JRSSEM 2023, Vol. 02, No. 8, 1675 – 1687
E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494
DOI : 10.36418/jrssem.v2i08.396 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem
APPLICATION OF E-PERFORMANCE AND COMPENSATION
SYSTEMS TO EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE THROUGH
MOTIVATION AS AN INTERVENING VARIABLE
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantini
2
1,2
Mercubuana University, Jakarta, Indonesia
*
e-mail: achmadirfanr@gmail.com, tineyuliantini@mercubuana.ac.id
*Correspondence: achmadirfanr@gmail.com
Submitted
: 7
th
March 2023
Revised
: 15
th
March 2023
Accepted
: 20
th
March 2023
Abstract: Advanced human resources (HR) are required for an organization to achieve its goals
and objectives. There is a need for human resource management so that the implementation of
activities runs optimally by evaluating employee performance. The research method used was
causal quantitative, which aims to analyze the effect of implementing e-performance systems and
compensation on employee performance through motivation as an intervening variable. The
research population consists of employees serving in the Indonesian Navy. The Naval Personnel
Staff totals 113 employees. The Slovin method was used to calculate the sample, which yielded a
sample of 89 employees. Data collection methods in the form of primary data come from
questionnaires, and secondary data is derived from agencies. Methods of data analysis using
descriptive analysis as well as structural equation model partial least squares (SEM-PLS) analysis.
The results of the analysis show that the implementation of the e-performance system affects
motivation, compensation affects motivation, the implementation of the e-performance system
has affected employee performance, compensation has affected employee performance,
motivation has affected employee performance, the implementation of the e-performance system
has affected employee performance through motivation as an intervening variable, and
compensation does not affect employee performance through motivation as an intervening
variable.
Keywords: Performance; E-Performance System; Compensation; and Motivation.
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantin
2
| 1676
INTRODUCTION
Advanced human resources (HR) are
required for an organization to achieve its
goals and objectives. Advanced Human
Resources will carry out activities following
organizational policies. An organization's
success is determined by the performance
of its human resources; therefore, it needs
a system to develop human resources and
organizational needs, known as human
resource management (HRM). According to
Daly, HRM has four operational functions,
one of which is assessing employee
performance (Nurhayati, 2017). For
managers and employees with low
performance, the existence of performance
appraisals has become a concerning issue.
For example, in the Indonesian Navy, the
performance appraisal has not changed
significantly until 2021. There are no
employees with performance values in the
‘very good’ category, and there are
performance values lower than ‘good’.
According to (Istifadah, 2019) and
(Isvandiari, 2017), a possible factor that
could influence employee performance is
compensation. They found that
compensation has a positive and significant
effect on employee performance, which is
different from what was stated by (Sari,
2020) and (Deni, 2020). They argued that
compensation has no significant effect on
employee performance. There is a research
gap, and future research will include
motivation as an intervening variable. The
Indonesian Navy makes a web-based
application used to ease the monitoring
and assessment of employee performance,
called the e-performance system. Because
of it, the researcher adds an e-performance
system as a variable to analyze the
influence of employee performance on the
Naval Personnel Staff.
Based on the explanation above, there
is a need for research related to the
influence of employee performance by
implementing an integrated e-
performance system, as well as the
compensation received by employees
where motivation is given as a connecting
variable. Therefore, the researcher will
discuss the effect of implementing e-
performance systems and compensation
on employee performance through
motivation as an intervening variable.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee Performance
According to Gibson (Warizin, 2017),
employees in an organization are required
to make a positive contribution through
good performance, considering that
organizational performance depends on
the performance of its employees.
According to Sagala (Lestari et al., 2020),
performance is a real behavior that is
displayed and produced by every employee
according to their role in the company.
According to Mahsun (Tangkawarouw,
2029), "performance" is the achievement of
implementing activities, programs, or
policies to get the goals, objectives,
mission, and vision of an organization
contained in the strategic planning of an
organization. Meanwhile, according to
(Mangkunegara, 2017), "employee
performance" is the result of the quality and
quantity of work achieved by an employee
in carrying out his duties following the
responsibilities given to them.
1677 | Application of E-Performance and Compensation Systems To Employee Performance
Through Motivation As An Intervening Variable
Dimensions and indicators that can be
used to measure employee performance,
according to (Hasibuan, 2017), include
quality of work with the indicators of
organizational work and goals, promptness
with the indicators of the work plan and
time precision, an initiative with the
indicator of an idea for organization and
problem resolution, capability with the
indicator abilities and skills, and
communication with the indicators internal
communication, external communication,
relations, and coworkers.
E-Performance
According to Putri (Nurhayati, 2017), E-
Performance is a web-based application for
analyzing job requirements, job
performance, and organizational unit or
work unit performance as a basis for
calculating work performance and
providing work incentives. Meanwhile,
according to (Mukti, 2019), E-performance
is an application made specifically to
monitor and assess employee performance
directly by entering daily work data into the
software to obtain approval from superiors.
Based on PP No. 46 of 2011, the dimensions
and indicators of the E-Kinerja system
target work employees with the indicators
duty position and work target, as well as
work behavior with the indicators
orientation, service, integrity, commitment,
discipline, cooperation, and leadership.
Compensation
According to (Rivai, 2017),
compensation is something employees
receive as a substitute for their
contributions to the company. Meanwhile,
according to (Sinambela, 2018),
compensation is compensation for services
or remuneration provided by the
organization to employees who have
contributed energy and thoughts to the
progress and achievement of
predetermined organizational goals.
Compensation is also interpreted as all
income, whether in the form of money or
direct or indirect goods, received by
employees as compensation for services
provided to the company (Hasibuan, 2021).
According to (Hasibuan, 2021), the
dimensions and indicators of
compensation are linked directly (direct
compensation) with the indicator salary
and incentives or bonuses; and indirectly
(indirect compensation) with the indicator
allowances and facilities in the company.
Motivation
According to (Liana, 2020), motivation
is a process of need that encourages a
person to carry out various kinds of
activities that lead to the achievement of
certain goals. Meanwhile, according to
Manullang (Harahap, 2019), motivation is a
power that comes from within or outside
the human being to encourage enthusiasm
to pursue certain desires and goals.
Motivation can also be interpreted as
providing a driving force that creates
enthusiasm for someone's work so that
they want to work together, work
effectively, and integrate all their efforts to
achieve satisfaction (Hasibuan, 2017).
According to (Liana, 2020), motivation
is a process of need that encourages a
person to carry out various kinds of
activities that lead to the achievement of
certain goals. Meanwhile, according to
Manullang (Harahap, 2019), motivation is a
power that comes from within or outside
the human being to encourage enthusiasm
to pursue certain desires and goals.
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantin
2
| 1678
Motivation can also be interpreted as
providing a driving force that creates
enthusiasm for someone's work so that
they want to work together, work
effectively, and integrate all their efforts to
achieve satisfaction (Hasibuan, 2017).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study aims to test the hypothesis
with a causal quantitative research design
to determine the effect of implementing
the e-performance system and
compensation on employee performance,
using motivation as an intervening variable.
Data are obtained through distributed
questionnaires with a Likert scale, which are
processed using statistical analysis. The
research population is made up of
employees who serve in the Indonesian
Navy in units. The Naval Personnel Staff
totals 113 employees. The Slovin method
was used to calculate the sample, which
yielded a sample of 89 employees.
The data sources that were used were
primary and secondary. Primary data was
obtained by distributing questionnaires to
respondents through the Google Forms
application. Meanwhile, secondary data
serves as supporting data obtained from
agencies. The statistical analysis method
used is descriptive of respondents,
descriptive variables, and structural
equation model partial least square (SEM-
PLS) analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Respondent Descriptive
This study uses respondents as a
sample with characteristics that are focused
on gender, age, education, and years of
service, which can be seen as follows:
Table 1. Characteristics of Respondents by Gender
No
Gender
Total
(Employee)
Percentage
(%)
1.
Man
61
68.54%
2.
Woman
28
31.46%
Amount
89
100.00%
Source: Primary data via questionnaire (2022)
Based on Table 1, there are 61 male
employees with a percentage of 68.54%
and 28 female employees with a
percentage of 31.46%. According to the
table, the majority of Naval Personnel Staff
employees are men.
Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents by Age
No
Age
Total
(Employee)
Percentage
(%)
1.
18-29 yrs
14
15.73%
2.
30-54 yrs
67
75.28%
1679 | Application of E-Performance and Compensation Systems To Employee Performance
Through Motivation As An Intervening Variable
3.
>55 yrs
8
8.99%
Amount
89
100.00%
Source: Primary data via questionnaire (2022)
Based on Table 2, there are 14
employees aged 18-29 years with a
percentage of 15.73%, there are 67
employees aged 30-54 years with a
percentage of 75.28%, and there are 8
employees aged > 55 years with a
percentage of 8.99%. Based on the table,
the majority of employees in Naval
Personnel Staff aged 30-54 years.
Table 3. Characteristics of Respondents Based on Education
No
Gender
Total
(Employee)
Percentage
(%)
1.
Strata 2 (S2)
10
11.24%
2.
Strata 1
(S1/D4)
23
25.84%
3.
Diploma (D3)
4
4.49%
4.
SMA/SMK
42
47.19%
5.
JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL
10
11.24%
Amount
89
100.00%
Source: Primary data via questionnaire (2022)
Based on Table 3, there are 10
employees with last education S2 with a
percentage of 11.24%, there are 23
employees with last education S1 with a
percentage of 25.84%, there are 4
employees with last education D3 with a
percentage of 4.49%, there are 42
employees with last education SMA/SMK
with a percentage of 47.19%, and there
are 10 employees last education junior
high school with a percentage of 11.24%.
Based on the table, the majority of
employees on the Naval Personnel Staff
with high school education.
Table 4. Characteristics of Respondents Based on Years of Service
No
Years of
service
Total
(Employee)
Percentage
(%)
1.
1-10 yrs
11
12.36%
2.
11-20 yrs
33
37.08%
3.
>21 yrs
45
50.56%
Amount
89
100.00%
Source: Primary data via questionnaire (2022)
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantini
2
| 1680
DOI : 10.36418/jrssem.v2i08.396 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem
Based on Table 4, there are 11
employees have a working period of 1-10
years with a percentage of 12.36%, there
are 33 employees have a working period
of 11-20 years with a percentage of
37.08% and there are 45 employees have
a working period of >21 years with a
percentage of 50.56%. From the table, the
majority of employees working in the
Naval Personnel Staff have longer tenure
of 21 years.
Variable Description
Primary data obtained in this
research got from the deployment
questionnaire through the google forms
application. Generated quantitative data
from every statement submitted to a
sample of 89 employees, as follows:
Table 5. Description of Statistics per Variable
No
Variable
Average per
Variable
1.
E-Performance System
(X1)
4.100
2.
Compensation (X2)
3.806
3.
Motivation (M)
4.001
4.
Employee Performance (Y)
3.781
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
Based on Table 5, it can be concluded as
follows:
a. E-performance system variable
has an average value of 4.100,
showing that the e-performance
system has value with good
category based on the scope of
the sample.
b. The compensation variable has an
average value of 3.806, showing
that compensation has value with
good category based on the
scope of the sample.
c. Motivational variable has an
average value of 4.001, showing
that motivation has value with
good category based on the
scope of the sample.
d. The performance variable has an
average value of 3.781, showing
that performance has value with
good category based on the
scope of the sample.
Partial Least Square Structural Equation
Model (SEM-PLS) Analysis
Determination Coefficient Test / R Square
(R
2
)
Table 6. R Square Test Results (R
2
)
No
Variable
R Square
R Square Adjusted
1.
Motivation (M)
0.512
0.501
2.
Performance
(Y)
0.561
0.546
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantini
2
| 1681
DOI : 10.36418/jrssem.v2i08.396 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem
Based on Table 6, the R-Square value
of the motivational variable (M) is 0.512
(moderate), meaning that the variable can
be influenced by the system variables e-
performance (X1) and compensation (X2)
of 51.2%, while the rest is influenced by
other variables that are not become the
object of research by 48.8%. In addition,
the R-Square value of the performance
variable (Y) is 0.561 (moderate), meaning
that the variable can be influenced by the
system variables e-performance (X1) and
compensation (X2) of 56.1%, while the
rest is influenced by other variables that
are not the object of research by 43.9%.
Predictive Relevance (Q
2
)
Table 7. Predictive Relevance Test Results (Q
2
)
No
Variable
SSO
SSE
Q² (=1-
SSE/SSO)
1.
Performance (Y)
979.000
733.178
0.251
2.
Compensation (X2)
356.000
356.000
3.
Motivation (M)
445.000
317.776
0.286
4.
E-Performance System
(X1)
445.000
445.000
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
Based on Table 7, the predictive
relevance value (Q
2
) of the performance
variable (Y) is 0.251, which means that the
value observation of the performance
variable (Y) is good. While the predictive
relevance value (Q
2
) of the motivational
variable (M) is 0.286, it means that the
value observation of the motivation
variable (M) is good. It can be concluded
that the value of predictive relevance (Q2)
for performance and motivation variables
has a good predictive relevance of
structural models.
Furthermore, the GoF PLS (Goodness
of Fit PLS) test was carried out to test the
overall fit of the model based on the
observed value with the expected value in
the model. The GoF value is obtained
through the following calculations:
=
= 0.5576
Based on the calculation results
obtained, the GoF PLS (Goodness of Fit
PLS) value is 0.5576, which means that the
GoF PLS value in this study is high. Shows
that the model is adequate in describing
the observed value with the expected
value, based on both the outer and inner
models.
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantin
2
| 1682
Hypothesis testing
Table 8. Results of the Direct Effects Hypothesis Test
No
Variable
Original Sample
(O)
T Stat
P
Values
1.
E-Performance System (X1) ->
Motivation (M)
0.590
7.409
0.000
2.
Compensation (X2) -> Motivation
(M)
0.183
2.007
0.045
3.
E-Performance System (X1) ->
Performance (Y)
0.423
4.670
0.000
4.
Compensation (X2) ->
Performance (Y)
0.194
2.489
0.013
5.
Motivation (M) -> Performance
(Y)
0.236
2.638
0.009
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
The direct effects hypothesis test can be
explained as follows:
a. The effect of the e-performance
system (X1) on motivation (M) has
a 7.409 t-stat score and 0.000 p-
value so reject H
0
and accept H
1
. In
conclusion, the e-performance
system has a positive and
significant effect on motivation.
b. The effect of compensation (X2)
on motivation (M) has a 2.007 t-
stat score and 0.045 p-value so
reject H
0
and accept H
2
. In
conclusion, compensation has a
positive and significant effect on
motivation.
c. The effect of the e-performance
system (X1) on employee
performance (Y) has a 4.670 t-stat
score and 0.000 p-value, so reject
H
0
and accept H
3
. In conclusion,
the e-performance system has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance.
d. The effect of compensation (X2)
on employee performance (Y) has
a 2.489 t-stat score and 0.013 p-
values so reject H
0
and accept H
4
.
In conclusion, compensation has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance.
e. The effect of motivation (M) on
employee performance (Y) has a
2.638 t-stat score and 0.015 p-
value so reject H
0
and accept H
5
. In
conclusion, motivation has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance.
The hypothesis test of the indirect effect:
1683 | Application of E-Performance and Compensation Systems To Employee Performance
Through Motivation As An Intervening Variable
Table 9. Indirect Effects Hypothesis Test Results
No
Variable
Original Sample
(O)
T Stat
P
Values
1.
E-Performance System (X1) ->
Motivation (M) -> Performance
(Y)
0.139
2.594
0.010
2.
Compensation (X2) -> Motivation
(M) -> Performance (Y)
0.043
1.323
0.187
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
The indirect effects hypothesis test can be
explained as follows:
a. The effect of the e-performance
system (X1) on employee
performance (Y) through
motivation (M) has a 2.594 t-stat
value and 0.010 p-values so reject
H
0
and accept H
6
. In conclusion,
the e-performance system has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance through
motivation as an intervening
variable.
b. The effect of compensation (X2)
on employee performance (Y)
through motivation (M) has a
1.323 t-stat value and 0.187 p-
values so accept H
0
and reject H
7
.
In conclusion, compensation has
no significant effect on employee
performance through motivation
as an intervening variable.
Test (Path Coefficients)
Table 10. Path Coefficient Test Results
No
Variable
Performan
ce (Y)
Compensation
(X2)
Motivation
(M)
E-Performance
System (X1)
1.
Performance (Y)
2.
Compensation (X2)
0.194
0.183
3.
Motivation (M)
0.236
4.
E-Performance System
(X1)
0.423
0.590
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
Based on Table 10, the value from
coefficient test results track from variable
can be interpreted as follows:
a. The path coefficient value of X1 to
M is 0.590. That is, the magnitude
of the influence of the e-
performance system on
motivation is 59.0% in a positive
direction.
b. The path coefficient value of X2 to
M is 0.183. That is, the magnitude
of the effect of compensation on
motivation is 18.3% in a positive
direction.
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantin
2
| 1684
c. The path coefficient value of X1 to
Y is 0.423. That is, the magnitude
of the influence of the e-
performance system on employee
performance is 42.3% in a positive
direction.
d. The path coefficient value of X2 to
Y is 0.194. That is, the magnitude
of the effect of compensation on
employee performance is 19.4% in
a positive direction.
e. The path coefficient value of M to
Y is 0.236. That is, the magnitude
of the influence of motivation on
employee performance is 23.6% in
a positive direction.
Testing the path coefficient can be
displayed in the form of an image through
the results of the smart PLS 3.0 test as
follows:
Source: Results of analysis using SmartPLS 3.0 (2022)
Figure 1. Path Coefficient Model
Discussion
1. The e-performance system has a
positive and significant effect on
employee motivation. With a
magnitude of 0.590, it means that every
one-unit increase in the e-performance
system can increase motivation by
59.0%. With the existence of an e-
performance system, all employee tasks
are monitored regularly by superiors,
which motivates employees to work
because it will affect their careers. It
could be concluded that the research
hypothesis (H1) in the form of "e-
performance systems affect employee
motivation" is accepted.
2. Compensation has a positive and
significant effect on employee
motivation. With a magnitude of 0.183,
it means that each increase in one-unit
compensation can increase motivation
by 18.3%. The amount of compensation
is determined based on the rank and
position occupied so that employees
are motivated to improve work
performance. Could it be concluded
that the research hypothesis (H2) in the
form of "compensation affects
employee motivation" was accepted?
1685 | Application of E-Performance and Compensation Systems To Employee Performance
Through Motivation As An Intervening Variable
3. The e-performance system has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance. With a
magnitude of 0.423, it means that every
one-unit increase in the e-performance
system can increase changes in
employee performance by 42.3%. The
e-performance system makes it easier
for employees to set work goals,
resulting in regular work that will
improve employee performance in
terms of work planning, timeliness, and
maximum work results. Could it be
concluded that the research hypothesis
(H3) in the form of "e-performance
systems affect employee performance"
was accepted?
4. Compensation has a positive and
significant effect on employee
performance. With a magnitude of
0.194, it means that each increase in
one-unit compensation can increase
employee performance by 19.4%. The
compensation provided is not only in
the form of salary, incentives, and
benefits but also work facilities, which
certainly affect employee performance
to support the ability, skills, and health
of employees. Could it be concluded
that the research hypothesis (H4) in the
form of "compensation affects
employee performance" was accepted?
5. Motivation has a positive and
significant effect on employee
performance. With a magnitude of
influence of 0.236, it means that each
increase in one-unit motivation can
increase employee performance by
23.6%. Motivation in the form of
appreciation for achievement and work
power will improve employee
performance by working together,
training their abilities and skills, and
being ready and alert in carrying out
the tasks assigned. Could it be
concluded that the research hypothesis
(H5) in the form of "motivation
influences employee performance" is
accepted?
6. The e-performance system has a
positive and significant effect on
employee performance through
motivation as an intervening variable.
With a magnitude of 0.139, it means
that every one-unit increase in the e-
performance system can increase
employee performance through
motivation by 13.9%. The
implementation of the e-performance
system makes it easier for superiors to
monitor employee performance
improvements by motivating in the
form of authority and work
performance to achieve better work
results. Could it be concluded that the
research hypothesis (H6) in the form of
"e-performance systems influence
employee performance through
motivation as an intervening variable" is
accepted?
Compensation has no significant effect on
employee performance through
motivation, an intervening variable. This
happened because the t-stat value (1.323)
or p-value (0.187) did not meet the
statistical test criteria, so hypothesis H0 was
accepted. That is, compensation does not
affect employee performance by providing
employee motivation. Because of the
existence of compensation that has been
regulated in fixed regulations that cannot
be changed individually, the compensation
Achmad Irfan Rifqiansyah
1
Tine Yuliantin
2
| 1686
variable does not affect employee
performance given motivation. Could it be
concluded that the research hypothesis
(H7) in the form of "compensation affects
employee performance through motivation
as an intervening variable" was rejected?
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the explanation above,
proven through statistical data processing,
the researcher concluded that the
implementation of the e-performance
system affects employee motivation,
compensation affects employee
motivation, the application of the e-
performance system affects employee
performance, compensation affects
employee performance, motivation
influences employee performance, the
application of the e-performance system
affects employee performance through
motivation as an intervening variable, and
compensation has no effect on employee
performance through motivation as an
intervening variable.
There are limitations to the study. This
is expected by researchers, who will then
replace the compensation variable with
other variables because compensation in
government agencies, especially in the
Indonesian Navy, is already stipulated in the
regulations. Therefore, it can add other
factors that can affect employee
performance so that more factors are
known to dominate performance
improvement, then broaden the scope of
research by increasing the number of
samples to provide a more representative
sample. Another necessary thing is adding
variables to testing and doing studies in the
government, industrial, or other business
sectors.
REFERENCES
Deni, R., and H. (2020). The Effect of
Compensation and Work Environment
on Employee Performance with
Discipline as a Mediating Variable.
Scientific Journal of Business
Administration and Innovation
,
4
(2).
Harahap, D. and K. H. (2019). The Effect of
Leadership and Compensation on Job
Satisfaction through Work Motivation.
Scientific Journal of Master of
Management
,
2
(1).
Hasibuan, M. (2017).
HR Management.
Revised Edition
. Earth Script.
Hasibuan, M. (2021).
Human Resource
Management
. Bumi Aksara.
Istifadah, A. , and S. B. (2019). Effects of
Compensation, Motivation and Work
Discipline on Employee Performance
at PT Livin Mandiri Sejati Banyuwangi.
International Journal of Social Science
and Business
,
3
(3).
Isvandiari, A. , and F. L. (2017). Effect of
Compensation and Work Discipline on
Employee Performance in the PG
Production Department.
Merit Jan
Kediri. JIBEK Journal
,
2
(1).
Lestari, W. M., Liana, L., & Aquinia, A. (2020).
Pengaruh Stres Kerja, Konflik Kerja dan
Beban Kerja terhadap Kinerja
Karyawan.
Jurnal Bisnis Dan Ekonomi
,
27
(2), 100–110.
Liana, W. (2020). Pengaruh Motivasi
terhadap Produktivitas Karyawan PT
Telkom Indonesia, Tbk Cabang
Palembang.
Jurnal Nasional
Manajemen Pemasaran & SDM
,
1
(1),
1687 | Application of E-Performance and Compensation Systems To Employee Performance
Through Motivation As An Intervening Variable
65–72.
Mangkunegara, A. (2017).
Human Resource
Management Company
. Rosda.
Mukti, D. S. W. and L. F. (2019). Application
of an E-Performance Based
Performance Assessment System on
Employee Work Performance through
Job Satisfaction as an Intervening
Variable in the Population and Civil
Registration Office of Banyuwangi
Regency.
E-Journal of Business
Economics and Accounting
,
6
(2).
Nurhayati, E. (2017). The Effect of
Implementing E-Performance and
Competency Assessment Systems on
Employee Performance in East
Semarang District through Motivation
as an Intervening Variable.
Journal of
Economics and Business Research
,
2
(2), 79–91.
Rivai, V. (2017).
Human Resource
Management
. Raja Grafindo Persada.
Sari, A., Z. F., and S. H. (2020). The effect of
leadership, compensation, and
motivation on employee performance.
National Journal of Marketing & HR
Management
,
1
(2).
Sinambela, L. (2018).
Human Resource
Management
. Earth Script.
Tangkawarouw, K. L. V. and L. G. (2029). The
effect of the work environment and
work ability on the performance of
employees of PT Surya Wenang Indah.
EMBA Journal
,
7
(1), 371–380.
Warizin, H. (2017). Influence of individual
characteristics and work environment
on employee’s motivation and
performance.
Journal of
Administrative and Business Studies
JABS
,
3
(5), 212–220.
© 2023 by the authors. 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/).
