The Influence of Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance of Educational Staff

To obtain an increase in the performance of educational staff in the form of work quality and service quality, this research was carried out. This research analyzes the influence of job satisfaction on the performance of educational staff. The research objects were 24 educational staff at MM FEB Usakti in Jakarta. Because the population is relatively small, a saturated/census sample is used with SmartPLS software for data analysis. The research results show that there is job satisfaction for educational staff, which comes from co-workers, supervision, pay, the job itself, and finally, promotion opportunities. The managerial implication of this research is that managers should update regulations regarding job promotions and set clear promotion time periods. Then carry out socialization of promotional policies, so that all educational staff can know clearly. Managers are also expected to act fairly in providing promotional opportunities to all education staff.

Introduction

In educational organizations, educational staff are potential human resources who play a role in realizing educational goals. According to Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 20 of 2003 concerning the National Education System article 1 paragraph 5, educational personnel are members of the community who dedicate themselves and are appointed to support the implementation of education. Furthermore, the main duties of educational staff are contained in the National Education System Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 20 of 2003. Chapter XI, article 39, paragraph 1 states that educational staff is tasked with carrying out administration, management, development, supervision, and technical services to support the educational process in education.

Education personnel must carry out their duties effectively and efficiently so that the goals of educational organizations can be achieved. Education personnel are responsible for improving the quality of education and providing the best service to students.

Currently, educational staff are needed who can survive and compete, so educational organizations need to strive for the best performance from educational staff. Therefore, to obtain an increase in the performance of educational staff in the form of work quality and service quality, this research was carried out. Many previous studies have stated that job satisfaction has an effect on improving performance. Can this also happen to the educational staff? That is why this research was carried out. It is hoped that the results of the research will provide useful input for management so that they can better understand the needs of educational staff. The results obtained will be useful for formulating educational staff development programs and policies related to improving the performance of educational staff.

Literature Review

Job satisfaction is an employee’s assessment of how they enjoy their work (Nanjundeswaraswamy, 2021). Based on researchers Hiltonet al.(2021), job satisfaction is a cognitive and emotional reaction in an employee who works for a company. Beurenet al. (2021) state that the positive emotional state of employees who work for a company is called job satisfaction. Meanwhile, according to Sesen and Ertan (2021), what is meant by job satisfaction is the reaction and perception of an employee towards the characteristics of his work in the company. According to Bharadwajet al. (2021), work consequences are influenced by the results of a performance process that involves all stakeholders in an organization. Job satisfaction or dissatisfaction gives rise to several consequences, including:

1. Organizational Commitment: In general theory, job satisfaction will increase in capability for an organization. On the other hand, job dissatisfaction will lead to problems including absenteeism, tardiness, turnover and demonstrations. In various studies where work and organizational commitment independently support employees’ desire to leave the organization turnover cognition is truly related to job satisfaction.
2. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB): When individuals help other individuals carefully without expecting reward is called OCB. Important elements regarding OCB include: The principle of putting others first is voluntary action in which you help others with work problems. Respect: Includes gestures that help others prevent a problem, for example negotiating with others before taking action that will affect them. Accuracy: Behavior beyond job limits that is not required but is necessary for organizational effectiveness and survival. Civic virtue: Constructive and positive involvement in organizational political processes. Peacemaking: Actions to prevent, resolve, or reduce interpersonal relationships and conflict between organizations.
3. Employee Well–being: Job satisfaction affects employee welfare. An employee’s feelings of happiness, health and success are a consequence of job satisfaction. Lack of job satisfaction while doing work continuously will have a negative impact on employee happiness and well-being.
4. Work Stress: Apart from the consequences of job satisfaction described above, there are also other factors that are important to know, namely the impact of stress on job satisfaction. In other words, people who are dissatisfied will experience high work stress, which is termed ‘distress,’ and vice versa with the term ‘eustress.’

Work results that follow established procedures and standards are called performance (Dessler, 2020). Bintoro and Daryanto (2017) describe performance as the results or achievements of individuals in carrying out their work during a predetermined period of time, such as certain standards, targets, or criteria according to an agreement. On the other hand, performance includes work results that contribute to economic aspects and are closely related to the organization’s strategic goals, as well as customer satisfaction (Sumarno & Iqbal, 2022). In this situation, performance reflects employee achievements in terms of work quality and service quality in accordance with previously established standards.

Research from Rosdianaet al. (2022) shows that employee performance is influenced by job satisfaction. This shows that one component that has a distribution on employee performance is job satisfaction. Likewise, in research conducted by Pratama and Nilasari (2022) on employees of PT. Bank Mandiri (Persero) Tbk Jakarta Area Cikini, proves the positive influence of job satisfaction on employee performance. Furthermore, according to Sadat and Nilasari (2022), there is an influence of job satisfaction on the performance of Media Nusantara Citra Group Television Station employees. The more aspects of the job that match your dreams, the better the employee’s performance will be. Thus, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

Ha: Job Satisfaction influenced on employee performance.

Methods

This research is a continuation of previous research conducted by Nilasariet al. (2023). This research is included in the type of quantitative research method, namely a method where the data is in the form of numbers that can be processed and analyzed using mathematical or statistical calculations. In testing in this research, hypothesis testing is used, which is a temporary assumption that has been stated in the form of a statement. The unit of analysis used in this research is individuals, namely educational staff in MM FEB Usakti (Master of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business—Universitas Trisakti), Jakarta. The time horizon in this research is cross-sectional research, namely research carried out by collecting data only once during a certain period (January 2024) with the aim of obtaining answers to research questions. Because the research population was 24 people, the entire population was used as a sample. This sampling technique is called a saturated sample/census.

Primary data was used in this research. Primary data is the acquisition of data directly from the field, which is the object of research. The technique for obtaining primary data in this research uses a questionnaire. A questionnaire is a method of collecting data using statement items to ask for answers within a short and predetermined time period. Respondents provide responses to the questions given. The interval scale used is a 1–5 Likert scale, where scale 1 means strongly disagree, 2 means disagree, 3 means quite agree, 4 means agree, and 5 means strongly agree. Apart from questionnaires in the form of structured questions, respondents are also asked to fill out questionnaires with open questions that expect in-depth and detailed answers. This is to enrich the analysis and research results.

The job satisfaction indicators used in this research are questions grouped into five sections, namely supervision, payment, promotion opportunities, co-workers, and the job itself. Meanwhile, the performance indicators for educational staff consist of five statements developed from Carmeliet al. (2007).

In this research, the analytical methods used are:

1. To determine the level of educational staff job satisfaction, use descriptive statistical analysis in the form of frequency (percentage).
2. To determine the factors that influence the job satisfaction of educational staff, using descriptive statistical analysis in the form of frequencies (percentages).
3. To determine the factors of educational staff satisfaction that have not been optimally identified using descriptive statistical analysis in the form of frequencies (percentages).
4. To find out more deeply about educational staff job satisfaction, it will be analyzed from respondents’ answers to open questions in the questionnaire.
5. Data collected from respondents at points 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be processed using SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) software version 25.
6. To determine the validity and reliability and test the hypothesis of the influence of educational staff satisfaction on educational staff performance, the Structural Equation Model (SEM) method was used with SmartPLS software. Researchers chose SmartPLS software because the number of respondents was small.

The basis for making validity test decisions is based on Hairet al. (2019) as follows:

1. If the factor loading is ≥0.40, the question item is valid.
2. If the factor loading <0.40, the question item is invalid.

The basis for making Cronbach’s Alpha reliability decisions is as follows:

1. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient > 0.6 means it is reliable.
2. Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient < 0.6, so it is not reliable.

Meanwhile, the basis for decision-making regarding hypothesis testing is to compare the calculated t value with the critical value. At the 95% confidence level or α = 5% (0.05) with t-value of ±1.96.

Result

From collecting data through distributing questionnaires, the characteristics of the respondents can be identified. This information is useful for leaders and all stakeholders in the company. The characteristics of the 24 respondents consist of ten characteristics, namely: gender, marital status, age, work status, work unit, structural position, education, length of service, average salary, and family responsibilities (Table I).

Table I. Gender, Marital Status, Age, Employment Status, and Work Unit of Respondent

No	Demographic characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
1	Gender
	Male	16	66.7
	Female	8	33.3
2	Marital status
	Married	19	79.2
	Divorce	1	4.2
	Not married	4	16.7
3	Age
	>21–35 years	7	29.2
	>35–45 years	3	12.5
	>45–50 years	4	16.7
	>50 years	10	41.7
4	Employment status
	Permanent employees	14	58.3
	Prospective employees	2	8.3
	Chancellor’s decree contract employees	5	20.8
	Dean’s decree contract employees	3	12.5
5	Work unit
	Academic	12	50
	Finance	3	12.5
	Secretariat	4	16.7
	Other	5	20.8
	Total	24	100

Male respondents were 67.7% and female were 33.3%. Respondents with marital status reached 79.2% and were divorced, namely 1 person; the remaining 4.2% were unmarried. The majority of respondents were aged >50 years (41.7%) and the smallest were aged >35–45 years (12.5%). This shows that most employees have passed their productive period.

The majorityof respondents’ employment status were permanent employees (58.3%), and the least were prospective employees (8.3%). Meanwhile, most of the respondents’ work units came from the academic department (50%) and the finance department at least (12.5%). This shows that in a study program, the most work is in the academic department.

Based on structural position (Table II), it is known that 58.3% of respondents have never held office and 41.7% currently hold office. 45.8% of respondents’ education was a bachelor’s degree. The work period of 41.7% of respondents was >20 years. 54.2% of respondents received Rp. 6,000,001–Rp. 9,000,000 and only 1 respondent received >Rp 9,000,000. Most respondents have 1–2 dependents (41.7%). This shows that education staff are very loyal because they have worked for a long time with adequate income (above the average minimum wage).

Table II. Structural Position, Education, Years of Service, Salary, and Family Dependents of Respondent

No	Demographic characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
1	Structural position
	Served/Currently serving	10	41.7
	Never served	14	58.3
2	Education
	High school	6	25
	Diploma	1	4.2
	Bachelor	11	45.8
	Master	6	25
3	Years of service
	1–5 years	3	12.5
	>5–10 years	4	16.7
	>10–15 years	5	20.8
	>15–20 years	2	8.3
	>20 years	10	41.7
4	Salary
	Rp. 3.000.000–Rp. 6.000.000	10	41.7
	Rp. 6.000.001–Rp. 9.000.000	13	54.2
	>Rp. 9.000.000	1	4.2
5	Family dependents
	There isn’t any	5	20.8
	1–2	10	41.7
	3–4	8	33.3
	>4	1	4.2
	Total	24	100

Respondents’ perceptions of the job satisfaction variables are as presented in Tables III–VIII.

Table III. Respondents’ Perceptions of Supervision

Statement	Mean	SD
Superiors protect educational staff	4.08	0.830
Superiors provide a clear directions	4.25	0.794
Supervisors listen to staff input	4	0.885
Superiors support socialization between co-workers	4.21	0.779
The top provides a sense of comfort	4.33	0.816
The superior informs the educational staff about the results they have carried out	4.12	0.741
My boss thanks me if I work well	4.13	0.947
Employee complaints are always responded to by superiors	4.04	0.999
Personal relationship between superiors and educational staff	4	0.933
Supervision	4.12	0.762

Table IV. Respondents’ Perceptions of Pay

Statement	Mean	SD
Payday on time	4.21	0.833
The salary is sufficient for daily needs	3.87	0.680
The leader determines the salary according to the job	3.88	0.797
The extra work gets extra incentives	4.17	0.761
Providing holiday allowances (THR) according to length of service	4.21	0.588
Health benefits are in accordance with regulations	4	0.780
The recreational program held are useful	4.33	0.761
The policy of old age benefits will be useful	4.21	0.932
Annual bonuses is useful	4.25	0.794
Pay	4.12	0.569

Table V. Respondents’ Perceptions of Promotion Opportunities

Statement	Mean	SD
Performance appraisal results determine promotion opportunities	4.12	0.612
Promotion rules are clear	3.88	0.850
Promotion period rules are clear	3.83	0.963
Every educational staff has the opportunity to be promoted	4	0.885
Implementation of socialization of promotional policies implemented is appropriate	3.92	0.776
Opportunity to participate in job promotions	4	0.780
Promotion opportunities for all education staff with the principle of justice	3.83	1.007
Opportunity to develop career based on working conditions	4.08	0.830
The study program administration policies and governance are well planned	4.21	0.658
Promotion opportunities	3.99	0.731

Table VI. Perceptions of Co-Worker Respondents

Statement	Mean	SD
Good adapt to co-workers	4.42	0.584
Collaborate to achieve targets with colleagues	4.54	0.509
Comfortable working with colleagues	4.33	0.565
Socializing with coers builds good relationships	4.46	0.509
Socializing with coers supports productivity	4.46	0.588
Work coordination requires the closeness of co-workers	4.29	0.464
Help colleagues who have problems with work	4.46	0.509
The competence and skills of colleagues will support the work	4.38	0.495
Division of work group tasks according to education and skills	4.21	0.415
Co-worker	4.39	0.365

Table VII. Respondents’ Perceptions of Join Itself

Statement	Mean	SD
Creativity needs to be present in my work	4.25	0.608
Innovative ideas are needed to complete tasks	4.38	0.495
Opportunity to do independent work	3.83	0.868
Responsible work plans	4.04	0.859
Decisions are made by yourself	3.33	1.049
There are many challenges in carrying out tasks	4	0.780
There is variety in my work	4.08	0.654
Monotonous work routine	4.04	0.625
My work material meets expectations	4.04	0.624
Job itself	4	0.544

Table VIII. Respondents’ Perceptions of Employee Performance

Statement	Mean	SD
I work according to organizational regulations and procedures	4.33	0.482
My work results are reliable	4.29	0.550
My work is trustworthy	4.33	0.565
I produce high quality work	4.33	0.482
I am very strict about doing the job right	4.46	0.509
Employee performance	4.35	0.454

Table III shows that the statement, “My boss thanks me if I work well,” received the highest perception rating from respondents regarding supervision. Meanwhile, the lowest average score perceived by respondents was for the statement “Personal relationship between superiors and educational staff.” The researcher also added two open questions to deepen and enrich the research results. The first question is “How is your supervisor carrying out your work supervision?” Most respondents stated that work supervision carried out by superiors was going well, with superiors always ready to help, provide direction according to the field of work, and willing to monitor directly. Apart from that, work monitoring is carried out via the Information System, weekly meetings, leadership meetings, regular performance assessments via DP3, and open communication between superiors and subordinates. The hope for even better results is that superiors can define tasks and responsibilities clearly, assignments can be tailored to skills, and effective and measurable supervision so that performance can be assessed objectively so that they become more enthusiastic about providing work results that meet superiors’ expectations.

On the question, “How is the follow-up to the results of work supervision that has been carried out?” the majority of respondents indicated that the follow-up had gone well. Superiors were willing to monitor directly, provide input or revisions to the work of educational staff, and give direction. The hope is that the follow-up to the results of work supervision that has been carried out can run even better; if violations are found, they will be summoned/reprimanded for clarification first, given sanctions according to applicable regulations, if necessary immediately replaced by another official, provide aspirations in forms of bonuses such as holiday allowances, 17 August, anniversary, end of year, improving skills and training are recommended based on educational staff performance evaluations, as well as documenting detailed monitoring results including positive notes and recommendations for improvement.

In general, respondents perceive pay very well (Table IV). Respondents’ perception was highest on “The recreation program provided is useful.” Meanwhile, the lowest perceived by respondents was “Salary is sufficient for daily needs.” Open-ended questions to deepen and enrich the results: How is the current salary and allowance system arranged? position allowances; however, no allowances have been given to honorary employees/Dean’s Decree, attendance transportation is too tight, and they should consider the condition of the road to the workplace so that transportation deductions are more appropriate. Hopes for better results require attention to basic salaries: basic salary, educational allowances, allowances: academic positions, structural positions, functional positions, academic supervisors, research, assistance: housing, transport, facilities, food allowance, increased welfare, expensiveness, Deductions: pension funds, BPJS labor, BPJS health, BPJS pension, cooperatives, inhealth insurance, and additional: salary report, transport report, meal allowance, honorarium and others as well as rounding off-net salary.

The question, "Do you think the salary and allowances currently received are in accordance with the position and work carried out?" was understood by the respondents to mean that the salaries and allowances they received were in accordance with the decree where salaries were already regulated, and there were always increases within certain periods. However, these were not necessarily in accordance with the workload each person carried out. Some respondents stated that if they look at the current situation and conditions, especially for those who are not permanent employees, salaries and income must be increased because needs are increasing.

Respondents perceive promotion opportunities well (Table V). The highest perception of respondents was regarding “The study program administration policies and governance have been well planned.” Meanwhile, the lowest perception among respondents was for the statement, “Promotion opportunities for all education staff with the principle of justice.” On the open question regarding promotion opportunities, "What is the basis for education staff getting promotions so far?" respondents generally understood that the basis for promotions included assessments of good performance, competence, experience, ability to work well with colleagues, improved skills, discipline, politeness, loyalty, and creativity. Unfortunately, many employees do not receive enough attention to become permanent employees. The hope that job promotions can take place better is by providing more open information regarding job vacancies available at what level, requirements for occupying these positions, and better DP3 assessments.

On the question, “Do the current promotions provide equal opportunities in accordance with the principles of justice?”, several respondents stated that the promotions provided equal opportunities in accordance with justice and existing criteria (education, rank/class). However, several other respondents stated that it was not or was not in accordance with the principles of justice because many employees received little attention and always found it difficult to get promoted, lack of clarity in terms of employment decisions, limited formation with the number of educational staff with different statuses.

Respondents perceive colleagues very well (Table VI). The highest perception of respondents was for the statement “Collaborating to achieve targets with colleagues,” while the lowest perception of respondents was for “Division of work group tasks according to education and skills.” Two open questions to deepen and enrich research results were asked. The first one was "What is the working relationship with co-workers to complete the work carried out?" In general, it can be said that there are good relationships between sections/units/prodi of Campus A, F, and Sentul where relationships with colleagues in completing work run well. Each of them supports and helps each other, respects the performance time of colleagues, maintains good communication, has good coordination in completing work, is willing to listen to complaints, and is ready to learn from each other to achieve the same goal. However, among colleagues, there are some who are suitable to collaborate with and some who are not.

The second question was "Is the division of work carried out in accordance with the job description?" In general, the respondents’ answers showed that the division of work was in accordance with the job description, the workload was appropriate, and if there were co-workers who were still unable to carry out their duties and/or were overloaded, they sometimes received help from other educational staff. However, there is a lot of work outside the job desk, and soon, there will be a part that will have to be regenerated due to age problems (retirement).

Respondents perceive job itself well (Table VII). Respondents’ perceptions were highest for the statement “My tasks require innovative ideas to be completed.” Meanwhile, the lowest perceived by respondents was for “I can make my own decisions.” Open questions were added to deepen and enrich the research results. The first question was "Is your current job interesting and challenging?" In general, most respondents stated that it was very challenging and interesting because there were student targets that had to be met, required good coordination with the team, had to be focused, concentrated, and had to be ready to work outside working hours. Apart from that, the work is related to outside agencies, so you meet different people/guests every day, and you have to understand the conditions/behavior of these guests. However, administrative work sometimes becomes difficult due to the Student Information System (SIS).

Another question was “Does your current job position feel right?” In general, respondents stated that the current job description is appropriate because they enjoy interacting with people (students), and according to their educational background, they feel comfortable with what they do in accordance with their position and competencies. However, they would not refuse an opportunity to engage in work that can further increase their knowledge and competence.

In general, respondents perceived performance very well (Table VIII). Respondents’ perception of performance was highest for the statement “I am very strict about doing my job properly.” The lowest perceived by respondents for the statement “The results of my work are reliable.”

The results of the validity test for this research indicate that all research indicators are valid as they meet the Factor Loading requirements, and are higher than 0.5. Likewise, the reliability test results of all research variables are reliable because the Cronbach’s Alpha value is higher than 0.7. Figs. 1 and 2 show the results which contain information about the estimation of structural equations or equations from the inner model and cause and effect relationships or the influence of a latent variable on other latent variables.

Fig. 1. Beta coefficient. Source: Processing results with PLS 2.0.

Fig. 2. T statistics. Source: Processing results with PLS 2.0.

The results of hypothesis testing from the research model are as shown in Table IX. Based on these results, it is known that jobsatisfaction has a positive and significant effect on theperformance of educational staff, with a T statistics value of 2.645 and p-value of 0.008<0.05, which means that the hypothesis is supported. The influence of working conditions on mental health is 0.511.

Table IX. Hypothesis Testing

Hypothesis	Beta	T statistics	P-value	Decision
Job satisfaction → Employee performance	0.511	2.645	0.008	Supported

These findings support theory and previous research, including those from Eliyanaet al. (2019), Bharadwajet al. (2021), and Seemaet al. (2021). The effect of job satisfaction on the performance of educational staff is positive and significant. This means that the higher/positive the job satisfaction, the higher/positive the performance, meaning that the more the respondent feels comfortable working with superiors, the recreational programs provided are useful, the administrative policies and governance are well planned, the spirit of cooperation with colleagues to achieve targets and tasks requires innovative ideas in solving it; the more respondents feel they can work according to organizational regulations and procedures, produce high-quality work results, and are very strict in doing their work correctly.

Conclusion

The conclusions from this research are as follows:

1. The level of satisfaction of educational staff in the Master of Management Study Program, Faculty of Economics and Business—Universitas Trisakti is in the good category, with an average score of 4.124. Of the five dimensions of job satisfaction, co-worker has the highest (average of 4.39), and the lowest is the promotion opportunities dimension (average of 3.99). Compared with the study of Nilasariet al. (2023), there was an increase. The results of last year’s research conducted by Nilasariet al. (2023) showed that the highest dimension was co-worker, with an average of 4.36, and the lowest was the promotion opportunities dimension, with an average of 3.63. Co-workers remain the highest, and the lowest is still the same, namely the promotion opportunities dimension.
2. Factors that influence educational staff job satisfaction in the Master of Management Study Program, Faculty of Economics and Business—Universitas Trisakti (starting from the highest–lowest) are: 1) co-workers; 2) supervision; 3) pay; 4) job itself; 5) promotion opportunities. These results are still the same as the results of the research by Nilasariet al. (2023).
3. The factor in educational staff satisfaction that is not optimal is promotion opportunities, which falls into the 'good' category with an average rating of 3.99. Meanwhile, factors in the very good category are co-worker (4.39), supervision (4.12), pay (4.12), and job itself (4). The results of this year’s research have increased from the previous year’s research, which was also conducted by Nilasariet al. (2023). The results of research in 2023 show that three dimensions of educational staff job satisfaction that are not yet optimal are pay, job itself, and promotion opportunities, all three of which are in the good category (average 3.78, 3.71, and 3.63). Meanwhile, the only ones in the very good category are co-workers and supervision (4.36 and 4.07).
4. There is an influence of educational staff job satisfaction on educational staff performance meaning that employee satisfaction with attitudes and behavior will increase employee achievement in accordance with established work standards.

Recommendation

Recommendations to the faculty/study program leaders are as follows:

1. In the case of promotion opportunities, faculties/ study programs need to update regulations regarding promotions and determine clear promotion time periods. Then, the promotion policy outreach will be carried out so that all educational staff can be clearly informed. Faculties are also expected to act fairly in providing promotion opportunities for all students.
2. In the case of job itself, faculties/study programs need to provide opportunities for educational staff to carry out work without the help of others and give them the freedom to make decisions as long as they comply with applicable regulations.
3. In terms of pay, faculties/study programs need to establish policies in determining salaries that are appropriate to the educational staff’s workload and provide salaries that are sufficient for the educational staff’s daily needs.
4. In terms of supervision, faculties/study programs need to direct the managerial level to accommodate staff aspirations and improve personal relationships with staff. This personal relationship between superiors and subordinates can be carried out by providing leadership/team building training up to the managerial level through in-house training or outbound training.
5. In the case of co-workers, faculties/study programs need to remap the educational staff profiles so that they can assign educational staff to work groups that are in accordance with their education and skills.