneous/overall influence between X1 (Self-Efficacy),
X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career Development) on Y (Employee Performance), it can
be seen from the results of the F test as follows:
𝐹 = (𝑛 − 𝑘 − 1)𝑅𝑦𝑥𝑘
2
𝑘(1 − 𝑅𝑦𝑥𝑘2 )
F =(169 − 3 − 1)0.898
3(1 − 0.898)= 484.22
Based on the calculation, the F count value is 484.22, Ftable with degrees of freedom v1 = 3, v2
= (169-3-1) = 165 and α = 5%, the value of F table = 2.66, it can be concluded that there was a
simultaneous influence between X1 (Self-Efficacy), X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career
Development) on Y (Employee Performance) [19].
b). Partial Test (Separate)
Partial test using t test was conducted to find out which independent variable significantly
influenced the dependent variable.
The rejection criteria H0 is if t count is greater than t table or t0>ttable, with the number of samples =
169.
1). Partial Test of Self-Efficacy on Performance
H0:ρYX1 = 0;Meaning: Self-efficacy (X1) has no influence on Performance (Y)
H1:ρYX1 ≠ 0; Meaning: Self-efficacy (X1) has to influence on Performance (Y)
For the path coefficient X1 = 2.733, t count of 22.773 was obtained with a significance level α
of 5%, the value of t table or t0.05.169 = 1.974, thus t count = 22.773 was greater than t table = 1.974. This
means that Self-Efficacy (X1) had a significant influence on Performance (Y).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3306
Table 4.12: Partial Test of Self-Efficacy (X1) on Performance (Y)
Structural Path Coef. tcount ttable Pvalue Conclusion
ρYX1 2.733 22.73 1.97 0.000 H0was rejected
X1hadsignificant influence on
Y
Source: Processed data
2). Partial Test of Employee Commitment to Performance
H0:ρYX2 = 0; Meaning: Employee Commitment (X2) does not influence Performance (Y)
H1:ρYX2 ≠ 0; Meaning: Employee Commitment (X2) influences Performance (Y)
For the path coefficient X2 = 0.109, the t count value of 4.225 was obtained by significance level
of α of 5%, the value of t table or t0.05.169 = 1.97, and since t count = 3.225 was greater than t table = 1.97,
then H0wasrejected, or in other words, Employee Commitment (X2) had significant influence on
Performance (Y).
Table 4.13: Partial Test of Employee Commitment (X2) on Performance (Y)
Structural Path Coef. tcount ttable Pvalue Conclusion
ρYX2 0.109 4.225 1.97 0.000 H0was rejected
X2hadsignificant influence on
Y
Source: Processed data
3). Partial Test of Career Development on Performance
H0:ρYX3 = 0; Meaning: Career Development (X3) does not influence performance (Y)
H1:ρYX3 ≠ 0; Meaning: Career Development (X3) influences performance (Y)
For the path coefficient, X3 = 1.726, the t value of 21.161 was obtained by significance level of α
of 5%, and the value of t table or t0.025.167 = 1.97, and since tcount = 21.161 was greater than t table = 1.97,
then Career Development (X3) had significant influence on Performance (Y).
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3307
Table 4.14: Partial Test of Work Motivation (X3) on Job Satisfaction (Y)
Structural Path Coef. t count t table P-value Conclusion
ρYX3 1.726 21.161 1.97 0.000 H0was rejected
X3hadsignificant influence on Y
Source: Processed data
c. Discussion
Based on the results of descriptive tests for the Self-Efficacy variable, it is known that on
statements about self-efficacy variables, the majority of respondents answered "agree" (55.02%)
and "strongly agree" (33.6%). This illustrated that Bank DKI already had strong Self-Efficacy that
was embedded in each of its employees so that they were able to implement all prepared
programs so that the company's goals and objectives can be achieved. Based on the results of
hypothesis testing, it is known that Self-Efficacy had a significant influence on performance by
27.33%. The results of this analysis are following Bandura stating that self-efficacy as self-
assessment of the ability to regulate and carry out the desired actions to achieve goals. With
strong self-efficacy, one can assess one's ability to organize and carry out directed steps to achieve
a goal. Self-confidence is one of the personal factors that mediate the interaction between
behavioral factors and environmental factors. High perceived self-confidence will motivate the
individual to act more cognitively directed, especially if the goal to be achieved is clear [20].
Based on the descriptive test of employee commitment, it is known that on statements about
the Employee Commitment variable, the majority of respondents answered "good" (48.89%) and
"very good" (42.44%). This illustrated that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to upholding the
regulations in carrying out work because someone feels bound to work if he has a strong sense
of duty or obligation from his work, and places the intrinsic value of his work as a "central life
interest". Furthermore, based on the results of the hypothesis test, it was known that employee
commitment affected performance by 10.9% which is in line with Lincoln's opinion in Wijaya [9]
that employee commitment is the desire of employees to continue to maintain membership in the
organization and are willing to make efforts for achieving organization goals. Employees who
are committed to the company will be responsible for their duties and have the possibility to leave
the company are smaller than employees whose commitment levels are lower.
Based on descriptive tests, it is known that on the statements about the Career
Development variable, the majority of respondents answered "good" (54.74%) and "very good"
(33.93%). This illustrated that the employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different
positions within a certain time, in preparing career development programs and preparing for a
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3308
higher level. This is in line with Rivai’s theory [11] stating that career development is a process of
increasing individual work skills achieved to achieve the desired career. Then based on the results
of the hypothesis test, it was discovered that career development had a significant influence on
performance with a value of 17.26%. This result is reinforced by Werther and Davis that career
development is an important tool for organizations in increasing productivity, increasing
employee positive attitudes at work, and developing better employee quality, whose main
purpose is to help employees analyze their abilities and talents in meeting their individual needs
in line with the development interests and needs of the organization.
Then based on the results of the simultaneous test, it was found that Self-Efficacy,
Employee Commitment, and Career Development had a significant influence on performance
with an effective value of 89.8%. This means that the management of Bank DKI paid attention to
these three variables, namely Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development
[21]. Employees’ involvement in making policies increased self-confidence in every decision
making in the form of company policies, solid employee commitment, and open career
development, and encouraged the employees to develop and produce the best employee
performance.
5. Conclusions
Based on the results of the analysis and discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn:
a. Self-Efficacy influenced the Performance of employees of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta at
27.33%, the rest could be explained by other variables and other factors.
b. Employee Commitment influenced the Performance of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta by
10.9%, the rest could be explained by other variables and other factors.
c. Career Development influenced the Performance of Bank DKI. The remaining 17.26%
could be explained by other variables and other factors.
d. Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development had a simultaneous
influence on the Performance of the employees of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta at 89.8%, the
rest could be explained by other variables in this research and of the factor that had the
most influence on Performance was Self-Efficacy.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3309
References
[1] W. Werther and K. Davis, Human Resources and Personnel Management, 5 ed., McGraw-Hill,
1996.
[2] Laporan Tahunan (Annual Report), PT. Bank DKI, 2013.
[3] I. K. Ardana, N. W. Mujiati and I. W. M. Utama, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, Yogyakarta:
Graha Ilmu, 2012.
[4] S. H. Appelbau and A. Hare, "Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: Some
human resource applications," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 33-47, 1996.
[5] E. A. Kuncoro and Riduwan, Cara Menggunakan dan Memaknai Analisis Jalur (Path Analysis),
Bandung: Alfabeta, 2008.
[6] M. S. P. Hasibuan, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, 18 ed., Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2013.
[7] R. A. Noe, J. Hollenbeck, B. Gerhart and P. Wright, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, 8 ed.,
Jakarta: Salemba Empat, 2010.
[8] Alwisol, Psikologi Kepribadian, Malang: UMM Press, 2008.
[9] C. Wijaya, Pendidikan Remidial, Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya, 2010.
[10] A. Mangkunegara, Manajemen Sumber Daya Perusahaan, 7 ed., Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya,
2007.
[11] V. Rivai, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia untuk Perusahaan: dari Teori ke Praktek, Jakarta: Raja
Press, 2005.
[12] F. C. Lunenburg, "Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for Motivation and Performance,"
International Journal of Management, Business, And Administration, vol. 14, no. 1, 2011.
[13] U. M. Fadli, D. A. Fadili and Y. Kartawijaya, "Pengaruh Kompetensi Pegawai Terhadap Komitmen
Kerja Pada PT PLN (Persero) Rayon Rengas dengklok," Jurnal Manajemen, vol. 9, no. 2, 2012.
[14] G. Dessler, Human Resource Management., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2005.
[15] Ribhan, "Hubungan Karakteristik Individu dengan Kinerja Pegawai melalui Komitmen Organisasi
Sebagai Variabel Mediasi," Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, vol. 4, no. 2, 2008.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3310
[16] Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Bisnis, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2010.
[17] H. Umar, Riset Sumber Daya Manusia, Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2008.
[18] L. Greenhalgh and Z. Rosenblatt, "Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity," The Academy of
Management Review, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 438-448, 1984.
[19] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. Self-efficacy: Thought control
of action, Washington: DC: Hemisphere, 1992, pp. 355-394.
[20] V. Srimulyani , "Tripologi dan Anteseden Komitmen Organisasi," Jurnal Ilmiah Widya Wana , vol.
33, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2009.
[21] S. Robbins and M. Coulter, Manajemen, 10 ed., Jakarta: Erlangga, 2010.
Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology
Volume XII, Issue II, 2020
Issn No : 1006-7930
Page No: 3311