THE EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL
LEADERSHIP ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE MEDIATED BY INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR
Oktaviana Puteri Sakti, Desi Tri Kurniawati, Mintarti Rahayu
Faculty of Economics and
Business,
Universitas Brawijaya, Indonesia
Email: [email protected]
|
KEYWORDS Transformational Leadership; Transactional Leadership; Innovative Work
Behaviour; Employee Performance |
ABSTRACT The purpose of this research is to examine the effect of
transformational and transactional leadership on the employee performance of
chicken slaughterhouse with the mediation of innovative work behaviour. This
study was conducted on Chicken Slaughterhouse PT. XYZ, from which 120
employees were selected as the respondents using purposive sampling. The data
was harvested from questionnaires and was analyzed using Partial Least
Squares in SmartPLS 3.2.9. The results of the study show that
transformational leadership has no direct significant effect on employee
performance, whereas transactional leadership has a direct positive and
significant effect on employee performance. Furthermore, the research results
also show a positive and significant effect of transformational and
transactional leadership on innovative work behavior and innovative work
behavior has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.
Interestingly, innovative work behavior is able to mediate the influence of
transformational and transactional leadership on employee performance. |
INTRODUCTION
The 21st
century is the century of openness or the global century as it is today, which
has a very broad influence on all aspects of human life. The 21st century
focuses on quality in various fields of human life to respond to these global
challenges (Wijaya et al., 2016). From an HDI perspective,
Indonesia is ranked 5th out of all Asean countries and 107th out of 189
countries in the world (UNDP, 2020). The main problem with low HDI in Indonesia
is stunting. Namely, 24.4% of Indonesian toddlers experience stunting (SSGI,
2021). Headey et.al. (2018) stated that
fulfilling the consumption of animal protein affects nutritional status
(stunting) and the quality development of Indonesian people. This is in
accordance with the assertion of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF),
Data from
the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that in
2017 Indonesian people's meat consumption only reached an average of 1.8 kg for
beef, 7 kg for chicken, 2.3 kg for pork and 0.4 kg for mutton. This is very
different from Malaysia, with consumption levels reaching 4.8 kg of beef, 46 kg
of chicken, 2.6 kg of pork and 1 kg of mutton. While the Philippines reached
3.1 kg of beef, 12.6 kg of chicken, 15.4 kg of pork and 0.5 kg of mutton.
Thailand consumed 1.7 kg of beef, 14.5 chicken and 10.4 pork, while Vietnam
consumed 9.9 kg of beef, 13 kg of chicken, 30.4 kg of pork and 1.7 kg of mutton
(Suharto, 2020).
One of the chicken meats producing industry (White Meat) which is very important in Indonesia is the Chicken
Slaughterhouse (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health, 2020). Chicken Slaughterhouse (RPA) must follow a
variety of strict standards, such as: Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), Hazard Analysis Critical Control
Point (HACCP), and halal assurance system, as stipulated inLaw No: 7 of
1996. This is intended to provide food safety guarantees and customer requests
such as KFC and McDonald's. They (KFC, McDonald's and others) generally provide
strict requirements regarding quality, quantity and timeliness as key
indicators. They conduct regular audits using: Food Safety Audit, Quality Audit
System, and Key Welfare Indicators (McDonald's, 2023 and Mediaindonesia, 2023).
PT. XYZ is one of the
major poultry companies in Indonesia, which is integrated from chicken breeding
(Day Old Chick), animal feed, broiler rearing units, and RPA which produces
meat (carcass) to processed meat (nuget & sausage). Chicken Slaughterhouse
of PT. XYZ is one of the large Chicken Slaughterhouse in Pasuruan. Broadly
speaking, this Slaughter House consists of three parts: 1). Acceptance of Live
Chickens (PAH), 2). Gross Production Section, and 3). Net Production Section.
Each section has several "Teams", each of which is controlled by a
different leader.
In an organizational context,
performance results are determined by the organization itself, including in
this case the Slaughtehouse PT. XYZ. Given that the essence of organizational
success is determined by employees because of the most important role they play
(Biaka,
2020), the RPA PT. XYZ as a
supplier of chicken meat (carcass) must really pay attention to employee
performance as a measure of employees carrying out their duties and work
responsibilities (Nugroho, 2006). Records of results or outputs (outcomes)
resulting from a certain job function or certain activities within a certain
period of time (Nugroho, 2006) in RPA PT. XYZ unit is shown in Table 1, Table
2, and Table 3. In these
tables it can be seen that there are differences in employee performance
produced by each team in each section, even though the raw materials, places
and facilities used are the same. it is interesting to study:
"what causes differences in employee performanceat
RPA PT. XYZ?”
Employee
performance will be good if it is supported by professional and qualified staff
through the role of a strategic leader. The role of an innovative, agile and
adaptive leader in different situations is a force to achieve organizational
performance in the midst of increasing global competition. Leaders who are able
to create a work environment that supports employees, encourages involvement
and motivates employees are also able to influence employees to complete their
duties and responsibilities. Leaders with these characters can be categorized
as Transformational Leaders. Transformational leadership is leadership that
inspires employees to go beyond their own interests to achieve company goals
(Hardini et al, 2023).
In addition,
employee performance can also be improved by having a Transactional Leader who
guides and motivates followers to achieve goals by clarifying roles and task
requirements (Stephen & Judge, 2015). Transactional leaders can
motivate their subordinates to work to achieve the desired results by promising
rewards and benefits for completing tasks and punishing when tasks are not
completed correctly (Bass, 2016). Effective transactional leadership contributes
to better employee performance when facing new challenges. There is an exchange
relationship of this type of leadership, where employees provide performance to
the leader, and the leader provides abstract rewards in the form of respect,
trust and commitment in return.
Lor and
Hasan (2017) and Wen et al, (2019), found that
transformational and transactional leadership have a positive and significant
relationship to employee performance. This is supported by Thamrin (2012) and
Risambessy, et al., (2012) which
reveal a positive and significant relationship between transformational
leadership on employee performance. Furthermore, in the context of
Transactional Leadership, Saeed and Mughal (2019) found a
positive and significant relationship between Transactional Leadership on
employee performance, which is supported by the research of Hartanto (2014),
Kabiru and Bula (2020), and Imara (2020).
In contrast,
Khan, et al (2020) did not find a relationship between transformational
leadership and employee performance, but this relationship can occur when it is
mediated through the factor of Intrinsic Motivation. Mahfouz, et al (2022) also
did not find a relationship between Transactional Leadership and Employee
Performance, but this relationship can occur if it is mediated through the
Employee Commitment factor.
Furthermore,
it turns out that employee performance can be influenced by Innovative Work
Behavior (Nasir, et al, 2018). This finding is reinforced by Tang, et al
(2020), which shows the relationship between Innovative Work Behavior on
Employee Performance is positive and significant. Furthermore, Nasir, et al
(2018) found that Innovative Work Behavior can actually act as a factor that
mediates Instinsic Motivation on Employee Performance (Employee performance).
Thus, it is very interesting to carry out further research on the role of
Innovative Work Behavior on employee performance to complete the answers to the
questions previously asked.
Then, it turns outInnovative Work Behaviorcan be influenced by transformational leadership
(Tang, et al (2020) and can also be influenced by Transactional Leadership
(Naqvi, et al, 2017). However, Naqvi, et al (2017), did not find a relationship
between transformational leadership and Innovative Work Behavior. On the basis
of these findings, it is very interesting to carry out further research on the
role of leadership (transformational and transactional) on Innovative Work
Behavior, and how its role is on employee performance. This is very important
to complete the answers to the questions raised filed before.
Based
on the description of the phenomenon and previous research that has been
described above, this research is entitled "The Influence of
Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership on Employee
Performance Mediated by Innovative Work Behavior".
Based on the formulation of the problem above, this
study has the following objectives:
1) To explain and analyze the influence of
Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance.
2) To explain and analyze the influence of
Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance.
3) To explain and analyze the effect of
Innovative Work Behavior on Employee Performance.
4) To explain and analyze the influence of Transformational
Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior.
5) To explain and analyze the effect of
Transactional Leadership on Innovative Work Behavior.
6) To explain and analyze the mediating role of
Innovative Work Behavior on Transformational Leadership on Employee
Performance.
7) To explain and analyze the mediating role of
Innovative Work Behavior on Transactional Leadership on Employee Performance.
RESEARCH
METHOD
Types of research
This type of research is explanatory
research. Researchers use explanatory research methods with reasons to test the
hypothesis proposed, it is hoped that the research can explain the relationship
and influence between the independent and dependent variables in the
hypothesis. This research instrument uses a questionnaire containing statements
that must be answered by respondents. Questionnaires were given directly to
operator level employees who work at the PT. XYZ in the Pasuruan area.
Data Collection Techniques
Data
collection techniqueusing the
questionnaire distribution method, according to Sekaran and Bougie (2017),
which is a data collection technique by providing a list of
questions/statements that have been formulated previously that must be answered
by respondents. The questionnaire in this study was given directly and face to
face to operator level employees at RPA PT. XYZ who have worked for at least 1
year. The questionnaire given is a closed questionnaire where the respondent
only chooses according to the perceived perception by marking the choices
given.
Data Analysis Techniques
Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis aims
to explain respondents' answers or perceptions of each research variable. In
connection with this research instrument using a
questionnaire with a Likert scale range (numbers 1 to 5) which involves a lot
of information, it is necessary to simplify the information so that it is
easily understood.
Inferential Analysis
The seven hypotheses in this study
were analyzed using a quantitative method, namely the Structural Model using
the Partial Least Square Program (PLS). This is because PLS can be used on all
data scales, does not require a lot of assumptions, and does not have to use a
large number of samples (Solimun and Rinaldo, 2006).
In the analysis with PLS there are
two things to do. First, assessing the outer model or measurement model is an
assessment of the reliability and validity of the research variables. There are
three criteria for assessing the outer model, namely convergent validity,
discriminant validity and composite reliability. Second, assessing the inner
model or structural model. Testing the inner model or structural model is
carried out to see the relationship between the constructs, the significance
value and the R-square of the research model.
In PLS, the latent variable can be
the result of a reflection of the indicator, which is termed a reflexive
indicator. In addition, the construct can also be formed (formative) by the
indicators, termed formative indicators (formative indicators). In this study,
all variables used reflexive indicator measurements.
The reflexive model views
(mathematically) indicators as if they are variables that are influenced by
latent variables. So that the indicators of a latent variable seem to be
influenced by the same factor (latent variable), this results in a change in
one indicator resulting in a change in other indicators in the same direction.
The formative model views
(mathematically) indicators as if they are variables that influence latent
variables; in this case it is indeed different from the factor analysis model,
if one indicator increases, it does not have to be followed by an increase in
other indicators in one construct, but it will obviously increase the latent variable.
RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
Analysis of Respondent Responses
Transformational
leadership
Transformational leadership variables in this
study are measured through employee perceptions using 4 indicators: 1).
Idealized Influence, 2). Inspirational Motivation, 3). Intellectual
Stimulation, and 4). Individualized Consideration, with the results shown in
Table 1.
Table 1. Respondents' Responses to Variable
Indicators of Transformational Leadership
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Code |
Frequency of answers
(%) |
Mean |
||||
|
STS (1) |
TS (2) |
TB (3) |
S (4) |
SS (5) |
||||
|
Transformational Leadership |
Idealized Influence |
TF1 |
0,0 |
7,5 |
33,3 |
40,0 |
19,2 |
3,71 |
|
Inspirational Motivation |
TF2 |
0,0 |
3,3 |
30,0 |
47,5 |
19,2 |
3,83 |
|
|
Intellectual Stimulation |
TF3 |
0,0 |
2,5 |
38,3 |
38,3 |
20,8 |
3,78 |
|
|
Individualized Consideration |
TF4 |
0,0 |
2,5 |
27,5 |
48,3 |
21,7 |
3,89 |
|
|
Average |
0,0 |
4,0 |
32,3 |
43,5 |
20,5 |
3,80 |
||
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the respondents' responses as shown
in Table 1, the Individualized Consideration (TF1) indicator was rated high by
the respondents, namely 40.0% agreed and 19.2% strongly agreed, with a total
agree and strongly agree on TF1 = 59.2%. The Inspirational Motivation (TF2)
indicator was highly rated by respondents, namely 47.5% agreed and 19.2%
strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly agree on TF2 = 66.7%. The
Intellectual Stimulation (TF3) indicator was highly rated by respondents,
namely 38.3% agreed and 20.8% strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly
agree on TF3 = 59.2%. The Individualized Consideration (TF4) indicator was also
highly rated by respondents, namely 48.3% agreed and 21.7% strongly agreed,
with a total agree and strongly agree on TF4 = 70.0%.
Furthermore, from the description above it
appears that respondents who agree and strongly agree prefer Individualized
Consideration (70.0%) and Inspirational Motivation (66.7%). This means that
respondents consider the leadership to be more transformational if the
leadership is able to appreciate employees (TF4) and the leadership is very
enthusiastic about raising employee morale (TF2).
Transactional
Leadership
Transactional Leadership Variables in this
study are measured through employee perceptions using 3 indicators: 1).
Contingent Rewards, 2). Management by-exception active, and 3). Management
by-exception passive, with the results shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Respondents' Responses to Indicators
of Transactional Leadership Variables
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Code |
Frequency of answers
(%) |
Mean |
||||
|
STS (1) |
TS (2) |
TB (3) |
S (4) |
SS (5) |
||||
|
Transactional Leadership |
Contingent Rewards |
TS1 |
0,0 |
1,7 |
22,5 |
53,3 |
22,5 |
3,97 |
|
Management by-exception active |
TS2 |
0,0 |
0,8 |
14,2 |
60,8 |
24,2 |
4,08 |
|
|
Management by-exception passive |
TS3 |
0,0 |
1,7 |
13,3 |
56,7 |
28,3 |
4,12 |
|
|
Average |
0,0 |
0,0 |
12,9 |
56,9 |
25,0 |
4,06 |
||
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the responses of the respondents as
shown in Table 2, the Contingent Reward (TS1) indicator was rated high by the
respondents, namely 53.3% agreed and 22.5% strongly agreed, with a total agree
and strongly agree with TS1 = 75.8%%. The active Management by-exception (TS2)
indicator was highly rated by respondents, namely 60.8% agreed and 24.2%
strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly agree with TS2 = 85.0%. The
Management by-exception passive (TS3) indicator was highly rated by respondents,
namely 56.7% agreed and 28.3% strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly
agree on TS3 = 85.0%. In general, the average accumulation of the distribution
of Transactional Leadership answers, namely 56.9% agreed and 25.0% strongly
agreed, with a total of 81.9%.
Furthermore, from the description above it
appears that respondents who agree and strongly agree prefer Management
by-exception active (85.0%) and Management by-exception passive (85.0%). This
means that respondents consider the leadership to be more transactional if the
leadership always accompanies/controls employees during the work process to
avoid mistakes (TS2) and the leadership always responds to any reports of work
irregularities received for follow-up (TS3).
Innovative Work
Behavior
The Innovative Work Behavior variable in this
study is measured through employee perceptions using 4 indicators: 1). Weight
Loss Reduction Measures, 2). Product Temperature Setting, 3). Implementation of
Sanitation, and 4). Basket Rotation, with the results can be seen in Table 3.
Table 3. Respondents' Responses to Innovative
Work Behavior Variables
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Code |
Frequency of answers
(%) |
Mean |
||||
|
STS (1) |
TS (2) |
TB (3) |
S (4) |
SS (5) |
||||
|
Innovative Work Behavior |
Weight loss reduction
measures |
IWB1 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
12,5 |
66,7 |
20,8 |
4,08 |
|
Product temperature
settings |
IWB2 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
10,8 |
56,7 |
32,5 |
4,22 |
|
|
Implementation of
sanitation |
IWB3 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
15,8 |
60,8 |
23,3 |
4,08 |
|
|
Basket rotation |
IWB4 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
12,5 |
61,7 |
25,8 |
4,13 |
|
|
Average |
0,0 |
0,0 |
12,9 |
61,5 |
25,6 |
4,13 |
||
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the respondent's responses as shown
in Table 3, the indicator for Weight Loss Reduction Action (IWB1) was rated
high by respondents, namely 66.7% agreed and 20.8% strongly agreed, with a
total agree and strongly agree with IWB1 = 87.5%. The product temperature
regulation indicator (IWB2) was highly rated by respondents, namely 56.7%
agreed and 32.5% strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly agree with
IWB2 = 89.2%. The Sanitation Implementation Indicator (IWB3) was highly rated
by respondents, namely 60.8% agreed and 23.3% strongly agreed, with a total
agree and strongly agree with IWB3 = 84.2%. The Basket Rotation Indicator
(IWB4) was also highly rated by respondents, namely 61.5% agreed and 21.6%
strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly agree with IWB4 = 87.5%.
Furthermore, from the description above it
appears that respondents who agree and strongly agree prefer Measures of
Reducing Weight Loss (87.5%), Product Temperature Regulation (89.2%) and Basket
Rotation (87.5%). This means that the respondent considers it very necessary to
carry out Innovative Work Behavior with unique actions to reduce chicken weight
loss, regulate temperature, and rotate baskets.
Employee performance
Employee Performance Variables in this study
are measured through employee perceptions using 3 indicators: 1). Quality, 2).
Quantity, and 3). Timeliness, with the results can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4. Respondents' Responses to Employee
Performance Variable Indicators
|
Variable |
Indicator |
Code |
Frequency of answers
(%) |
Mean |
||||
|
STS (1) |
TS (2) |
TB (3) |
S (4) |
SS (5) |
||||
|
Employee Performance |
Quality |
KK1 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
10,0 |
53,3 |
36,7 |
4,27 |
|
Quantity |
KK2 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
12,5 |
53,3 |
34,2 |
4,22 |
|
|
Timeliness |
KK3 |
0,0 |
0,0 |
10,8 |
64,2 |
25,0 |
4,14 |
|
|
Average |
0,0 |
0,0 |
11,1 |
56,9 |
31,9 |
4,21 |
||
Source:
Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the respondents' responses as shown
in Table 4, the Quality indicator (KK1) was rated high by the respondents,
namely 53.3% agreed and 36.7% strongly agreed, with a total agree and strongly
agree with KK1 = 90.0%%. The Quantity Indicator (KK2) was highly rated by
respondents, namely 53.3% agreed and 34.2% strongly agreed, with a total agree
and strongly agree with TS2 = 87.5%. The Timeliness Indicator (KK3) was highly
rated by respondents, namely 64.2% agreed and 25.0% strongly agreed, with a
total agree and strongly agree with TS3 = 89.2%. In general, the average
accumulation of the distribution of Transactional Leadership answers, namely
56.9% agreed and 31.9% strongly agreed, with a total of 88.9%. Furthermore,
from the description above it appears that respondents who agreed and strongly
agreed chose Quality, Quantity, and Timeliness as indicators of their work
success.
Inferential statistics
Inferential statistics
is a data analysis technique with a view to generalizing sample data from a
population. These statistics can be used to make inferences about the
population based on the findings from the sample (Fraenkel et al., 2012). In connection with the
sample in this study is the entire population, this research can be directly
used to represent the population.
Furthermore, to test
the hypothesis of the research model that has been determined previously and
also based on the questionnaire answers from the existing samples, the analysis
is processed using the SmartPLS application. There are two important stages in
the analysis using the PLS-SEM method, namely: 1). Test or measure the outer
model and 2). Test or measure the structural model (inner model).
Outer Model Test
This Outer Model measurement aims to explain
the relationship between indicators and latent variables, by assessing the
Validity and Reliability of a construct.
a)
Model Validity Test
The instrument must be tested for validity, because
Valid means that a measuring instrument or instrument can be used to measure
something that should be measured carefully (Sugiono, 2008). In this study,
validity was measured by means of Convergent Validity and Construct Validity
from latent indicators forming constructs.
Convergent and Construct Validity
The Convergent Validity test uses Outer Loading and
the value of each variable indicator must be more than 0.70 (Ghozali &
Latan, 2015). Meanwhile, to determine Construct Validity in this study using
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the value must be greater than 0, 50.
Convergent Validity and Construct Validity test results can be seen in Table 5.
Table 5. Convergent
and Construct Validity
|
Variable |
Items |
Outer Loading |
AVE |
Conclusion |
|
Transformational leadership |
TF1 |
0.927 |
0.665 |
Convergent & Good
Construct Validity |
|
TF2 |
0.783 |
|||
|
TF3 |
0.826 |
|||
|
TF4 |
0.710 |
|||
|
Transactional Leadership |
TS1 |
0814 |
0.659 |
Convergent & Good
Construct Validity |
|
TS2 |
0.848 |
|||
|
TS3 |
0.772 |
|||
|
Innovative Work Behavior |
IWB1 |
0.833 |
0.689 |
Convergent & Good
Construct Validity |
|
IWB2 |
0.834 |
|||
|
IWB3 |
0.825 |
|||
|
IWB4 |
0.829 |
|||
|
Employee performance |
KK1 |
0.845 |
0.723 |
Convergent & Good
Construct Validity |
|
KK2 |
0.864 |
|||
|
KK3 |
0.842 |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the results of the Convergent
Validity test using the loading factor (Table 5), the overall loading factor is
above 0.70. That is, the instrument in this case each statement item meets the
convergent validity requirements (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Furthermore, the
Construct Validity test using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) as mentioned
in Table 5.6, shows that all constructs have an AVE value in above 0.50.
Therefore, the instrument in this case each statement item meets the
requirements of convergent validity (Ghozali & Latan, 2015). Thus, further
tests can be carried out.
Discriminant Validity Test
The discriminant validity test in this study
was carried out in two ways, namely by looking at: 1). The cross
loading value for each variable must be more than 0.70 (Ghozali &
Latan 2015) and 2). Fornell-Larcker, where the square root value of the Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) for each variable must be greater than the correlation
between variables in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981 in Ghozali and Latan,
2015)
Table 6. Cross Loading
|
Indicator |
Transformational
Leadership |
Transactional
Leadership |
Innovative Work
Behavior |
Employee Performance |
|
TF1 |
0,927 |
0,130 |
0,287 |
0,212 |
|
TF2 |
0,783 |
-0,064 |
0,085 |
0,059 |
|
TF3 |
0,826 |
0,044 |
0,152 |
0,127 |
|
TF4 |
0,710 |
-0,055 |
0,080 |
0,022 |
|
TS1 |
-0,029 |
0,814 |
0,686 |
0,634 |
|
TS2 |
0,200 |
0,848 |
0,687 |
0,67 |
|
TS3 |
-0,024 |
0,772 |
0,506 |
0,502 |
|
IWB1 |
0,257 |
0,640 |
0,833 |
0,709 |
|
IWB2 |
0,210 |
0,700 |
0,834 |
0,712 |
|
IWB3 |
0,163 |
0,631 |
0,825 |
0,624 |
|
IWB4 |
0,140 |
0,620 |
0,829 |
0,661 |
|
KK1 |
0,035 |
0,628 |
0,659 |
0,845 |
|
KK2 |
0,192 |
0,650 |
0,758 |
0,864 |
|
KK3 |
0,206 |
0,650 |
0,661 |
0,842 |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
The results of the discriminant validity test
with cross loading as shown in Table 6 show a value above 0.70. Besides that,
the value of the cross loading indicator for each variable (yellow block) has a
greater value than the other constructs. Furthermore, the results of the
discriminant validity test using the Fornell-Larcker (AVE Square Root) as shown
in Table 7 show that the value for each variable is greater than the
correlation between the variables in the model. This indicates that the
instrument, in this case each indicator, meets the discriminant validity
requirements, and further testing can be carried out.
Table 7. Fornell-Larcker (Square Root AVE)
|
Variable |
Transformational
Leadership |
Transactional
Leadership |
Innovative Work
Behavior |
Employee Performance |
|
Transformational
Leadership |
0,566 |
|
|
|
|
Transactional
Leadership |
0,070 |
0,564 |
|
|
|
Innovative Work
Behavior |
0,163 |
0,543 |
0,576 |
|
|
Employee Performance |
0,119 |
0,522 |
0,567 |
0,591 |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
b) Model Reliability
Test
In addition to testing the validity of a construct, it
is also necessary to carry out a reliability test, so that the instrument can
find out whether it is appropriate to be used to measure the same object
consistently or not (Sugiono, 2008).
In accordance with Ghozali and Latan (2015), in
PLS-SEM using SmartPLS, reliability measurement uses Cronbach's Alpha and
Composite Reliability. Because the limit value of Cronbach's Alpha to test
construct reliability will give a lower score, this study uses Composite
Reliability, whose value must be above 0.70.
Table 8. Cronbach's Alphaand Composite Reliability
|
Variable |
Crobach Alpha |
Composite
Realibility |
Remarks |
|
Transformational
Leadership |
0,854 |
0.887 |
Composite Reliability is fulfilled |
|
Transactional
Leadership |
0,743 |
0,853 |
Composite Reliability is fulfilled |
|
Innovative Work
Behavior |
0,850 |
0,899 |
Composite Reliability is fulfilled |
|
Employee Performance |
0,809 |
0,887 |
Composite Reliability is fulfilled |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
The results of the reliability test with
Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability can be seen in Table 8. The value of
the test results was above 0.70. This means that the instrument can be used to
measure the same object consistently.
Inner Model Test
(Hypothesis)
This Inner Model measurement aims to see the
relationship between constructs or latent variables. There are 3 types of this
test, namely: 1). Analysis of the coefficient of determination and 2. Path
coefficient analysis to test the hypothesis.
Model
Fitment Test with the Coefficient of Determination
The purpose of the analysis of the coefficient
of determination is to determine the magnitude of the influence between
variables, using the R-square of the dependent latent variable whose
interpretation is the same as the "Q-Square predictive relevance"
regression. If the Q-square value > 0, then the model has better predictive
ability, and vice versa if the Q-Square value ≤ 0 indicates the model lacks
predictive ability (Ghozali, 2006; Ghozali, 2011; Solimun et al., 2006; Solimun
& Renaldo, 2009, Chin, 1997).
Table 9. Model Suitability Test Results with the
Coefficient of Determination
|
Variable |
R2 |
|
Innovative Work Behavior |
0.644 |
|
Employee Performance |
0.701 |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Based on the results of the model fit test
with the coefficient of determination (R-square) as mentioned in Table 9, it
can be seen that the Innovative Work Behavior and Employee Performance
variables each have a value of 0.644 and 0.701, and are explained as follows:
1). The coefficient of determination (R-square) of
Innovative Work Behavior is 0.644. This means that 64.4% of the Innovative Work
Behavior variable can be explained by the Transformational Leadership and
Transactional Leadership variables, while 35.6% is explained by other
variables. Thus Transformational Leadership and
Transactional Leadership are very meaningful at 64.4% to improve Innovative
Work Behavior.
2). The value of the coefficient of determination
(R-square) of Employee Performance is 0.701. This means that 70.1% of the
Employee Performance variable can be explained by the Transformational
Leadership and Transactional Leadership variables, while 29.9% is explained by
other variables. Thus Transformational Leadership and
Transactional Leadership are very meaningful at 70.1% to improve Employee
Performance.
Hypothesis
Testing With Path Coefficient Analysis
In this study, hypothesis testing was carried
out to show the relationship between the latent variables studied. Hypothesis
testing in the PLS-SEM method is carried out by looking at the path coefficient
value. The results of the direct path coefficients between variables can be
seen in Table 10 and for the indirect path coefficients can be seen in Table
11.
Table 10. Path Coefficient (Path Coefficient) Direct
Influence
|
Path |
Path Coefficient |
t-stat |
P Values |
Remarks |
|
Transformational
Leadership -> Employee Performance |
0.015 |
0.260 |
0.795 |
Not significant |
|
Transactional Leadership
Leadership -> Employee Performance |
0.296 |
4.027 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Innovative Work Behavior
-> Employee Performance |
0.582 |
7.325 |
0.000 |
Significant |
|
Transformational
Leadership -> Innovative Work Behavior |
0.180 |
3.025 |
0.003 |
Significant |
|
Transactional Leadership
Leadership -> Innovative Work Behavior |
0.769 |
22.927 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Source: Primary data processed, 2023
Table 11. Path Coefficient Indirect Influence
|
Path |
Sobel Test |
|||
|
Path Coefficient |
t-stat |
P Values |
Remarks |
|
|
Transformational
Leadership -> Innovative Work Behavior -> Employee Performance |
0.015 |
0.260 |
0.795 |
Not significant |
|
Transactional Leadership
-> Innovative Work Behavior -> Employee Performance |
0.296 |
4.027 |
0.000 |
Significant |
Source:
Primary data processed, 2023
Based
on the results of the Inner Model Test Results (Tables 10 and 11) and Outer
Model (Table 5), it can be described the full model shown as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Outer and
Inner Model Test Results Path Diagram
Source: Primary data
processed, 2023
Note: The * sign
indicates significant at the 5% level
The ns sign states that
it is not significant at the 5% level
The results of the
hypothesis test as summarized in Table 10, can be explained as follows:
H1: Transformational leadership has a positive
and significant effect on employee performance
Testing the direct effect of Transformational
Leadership on Employee Performance, a Path Coefficient value of 0.015 was
obtained with a t-statistic value of 0.260, and a p-value of 0.795. Thus, it
can be concluded that transformational leadership has a positive but not
significant effect on employee performance. Thus, the first hypothesis is not
proven.
Given that the inner weight coefficient is positive,
it indicates that the relationship between the two is positive. That is, the
higher Transformational Leadership will result in higher Employee Performance,
but not significant. Because the relationship between these variables is not
significant, the first hypothesis is not proven and therefore this study
supports Khan et al. (2020), where the results of the study show that
Transformational Leadership has no significant effect on Employee Performance.
H2: Transactional leadership has a positive
and significant effect on employee performance
Testing the direct effect of Transactional Leadership
on Employee Performance, a Path Coefficient value of 0.296 was obtained with a t-statistic
value of 4.027, and a p-value of 0.000. Thus, it can be concluded that
transactional leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee
performance.
Considering that the Path Coefficient is positive,
indicating that the relationship between the two is positive. That is, the
higher the Transactional Leadership will result in the higher the Employee
Performance with a significant influence. Because the relationship between
these variables is significant, the second hypothesis can be proven. Therefore,
this study supports the research of Lor and Hasan (2017), Wen et al (2019), and
Saeed and Mughal (2019).
H3: Innovative Work Behavior has a positive
and significant effect on Employee Performance
Testing the direct effect of Innovative Work Behavior
on Employee Performance, a Path Coefficient value of 0.582 was obtained with a
t-statistic value of 7.325, and a p-value of 0.000. Thus, it can be concluded
that employee innovation has a positive and significant effect on employee
performance.
Considering that the path coefficient (Path
Coefficient) is positive, indicating that the relationship between the two is
positive. That is, the higher the Innovative Work Behavior will result in
higher employee performance with a significant influence. Because the
relationship between these variables is significant, the fifth hypothesis is
proven. Therefore, this study supports Nadir et al. (2018) and Tang et al.
(2020).
H4: Transformational leadership has a positive
and significant effect on Innovative Work Behavior
Testing the direct influence of transformational
leadership on Innovative Work Behavior, a Path Coefficient value of 0.180 was
obtained with a t-statistic value of 3.025, and a p-value of 0.003. Thus, it
can be concluded that transformational leadership has a positive and
significant effect on Innovative Work Behavior.
Considering that the path coefficient (Path
Coefficient) is positive, indicating that the relationship between the two is
positive. That is, the higher the transformational leadership will result in
the higher the Innovative Work Behavior with a significant influence. Because
the relationship between these variables is significant, the third hypothesis
is proven. Therefore, this study supports the research of Afsar and Badir
(2014).
H5: Transactional leadership has a positive
and significant effect on Innovative Work Behavior
Testing the direct influence of transactional
leadership on Innovative Work Behavior, a Path Coefficient value of 0.769 was
obtained with a t-statistic value of 22.927, and a p-value of 0.000. Thus, it
can be concluded that transactional leadership has a positive and significant
effect on Innovative Work Behavior.
Considering that the path coefficient (Path
Coefficient) is positive, indicating that the relationship between the two is
positive. That is, the higher the transactional leadership will result in the
higher the Innovative Work Behavior with a significant influence. Because the
relationship between these variables is significant, the fourth hypothesis is proven.
Therefore, this study supports the research of Naqvi et al. (2017).
H6: Innovative Work Behavior mediates the
relationship between transformational leadership style and employee performance
Testing the indirect effect of the role of Innovative
Work Behavior in mediating Transformational Leadership on employee performance,
obtained a Path Coefficient value of 0.105 with a t-statistic value of 2.778,
and a p-value of 0.005. Thus, it can be concluded that Innovative Work Behavior
can mediate the relationship between transformational leadership styles on
employee performance.
Considering that the path coefficient (Path
Coefficient) is positive and significant, it means that Transformational
Leadership can improve employee performance by going through Innovative Work
Behavior first.
H7: Innovative Work Behavior mediates the
relationship between transactional leadership style and employee performance
Testing the indirect effect of the role of Innovative
Work Behavior in mediating Transactional Leadership on employee performance, a
Path Coefficient value of 0.448 is obtained with a t-statistic value of 7.005,
and a p-value of 0.000. Thus, it can be concluded that Innovative Work Behavior
can mediate the relationship between transformational leadership styles on
employee performance.
Considering that the path coefficient (Path
Coefficient) is positive and significant, it means that Transactional
Leadership can improve employee performance by first increasing Innovative Work
Behavior.
Discussion
Transformational leadership has a positive and
significant effect on employee performance
Considering Outer
Loading (Table 5) of all Variable Indicators of Transformational Leadership
above 0.7 and declared valid. Meanwhile, the composite reliability test also
shows a value above 0.7 and thus meets the requirements for composite
reliability. Referring to this description, all indicators of Transformational
Leadership: 1). Idealized Influence (TF1), 2). Inspirational Motivation (TF2)
3). Intellectual Stimulation (TF3), and 4). Individualized Consideration (TF4),
can be used to predict a leader having a Transformational Leadership style.
Then based on the
Transformational Leadership Variable indicator that is most chosen by the
respondents isIndividualized
Considerationand Inspirational Motivation (Table 1). The meaning is that the
employees observe that the transformational leadership at RPA PT. XYZ is a
leader who respects the opinions of employees (Individualized Consideration),
by listening to input and complaints with great attention (Septyan et.al,
2017), as well as leaders who are always enthusiastic about raising the spirit
(Inspirational Motivation) of employees (Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008).
However, the most
powerful indicator for determining someone has a Transformational Leadership
style based on the Loading Factor is: 1) Idealized Influence (TF1), namely having charisma that
can influence employee behavior (Yukl, 2006) and (Sarros & Santora, 2001,
Ngaithe et al., 2016), and 2). Intellectual Stimulation (TF3), namely leaders
who have the ability to generate new ideas for employees (Septyan et.al., 2017),
because they are able to teach their followers to think practically (Hall et
al., 2008), and seek new approaches new in carrying out tasks (Septyan et.al.,
2017). This seems to be related to the educational background and limited
tenure of the employees.
The educational background of employees is
limited to the last education of junior high and high school and the number of
new employees with the maximum working period is 1 year. Of course, idealized
leaders are needed (Idealized Influence) who have a direct effect on the level
of employee engagement (Hayati et al. 2014), and are able to teach their
followers to think (Idealized Influence) practically (Hall et al., 2008).
Based on the above explanation and coupled
with the fact that 81.9% of employees prefer Transactional (Table 5.3) rather
than Transformational (63.8%) leaders as shown in Table 1, the path analysis
results show that transformational leadership has a positive effect on low path
coefficient (0.015) and not significant to employee performance. Thus, this
study supports the opinion of Prabowo et al. (2018) and Khan et al. (2020)
Path analysis as mentioned above shows that
the Transformational Leader at RPA PT. XYZ is less able to influence employee
performance improvement directly, because it is suspected that employees do not
understand what needs to be done and may also be less concerned about various
efforts to increase employee performance.
Considering Outer Loading (Table 5) of all
Employee Performance Variable Indicators above 0.7 and declared valid.
Meanwhile, the composite reliability test also shows a value above 0.7 and thus
meets the requirements for composite reliability. Then all indicators (Quality),
(Quantity) and (Timeliness) can be used to predict Employee Performance. Where
the quality (Quality) in question is in accordance with the quality standards
set by SNI 3924 (2009), and the quantity (Quantity) is determined by the total
percentage yield (Jumiati et al, 2017), while Timeliness is determined by the
timeliness of fulfilling orders.
Furthermore, based on the indicators most chosen
by respondents and based on the strongest indicators to reflect Employee
Performance based on Loading Factor on Employee Performance are: 1). Quality,
2). Quantity, and 3). Timeliness. Thus to boost Employee Performance, the
knowledge and involvement of employees must be increased by Transformational
Leaders.
Transactional leadership has a significant
positive effect on employee performance
Considering Outer Loading (Table 5) of all
indicators of the Transactional Leadership variable above 0.5 and declared
valid. While the composite reliability test on the Transformational Leadership
variable, it shows a value above 0.7 and thus fulfills the composite
reliability requirements. Referring to this description, all indicators:
Contingent reward (TS1), Management by-exception active (TS2), and Management
by-exception passive (TS3) can reflect the Variables of Transactional
Leadership.
Then, based on the
indicators of the Transactional Leadership Variable, the one most chosen by the
respondents isManagement
by-exception activeand Inspirational Motivation and Management by-exception
passive (Table 2). This means that employees feel comfortable if they are
always accompanied/controlled (Antonakis et.al., 2003 and Risambessy &
Wairisal, 2021), and are happy if every report submitted is responded to by the
leadership (Antonakis, et al. 2003 in Hugo, et al. (2009). Based on the Loading
Factor, the most powerful indicators for determining Transactional Leadership
are: Contingent reward (TS1), and Management by-exception active (TS2).
So, Transactional Leadership employees are
more effective if leaders provide material or psychological rewards (Contingent
rewards) and consistently monitor employees to take appropriate actions
(Management by-exception active) in the event of deviations (Antonakis et.al.,
2003). These actions are intended so that subordinates can work in accordance with
established work standards and procedures (Risambessy & Wairisal, 2021).
This
is in accordance with the type of work in RPA PT. XYZ which must comply with
variouswork standards and
procedures as set by the Directorate of Veterinary Public Health (2018), such
as: Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) to produce products according to the
desired standards. Sanitation Standards to ensure the safety of chicken meat
produced, and halal requirements (BSN 2016), as well as the United States
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) program (Foodready, 2023). Therefore, Management by-exception active,
and Contingent rewards are of course very important to do, because the majority
of employees have a limited level of education and years of service.
Based on this explanation and coupled with the fact
that 81.9% of employees prefer Transactional leaders (Table 2) over
Transformational (63.8%) (Table 1), the path analysis test (Table 10) shows
that leadership transactional has a positive and significant effect with a path
coefficient of 0.296 on employee performance. Thus, this study supports the
opinion of Lor and Hasan (2017), Wen et al. (2019), and Shaeed and Mughal
(2019).
With the results of path analysis as mentioned
above, it shows that the Transactional Leader at RPA PT. XYZ is more able to
directly influence employee performance improvement. It is suspected that
Transactional Leaders are able to minimize the possibility of errors or
irregularities occurring because leaders consistently monitor employees during
the work process (active Management by-exception). This action is intended so
that subordinates can work in accordance with established work standards and
procedures (Risambessy & Wairisal, 2021). And the leader's actions provide
rewards in the form of material or psychological (Contingent reward) according
to a more effective contractual role to improve performance.
Innovative Work Behaviorhave a positive and
significant effect on employee performance
As previously explained, based on the Outer
Loading composite reliability and composite reliability tests, all indicators
meet the requirements: Weight Loss Reduction (IWB1), Product Temperature
Control (IWB2), Contamination Avoidance (IWB3), and Basket Rotation (IWB4) can
reflect Employee Innovation variables, and all are considered strong based on
Loading Factor.
A unique action in order to reduce chicken
weight loss (IWB1) in the process is very important to do, considering that
this action is related to yield (Jumiati et al, 2017 and Poultry World (2022))
which is very vital in determining product quantity in RPA. Then, taking unique
actions to maintain the temperature of chicken meat (below 4oC) during
processing (IWB2), and carrying out unique actions for sanitation are very
useful for suppressing bacterial growth (IWB3) which can cause product damage
and maintain the quality (quality) of meat produced (Moret and Singh, 2012).
Finally, implementing a unique action to rotate the basket to streamline the
work process (IWB4) is associated with suppressing bacterial growth and
reducing timeliness.
Thus, based on path analysis, it is found that
Innovative Work Behavior has a positive effect with a path coefficient of 0.582
and is significant for Employee Performance (Table 11). Therefore, this study
supports the research of Nasir et al. (2018) and Tang et al. (2020).
Transformational leadership has a positive and
significant effect on Innovative Work Behavior
As previously explained that all indicators of
Transformational Leadership: 1). Idealized Influence (TF1), 2). Inspirational
Motivation (TF2) 3). Intellectual Stimulation (TF3), and 4). Individualized
Consideration (TF4), can be used to predict a leader having a Transformational
Leadership style. But the indicators of the Transformational Leadership
Variable that were most chosen by the respondents were Individualized
Consideration and Inspirational Motivation. On the other hand, the
statistically strongest indicators based on Loading Factor are more Idealized
Influence (TF1) and Intellectual Stimulation (TF3).
In relation to the most chosen
Transformational Leadership indicator, respecting employee opinion
(Individualized Consideration), listening to employee input and complaints with
great attention (Septyan et.al, 2017), and leaders who are always enthusiastic
about raising employee morale (Inspirational Motivation) (Muenjohn &
Armstrong, 2008). Thus, this condition can provide support for employees that
can trigger unique actions. In this way, it can create opportunities for
employees to improve Innovative Work Behavior in carrying out their duties
(Majdina 2021).
Thus, the path analysis test (Table 10) shows
that Transformational Leadership has a positive effect with a path coefficient
of 0.180 and is significant for Innovative Work Behavior. Therefore, this study
supports the opinion of Afsar and Badir (2014).
Paying attention to Outer Loading (Table 5) of
all indicators of employee innovation variables above 0.5 and declared valid.
Meanwhile, the composite reliability test for the employee innovation variable
showed a value above 0.7 and thus met the requirements for composite
reliability. Referring to the above description, all indicators: Reduction of
Weight Loss (IWB1), Product Temperature Control (IWB2), Contamination Avoidance
(IWB3), and Basket Rotation (IWB4) can reflect Innovative Work Behavior
variables.
Based on the Loading Factor, the most powerful
indicators for determining Transactional Leadership are all of the indicators.
So, Innovative Work Behavior at RPA PT. XYZ can be characterized by: unique
employee initiatives to reduce weight loss in the process (IWB1), unique
employee initiatives to maintain product temperature (IWB2), unique employee
actions in carrying out hygiene (IWB3), and unique employee actions in rotating
baskets (IWB4).
Transactional leadership has a positive and
significant effect on Innovative Work Behavior
As previously explained that all indicators of
Transactional Leadership: Contingent reward (TS1), Management by-exception
active (TS2), and Management by-exception passive (TS3) can reflect the
Variables of Transactional Leadership. However, the Transactional Leadership
Variables that were most chosen by the respondents were Management by-exception
active and Management by-exception passive. While the statistically strongest
indicators based on Loading Factor are Contingent reward (TS1) and Management
by-exception active (TS2).
So, considering the type of work at RPA PT. XYZ,
which must always comply with various standards and procedures as previously
explained, and has employees with limited levels of education and tenure,
Transactional Leadership is more effective if leaders constantly monitor
employees to carry out Management by-exception active (Antonakis et.al., 2003).
These actions are intended so that subordinates can work in accordance with
established work standards and procedures (Risambessy & Wairisal, 2021).
Besides that, transactional leaders can provide Contingent rewards (in the form
of material or psychological) to work groups (Antonakis et.al., 2003),
considering that transactional leaders tend to focus on group performance
(Bardai, 2019). By providing rewards and clarifying roles and requirements
(Wibowo, 2014), transformational leaders may be able to use limited resources
and time (Idris & Ali, 2008 in Bardai, 2019) as happened in RPA. PT. XYZ.
This condition is thought to be more capable of triggering unique actions from
groups, and can create opportunities for employees to improve Innovative Work
Behavior in carrying out their duties (Majdina 2021), especially governance
best practices that have value for group success (Charitou and Markides, 2003).
Thus, Transactional Leadership has a positive
effect with a path coefficient of 0.769 and is significant for Innovative Work
Behavior based on path analysis (Table 10). Therefore, this study supports the
opinion supporting the research of Naqvi et al. (2017).
Innovative Work Behaviorat RPA PT. XYZ as
previously explained can be characterized by: unique employee initiatives to
reduce weight loss in the process (IWB1), unique employee initiatives in
maintaining product temperature (IWB2), unique employee actions in carrying out
hygiene (IWB3), and unique employee actions in basket rotation (IWB4).
Innovative Work Behavior mediate the
relationship between transformational leadership styles on employee performance
As previously explained, Innovative Work Behavior can
mediate Transformational leadership positively (0.105) and is significant for
Employee Performance. On the other hand, transformational leadership has a
positive effect (0.015) but not significant on employee performance.
This shows how important Innovative Work Behavior is
in mediating the role of Transformational Leaders on employee performance.
Given that transformational leadership has a positive and significant effect on
Innovative Work Behavior, then RPA. PT. XYZ can take advantage of this to boost
employee performance through Innovative Work Behavior.
Given the limited educational background and tenure of
employees, Transformational Leaders must utilize the radiance of their charisma
to influence employee behavior (Sarros & Santora, 2001, Ngaithe et al.,
2016), and use as much as possible the power of Intellectual Stimulation to
bring about new ideas (Septyan et.al., 2017), by teaching followers to think
practically (Hall et al., 2008), and looking for new approaches in carrying out
tasks (Septyan et.al., 2017). This needs to be done in order to improve
Innovative Work Behavior, which in turn is expected to improve employee
performance.
Innovative Work Behavior mediate the
relationship between transactional leadership style on employee performance
As previously explained, Innovative Work
Behavior can mediate Transactional leadership positively and significantly to
Employee Performance. On the other hand, transformational leadership has a
positive and significant effect on employee performance.
Given the conditions in RPA PT. XYZ is full of
challenges in the form of limited educational background and years of service
and having to carry out various operating standards related to food safety, so
this is not a problem for transactional leadership. Therefore, this leadership
can continue to carry out Contingent reward, Management by-exception active,
and Management by-exception passive. This needs to be done in order to boost
Innovative Work Behavior, which in turn is expected to improve employee
performance.
CONCLUSION
Based on results of study, the conclusion are; (1) Transformational leadership has no
significant effect on employee performance, (2) Transactional leadership has a
positive and significant effect on employee performance, (3) Transactional
Leadership at RPA PT. XYZ can be carried out by providing material or
psychological rewards (Contingent rewards) and consistently monitoring
employees to take appropriate action (Management by-exception active) in the
event of deviations so that employees can work according to predetermined work
standards and procedures. ultimately able to improve employee performance, (4) Innovative
Work Behavior has a positive and significant effect on employee performance,
(5) Innovative Work Behavior at RPA PT. XYZ can be carried out with unique
actions on important components, namely: reducing chicken weight loss to
achieve quantity targets, temperature regulation to maintain product quality
(quality), and rotating baskets to reduce waiting time during production
(timeliness), (6) Transformational
leadership has a positive and significant effect onnInnovative Work
Behavior, (7) Transformational Leadership at RPA PT. XYZ is carried out by
respecting the opinions of employees (Individualized Consideration), always
being enthusiastic about raising the spirit of employees (Inspirational
Motivation) so that employees are not afraid to act so as to be able to provide
support for employees and can trigger the emergence of Innovative Work Behavior,
(8) Transactional
leadership has a positive and significant effect onInnovative Work
Behavior, (9) Transactional
Leadership in PT. XYZ should be carried out in a way that leaders
constantly monitor employees during the process (Management by-exception
active) and can provide Contingent rewards (in the form of material or
psychological) to work groups to trigger the emergence of Innovative Work
Behavior, (10) Innovative Work Behaviorable to mediate the relationship between
Transformational Leadership on Employee Performance, (11) Thus Transformational
Leadership in RPA PT. XYZ, can improve employee performance through mediation
factorsInnovative Work Behavior, (12) Innovative Work Behaviorable to
mediate the relationship between Transactional Leadership on Employee
Performance, and (13) Thus Transactional Leadership in RPA PT. XYZ, can improve employee
performance through mediation factorsInnovative Work Behavior.
REFERENCES
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., &
Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and Leadership: An Examination of The
Nine-Factor Full Range Leadership Theory Using The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. The Leadership Quaterly,
14: 261-295
Bardai, B., & Algahtany, M. A.
(2019). Quality attention/contingent reward and leadership styles
(transformational/transactional). SSRG International Journal of
Economics Management Studies (SSRGIJEMS), 6(2), 57-81.
Biaka, F. H. (2020). Leadership Styles and Employee
Performance in Cameroon: The Case of St. Veronica Medical Centre.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H.
(2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (Vol. 7).
McGraw-hill New York.
Hartanto, I. (2014). Pengaruh gaya kepemimpinan
transaksional terhadap kinerja karyawan dengan kepuasan kerja sebagai variabel
intervening pada CV. Timur Jaya. Agora. 2(2): 979-983.
Headey, D., Hirvonen, K., & Hoddinott, J. (2018). Animal
sourced foods and child stunting. Wiley Online Library.
Imara, F. R. (2020). Pengaruh Gaya Kepemimpinan Transformasional Dan
Transaksional Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan (Studi Kasus pada EF English First
Malang). Jurnal Ilmiah Mahasiswa FEB, 8(2).
Kabiru, G. K., & Bula, H. (2020). Influence of
Transactional Leadership Style on Employee Performance at Selected Commercial
Banks in Nairobi City County, Kenya. International Journal of Research
and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), iv (ix), 520-524.
Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business
Horizons, 61(3), 453-460.
Mahfouz, S., Abd Halim, M. S., Bahkia, A. S., & Alias, N.
(2022). Mediating Role
of Employee Commitment in the Relationship Between Transactional Leadership and
Employee Performance. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 11(1).
Naqvi, J. A., Ullah, S., & Javed, B. (2017). The mediating
role of employees’ creativity. European Journal of Business and
Management, 9(28), 27-37.
Prabowo, T. S., Noermijati, N., & Irawanto, D. W.
(2018). The influence of transformational leadership and work motivation on
employee performance mediated by job satisfaction. Jurnal Aplikasi
Manajemen, 16(1): 171-178.
Risambessy, A., Swasto, B., Thoyib, A., & Astuti,
E. S. (2012). The influence of transformational leadership style, motivation,
burnout towards job satisfaction and employee performance. Journal of Basic
and Applied Scientific Research, 2(9), 8833–8842.
Saeed, M., & Mughal, Y. H. (2019). Role of
transactional leadership style upon performance: Mediating role of culture. Journal
of Managerial Sciences, 13(1), 47–57.
Sarros, J. C. & Santora, J. C. (2001). The
Transformational-Transactional Leadership Model In Practice. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 22 (8), 383-393
Septyan, F. B., Musadieq, M. A., Mukzam, M. D., &
Administrasi, F. I. (2017). Pengaruh gaya kepemimpinan transformasional
terhadap motivasi dan kinerja (Studi Pada Karyawan CV. Jade Indopratama
Malang). Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, 53(1): 81-88.
Stephen, R., & Judge, T. A. (2015). Perilaku
organisasi. Penerbit Salemba Empat, Jakarta.
Tang, H., Wang, G., Zheng, J., Luo, L., & Wu, G. (2020). How does the
emotional intelligence of project managers affect employees’ innovative
behaviors and job performance? The moderating role of social network structure
hole. SAGE Open, 10(4),
Thamrin, H. M. (2012). The influence of
transformational leadership and organizational commitment on job satisfaction
and employee performance. International Journal of Innovation, Management
and Technology, 3(5), 566–572.
Wen, T. B., Ho, T. C., Kelana, B. W. Y., Othman, R.,
& Syed, O. R. (2019). Leadership styles in influencing employees’ job
performances. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, 9(9), 55–65.
Wijaya, E. Y., Sudjimat, D. A., Nyoto, A., &
Malang, U. N. (2016). Transformasi pendidikan abad 21 sebagai tuntutan
pengembangan sumber daya manusia di era global. Prosiding Seminar Nasional
Pendidikan Matematika, 1(26), 263–278.
Copyright holders:
Oktaviana Puteri Sakti, Desi
Tri Kurniawati, Mintarti Rahayu (2023)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community
Service
This
article is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International