1. Introduction

The important factor in achieving an organization's success lies in servants who can act in excess of their general duties, exceeding the performance estimation. The uniqueness of the characteristics of human resources owned by institutions, such as individual differences, the level of knowledge, skills, qualifications, as well as the others, even the background of individual life will influence the attitudes and behavior of servants towards work demonstrated through servant’s commitment to the organization and the level of satisfaction work as well as the creation of a high work. Servants who have high competence will make a major contribution to the organization, but sometimes they prefer to work alone (individualistic) because of the desire for self-gratification, so they tend to be more satisfied with the results of personal work. While job satisfaction is a general attitude of servants towards work and is tied directly to individual needs, including relationships with colleagues, superiors and work environment that support them ^[1].

Servant’s tendency to work individually due to various factors. One is leadership, not like being told and they are only willing to act according to their wishes. Most servants need more opportunities to steer themselves, and less like the system of command and supervision. These conditions contrast with the era of regional autonomy, that they are more focused on how to display the identity (fame) as a form of personal satisfaction, so sometimes the commitment to develop the organization becomes very low. Making how to find the leaders who have the appropriate leadership style to the expected servants is urgently needed ^[2].

Organizations need servants who are able to work better and faster so it requires servants whom have high job performance ^[3]. The important factor that determines servant’s performance and organizational ability is leadership ^{[4, 5, 6]}. Leadership describes the relationship between the leader and the led. How does a leader directing follower will determine the extent to which the follower achieving objectives or expectations of leader ^{[5, 6]}.

In the reform era, as now, the leaders are expected to bring changes to the organization they lead. Because without strong leadership, the organization may not be able to make changes well in accordance with the existing demands ^[7]. Leadership style possessed by a leader includes the ability to influence and inspire ways of thinking, acting and behaving of its members in order to improve their performance. A leader does not just affect a subordinate, but as a central point which determines the direction of travel of the organization in relation to a variety of possible changes in the organization's environment ^[8].

There are five factors that affect performance, namely: (1). Personal factors, indicated by the level of skill of their competence, motivation and individual commitment. (2). Leadership factors, determined by the quality of encouragement, guidance, and support that made the manager and team leader. (3). Team factors, demonstrated by the quality of support provided by colleagues. (4). System factors, shown by the work system and facilities provided by the organization. (5). Contextual / situational factors, demonstrated by the high levels of pressure and internal and external environmental changes ^[9].

Individual performance which affects how much servant’s contribution to the organization include: Quality and quantity, output, cooperative attitude, long period of time and attendance at the workplace ^[10]. Analysis of the performance of public bureaucracy becomes very important. Information on the performance of the apparatus and the factors that affect the performance of the apparatus involved is very important to be known, so that the performance measurement apparatus should be interpreted as an evaluation exercise to assess or see the success and failure of implementation of tasks and functions charged. Therefore, it can be said that the performance evaluation is an analysis of the successes and failures interpretation achievement of the performance ^[11]. The performance assessment is a process that begins with a series of performance management of all planning work performance form servants Job Target, benchmarking covering the aspects of quantity, quality, period, and cost of each activity of office tasks. Implementation of the assessment is carried out by comparing the work with the realization of the set targets. An analysis was conducted on barriers execution of work to get feedback and to develop recommendations for improvement and determination of the valuation ^[12].

Leadership styles that can assist management in making changes are transformational leadership. Transformational leadership significantly affects the assessment of followers to make changes. While transactional leadership has no real influence on the assessment of followers to make changes ^[13]. The findings are consistent with results of studies that provide evidence that transformational leadership has positive and significant impact on the perceived organizational resiliency ^[14]. Antecedent analyzes empirical evidence shows that the performance variable of job satisfaction proved to be a variable antecedent of job performance ^[15].

There are many factors underlying the high and the low of individual performance, one of which the most important is job satisfaction. The statement is very logical, assuming that job satisfaction is a major determinant of servant’s performance. Servants who feel that high job satisfaction can explain the organization positively, helping colleagues, and make their performance beyond the normal approximation. Moreover, servants who are satisfied are having the high levels of adherence to the call of duty. Moreover, they even want to repeat their positive experience of work that has been done ^[16]. There are two reasons why job satisfaction is important in the organization: first the fact of the strong correlation between job satisfaction and absence, as well as between job satisfaction and the turnover. Servants who are satisfied have a high commitment to organization, having positive nature of the job and the organization. By getting high job satisfaction, servants will work harder in carrying out their work. Conversely when the servant is not satisfied then the servant does not have the spirit to work, they are easy to give up, and having difficulty in completing the work will contribute in lower performance ^[17].

Previous researchers show that affective commitment of supervisors and school principals have a significant impact on job satisfaction ^[18]. The same evidence demonstrated that organizational commitment directly affects job satisfaction ^[19]. Such findings acquire denial that organizational commitment has a negative correlation with job satisfaction ^[20]. Identification of the servant's performance demonstrated there are servants who come late, breaks early, more frolic, lack of infrastructure, had come home earlier, some do not understand the job description and the lack of direction from the head that affect the results of their work. Moreover, some of the works cannot be resolved on time and the public services are not maximum.

2. Literature Review

Leadership as a process to persuade others towards a common goal. The statement may be, described by; (1) Leadership is a concept of relation. Leadership exists only in the relationship with the followers and (2) Leadership is a process, (3) the leadership has to persuade members of the organization to take action ^[21]. Conceptually, transformational leadership is defined, the leader's ability to change the work environment, motivation, and work patterns, and the values of work perceived subordinates that they are better able to optimize performance to achieve organizational goals. A transformational process occurs in relation subordinate leadership in building awareness of the importance of work values, expand and increase the need goes beyond personal interests and to encourage changes in the direction of mutual interest, including the interests of the organization ^[22].

The initial concept of transformational leadership has been formulated from a descriptive study of the political leaders. Transformational leadership as a process, leaders and followers to rise to the level of morality and motivation in which are higher, such as freedom, justice, and humanity, and not based upon emotions, such as greed, jealousy or hatred ^[23]. Model of transformational leadership is a model that is relatively new in the study of leadership that the model of transformational leadership is essentially emphasizes the leader's need to motivate subordinates to perform their responsibilities more than they are expected. The transformational leader must be able to define, communicate and articulate the organization's vision, and subordinates should accept and acknowledge the credibility of its leaders ^[23].

The dynamic of transformational leadership involve strong personal identification with the leader, joining in a shared vision of the future, or going beyond the self-interest exchange of rewards for compliance. Transformational leader is a charismatic figure and has a strategic role in bringing the organization ^[24]. Transformational leaders have to have the ability to match the vision of the future with their subordinates, and heightening the need of subordinates from what they need. The transformational leader must be able to persuade their subordinates to carry out the duties exceed their own interests for the sake of a larger organization. Development of the concept of leadership (transformational and transactional) is based on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The physiological and safety the need can only be met through the practice of transformational leadership ^[23].

Between leaders and subordinates take place a common perception so that they can optimize the effort toward the goals of the organization. In this way, it is expected would grow trust, pride, commitment, respect, and loyalty to superiors so that they can optimize their business and better performance than usual. In summary, transformational leaders seek to transforming of the visionary becomes subordinate plus a shared vision so that leaders can work to realize the vision into reality. In other words, the process can be seen through a number of transformational leadership behaviours demonstrated by "The Four I's" ^[22], namely; ((1) Influence idealized, is the behavior of a leader who makes their followers to admire, respect and as well as believing it. Charisma is a process of influencing the subordinate to pose strong emotions ^[25]. Charismatic leadership relates to the reaction of subordinate to the leader and the leader's behavior. Leader becomes a model in which s/he is, trusted, respected, and has a clear vision and mission. Leaders set high standards and challenging goals for subordinates ^{[22, 25]}, (2) Inspirational Motivation, transformational leaders are described as a leader who is able to articulate clear expectations of achievement of subordinates, demonstrating a commitment to the whole purpose of the organization, and is able to arouse team spirit within the organization through the growth enthusiasm and optimism ^[22], (3) Intellectual Stimulation. Transformational leader is able to foster new ideas, providing creative solutions to the problems faced by subordinates, and encourage them to look for new approaches in carrying out organizational tasks. Intellectual stimulus is leader's effort to raise awareness of subordinate to issues and influencing subordinates to look at the issues through a new perspective ^[25], (4) Individual Consideration. Transformational leader is a leader who will listen the opinion of subordinates attentively. Individual attention is the way in which a leader gains power by acting as counsellor, providing individual attention and personal support to his subordinates ^{[22, 25, 26]}.

Organizational commitment refers to an individual's feelings about the organization. Organizational commitment is defined as the relative strength of the individual in identifying integrating themselves into parts of the organization. Organizational commitment can sometimes also not associate with job satisfaction. A lecturer can be satisfied in teaching, but s/he was not satisfied with the place where s/he was teaching, so it is possible to look for another place to teach ^[27].

Some of the factors that determine servant’s commitment to the organization, among others ^[28], include three factors: the desire (desire to stay), continuity (need cost of living) and Normative (obligation to stay). Measurement of organizational commitment expressed ^[29], that the servant’s commitment to the organization has three main factors, namely: (1) identification of the individual to the organization, which is manifested in the form of trust in the organization who can modify the purpose of the organization, to include some personal goals, or in other words also include the organization's needs and desires of servants in the organization's goals, which makes the atmosphere of mutual support among the servants in the organization, (2) Involvement; or the servant’s participation in work activities are very important in fostering servant’s commitment. The involvement of servants causing them willing and happy to cooperate, both with superiors and fellow co-workers, and (3) Loyalty of servants in the organization has the meaning of a person's willingness to put the interests of the organization, if necessary at the expense of their interests without expecting any reward. The willingness of servants to maintain its presence in the organization is important in the effort to support servant’s commitment to the organization. This can be pursued if servants feel the lack of security and a conducive situation in the organization in which they worked. Based on these conceptions, it is the organization's commitment in this paper is a form of confidence in the organization and being involved in various activities of the organization are more concerned with the interests, goals and values of the organization.

Job satisfaction refers to the general attitude of individuals towards work, so that a person with a high level of job satisfaction will show a positive attitude towards work. Conversely, if a person is not satisfied with the work, they will show negative attitudes ^[1]. Job satisfaction concerning some key points: (1) job satisfaction cannot be seen, but can only be suspected its existence because job satisfaction concerning the issue of emotion or response from workers from work situations encountered, (2) job satisfaction regarding the suitability of work results obtained with the expectations of the workers, and (3) job satisfaction is closely related to the issue; the work itself, promotion, salary, supervision and co-workers. Job satisfaction is very dependent on the difference between expectations and reality felt by workers to their work, including the work environment. A worker would be satisfied if his hopes on jobs including working environment materialize ^[30].

Some of the factors that influence job satisfaction are: (1) the work that is mentally challenging. Servants tend to prefer jobs that provide opportunities to use their skills and abilities. When these characteristics can be realized, then the subordinate would feel proud and satisfied with their jobs, (2) the rewards that are commensurate. Servant wants a fair payment system and promotion policy, unambiguous, and in accordance with their expectations. When payment is deemed fair by the demands of work, the level of individual skills and payment standards community, then the satisfaction will potentially arise. Servants will be looking for fair policies and promotion. Promotion provides an opportunity for personal growth, increased responsibility, and a rise in social status. If individuals who consider the decision a promotion within the organization or company is made openly and fairly, so they are likely to achieve satisfaction in their work, (3) Supportive working conditions. Servant concerns with their work environment both for personal comfort as well as to facilitate good performance. Servant prefers a good physical condition which is not dangerous, (4) Supporting Partners. For most servants, the work will also meet the needs of their social interaction. Therefore partners who are friendly and supportive will encourage job satisfaction. Supervisor's behavior is also a determinant of job satisfaction ^[31].

Performance means what has been produced by individuals. Another term that is human output which can be measured by productivity, absence, turnover, citizenship, and satisfaction ^[32]. Individual performance can also be called by job performance, work outcome, task performance ^[33]. Performance is an action, not events. Performance depends on a combination of ability, effort and opportunity gained. This means that the performance is the result of servant’s working in the works for a certain period of time and its emphasis on the work of servants who completed within a certain time period ^[34]. The level of a servant's performance and achievements of the measurement can be seen through some of the factors of achievement; (1) the quality of work. Assessment to the ability to complete the job compared with predetermined targets, (2) The quantity of work, assessment of servants on the ability to complete tasks accurately fit the quality of the work planned, and (3) Timeliness, assessment of servant’s on the ability to complete tasks and work closely according to the time that has been given and planned ^[35].

3. Methodology

This research is an explanatory research. The population in this study was servants at the regional work units, Makassar, South Sulawesi Province. Sampling is done by using Proportional Stratified Random Sampling ^[36], in order to obtain a sample size of 197 servants with a questionnaire return rate 88%.

4. Variables Analysis

Transformational leadership in this study was measured by four indicators covering professionalism; Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation and Individualized Consideration (₁₁ = 4.02 - factor loadings (FL) = 0.74; ₁₂ = 3.77- FL = 0.65; ₁₃ = 3.98 - FL = 0.67; ₁₄ = 4.16 - FL = 0.89). Respondents characterized by Individual Consideration (Influence individual with the highest mean value of 4.16 compared to three (3) measurement of other transformational leadership. It can be explained that in general respondents stated strongly agree on a leader who are willing to listen to the inputs in particular subordinates and willing to pay attention subordinate to the career development needs. The individual attention is a leader means used to obtain power by acting as counsellor, providing individual attention and personal support to the subordinates. Lowest contribution addressed to indicator Inspirational Motivation that the leader is not optimal in articulating a clear expectation of the achievements of subordinates, demonstrating commitment to the whole purpose of the organization, and was not able to inspire team spirit within the organization through the growth of enthusiasm and optimism with a mean value of 3.77.

Organizational commitment has three indicators of measurement; Identification of individuals to organizations, servant’s involvement and servant’s loyalty (Y₁₁ = 3.51 - factor loadings (FL) = 0.71; Y₁₂ = 3.76 - FL = 0.82; Y₁₃ = 4.02 - FL = 0.84). Response of respondents to variable organizational commitment seen through servant’s loyalty at the highest mean value of 4.02 compared to two (2) measurement of other organizational commitment. It can be explained that in general, respondents stated strongly agree to the servant's willingness to put the interests of their organization. The willingness of servants to maintain its presence in the organization is important in the effort to support servant’s commitment to the organization. This can be pursued when servants feel secure and having conducive situation in the organization. Low contribution shown in the indicator identification of the individual to the organization, manifested in the form of trust in the organization which can modify the purpose of the organization, so as to include some personal goals of servants with a mean value of 3.51. The condition was explained that the desire of servant has not fully met.

Satisfaction is measured through indicators that are mentally challenging work, rewards in kind, supportive working conditions and Supporting Partners (Y₂₁ = 4.11, factor loadings (FL) = 0.66; Y₂₂ = 3.11 - FL = 0.62; Y₂₃ = 4.22 - FL = 0.79; Y₂₄= 4.08 - FL= 0.64). Respondents to the job satisfaction demonstrated through supportive working conditions with the highest average value of 4.22, compared to the other measurement of job satisfaction. The servants care about their work environment for personal comfort as well as to facilitate the creation of high performance, it is because of servants prefer the conditions that are physically safe and comfortable.

Lowest indicator variable in explaining job satisfaction is shown on the indicator rewards in kind to the value of the average response of 3.11. The low response to administration of servants reward deserving servants caused by the desire to obtain a good payment system has not been implemented. The condition was evidenced by the process of granting promotion policies and practices that are still lacking.

The performance of servants are represented by the work quality, quantity and timeliness of work of servants in work (Z₁₁ = 4.05 - FL = 0.64; Z₁₂ = 4.24 - FL = 0.75; Z₁₃ = 4.16 - FL = 0.73). Based on the respondents, quantity of work is the highest indicator variable in explaining the performance of servants, with mean value of respondents. 4.24. Servant has the ability to complete tasks accurately match the quality of the work specified. Lowest indicator variable in explaining the performance of servant is shown in the work quality indicators with a mean value of 3.21 responses. The low response to the quality of work of servants resulting from servants whom have not had sufficient skills and knowledge to work resulting in of the realization is not achieving the employment targets.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the research instruments

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View next table

5. Variables Result

The test results show that the model of the eight criteria for goodness of fit index structural model was constructed to estimate the parameters in accordance with the data of observation. Overall criteria had already qualified minimum threshold (cut-off point) required, such as the value of Chi-square (DF = 445) with Cut-off Value = 312 442 < 495 181, Probability = 0.087 ≥ 0.05, RMSEA = 0.049 ≤ 0, 08, CMIN / DF = 1.121 ≤ 2.00, GFI = 0.941 ≥ 0.90, AGFI = 0.922 ≥ 0.90, CFI = 0.991 ≥ 0.95, TLI = 0.988 ≥ 0.95 (Fit indices for structural equation modeling).

Referring to the principle of parsimony ^[37], that if there are one or two goodness of fit criteria that have met the expected value, then the model can already be said to be good or the development of conceptual models and theoretical hypotheses can be said to be supported by empirical data. Referring to the table, it is shown that the value of Chi-Square = 312 442 with a value of degree of freedom = 445 and a probability of 0.087. Chi-Square results indicate that the null hypothesis that the same models with empirical data received, which means the model is fit or are in accordance with the results of observation so as to allow for the analysis of structural relationships and testing hypotheses.

The influence of transformational leadership on organizational commitment of servants can be evidenced by the value of the standardized regression weight estimate of 0.423 with a positive direction. A positive sign means that good transformational leadership tends to increase organizational commitment of servants. Then it can be proven with the value of the critical ratio = 2.016 > 2.00 and a probability value of 0.021 < α = 0.05. The test results prove the hypothesis that transformational leadership and significant have positive effect on organizational commitment of servants. It can be concluded that the change of transformational leadership in the right direction is significant to increase organizational commitment of servants. So the hypothesis, transformational leadership has significant positive effect on organizational commitment and it can be accepted or supported by empirical facts. The results are consistent with the theory of organizational commitment ^[28], that a servant who has committed will work with dedication, making servants have a desire to give power and responsibility to support the welfare and success of the organization. The findings of the study support the findings of previous researchers, that transformational leadership has a significant relationship with organizational commitment [38-44]^[38].

The influence of transformational leadership on servant’s satisfaction can be evidenced by the value of the standardized regression weight estimate of 0.457 with a positive direction. A positive sign means transformational leadership is good and directly tends to improve servant’s satisfaction. Then it can also be evidenced by the value of the critical ratio = 3.625 > 2.00 and a probability value of 0.000 < α = 0.05. Hypothesis testing results prove that transformational leadership has positively and significantly increased the servant's satisfaction. It was concluded that the change of transformational leadership in positive direction is significant to increase the performance of servants. Thus, hypothesis proposed in this study is transformational leadership has positive and significant impact on servant’s satisfaction can accept or can be supported by empirical facts. This study supports previous research findings, that the transformational leadership has a significant effect on job satisfaction ^[45]. Then reject the findings proving that transformational leadership is not significant to influence the job satisfaction ^[46].

Transformational leadership influence on servant’s performance can be evidenced by the value of the standardized regression weight estimate of 0.126 with a positive direction. A positive sign means a good transformational leadership tends to increase servant’s performance towards high. It can also be evidenced by the value of the critical ratio = 0.742 > 2.00 and a probability value of 0.276 < α = 0.05. The test results prove that the hypothesis of transformational leadership has a positive effect but not significant on performance improvement. That is transformational leadership change in a good direction has a positive and not significant effect on the increase in servant’s performance. The hypothesis proposed in this study, transformational leadership has positively affected and has no significant effect on servant’s performance. It cannot be accepted or supported by empirical facts. Results of this study reject the findings of previous studies that transformational leadership has significant influence on individual performance ^{[42, 44]}.

The influence of organizational commitment to servant’s performance can be evidenced by the value of the standardized regression weight estimate of 0.923 with a positive direction. A positive sign means that the high organizational commitment tends to increase the performance. Then it can be proven with the value of the critical ratio = 3.412 > 2.00 and a probability value of 0.008 < α = 0.05. The test results prove that organizational commitment has high positive and significant impact on performance. It can be explained that the increase organizational commitment of servants which are high in the positive direction and significant effect on improving the performance of servants. Thus the hypothesis, organizational commitment which has positive and significant impact on performance can be accepted or supported by empirical facts.

This study supports the research findings, that organizational commitment is owned by servants is the key determinant of achievement of servant’s performance and organizational performance. The higher the organizational commitment of servants, the higher the performance of servants, meaning that organizational commitment is significantly influence servant’s performance ^{[42, 43, 44]}.

The influence of job satisfaction on servant’s performance can be evidenced by the value of the standardized regression weight estimate of 0.881 with a positive direction. A positive sign means that high job satisfaction tends to improve servant’s performance. Then it can be proven with the value of the critical ratio = 2.628 > 2.00 and a probability value of 0.012 < α = 0.05. The test results prove that high job satisfaction has positive and significant effect on servant’s performance. It can be explained that the increase in servant’s satisfaction in the positive direction has significant effect on improving the performance of servants. Thus the hypothesis: job satisfaction has positive and significant impact on servant’s performance can be supported by empirical facts. It is consistent with results of previous studies ^{[47, 48]}, that the job satisfaction is significantly influence the performance of the individual.

Results of testing evaluation variables of transformational leadership on servant’s performance that involves mediating variables organizational commitment demonstrated that organizational commitment significantly influenced transformational leadership and organizational commitment. It significantly affects the performance of servants. Transformational leadership is significant on servant’s performance. Data processing results show that the value of the path coefficient (a) transformational leadership on organizational commitment (b) organizational commitment to servant’s performance significantly (c) transformational leadership on servant’s performance is not significant. Then the position of organizational commitment variables in the research model is referred to as perfect mediating variable = 0.418 (complete mediation). That is the effect of transformational leadership directly did not significantly affect servant’s performance improvement. But transformational leadership affects the servant’s performance when supported by a high organizational commitment.

Based on the results of the examination, there is ample empirical evidence that transformational leadership significantly influence servant’s performance. Organizational commitment significantly affects servant’s performance. But direct transformational leadership did not significantly affect servant’s performance. The results support previous studies, the superior commitment as a mediator in explaining the relationship between transformational leadership with the individual performance. Then endorse the findings of previous research that organizational commitment as a perfect mediator in explaining the influence of transformational leadership on individual performance ^{[42, 44]}.

Transformational leadership directly has no significant effect on the performance. While job satisfaction is significantly influenced by transformational leadership. Job satisfaction significantly affects servant’s performance. The value of the path coefficient (b) of transformational leadership on job satisfaction (c) job satisfaction to servant’s performance is significant (a) transformational leadership on servant’s performance is not significant, then the position of job satisfaction can be said as complete mediating variables = 0.331.

Based on the results of the investigation, there is enough empirical evidence that transformational leadership significantly influence servant’s performance. It means that job satisfaction is significantly influenced transformational leadership. Job satisfaction significantly affects servant’s performance. Transformational leadership directly did not significantly affect servant’s performance. The results support previous studies that analyze the influence of transformational leadership on servant’s performance through job satisfaction ^{[49, 50]}.

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

In practice, a good transformational leadership has not been able to improve servant’s performance. The servant’s performance can only be improved if supported by high organizational commitment and job satisfaction. The condition is due to the leaders have not been able to articulate clear expectations to the achievement of subordinates, demonstrating the commitment to the whole purpose of the organization and the implementation has not been able to arouse the spirit of the team to enhance the enthusiasm and optimism of servants. It deals with the low ability of servants in completing the work when compared with the set targets of the organization. That the work of servant is not in accordance with the standards of the completion of desired work organization.

Organizational commitment and job satisfaction act as complete mediation in explaining the effect of transformational leadership on servant’s performance, the evidence is due to the high rate of servant’s loyalty and support of high working condition. This has an impact on the quantity of servants that servants can carry out a good job although facing the high demands of work completion. This study provides an understanding about transformational leadership, organizational commitment and job satisfaction to produce the performance benefits of servants. This study provides recommendations to the next researcher to highlight the transformational leadership in improving organizational commitment, job performance and servant’s performance by using the contextual variables. High transformational leadership which is obtained by increasing the self-esteem of servants for the execution of specific tasks (i.e., self-efficacy) and self-esteem specific organizations (i.e., self-based organizations) ^[51], the research effort will enclose a clear framework for the effects of transformational leadership on individual performance.

References

[1]	Robbins, S. P. (2006). Perilaku organisasi, Edisi kesepuluh (edisi bahasa Indonesia) Prentice Hall International, Jakarta. PT. Indeks
	In article
[2]	Sangkala. (2002). “The superLeadership” gaya Kepemimpinan di era bisnis yang hiperkompetisi, Usahawan No. 11 TH XXXI November. 2-6.
	In article
[3]	Douglas, J. (1996). Building performance and its relevance to facilities management. Facilities, 14(3/4), 23-32.
	In article		View Article
[4]	Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 207.
	In article		View Article  PubMed
[5]	Locander, W. B., Hamilton, F., Ladik, D., & Stuart, J. (2002). Developing a leadership-rich culture: the missing link to creating a market-focused organization. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(2), 149-163.
	In article		View Article
[6]	Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. M. (1993). Transformational leadership and performance: A longitudinal investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.
	In article		View Article
[7]	Kim, W. G., & Brymer, R. A. (2011). The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4), 1020-1026.
	In article		View Article
[8]	Adler, N. J. (1997). Organizational Behavior. Third Edition. Cincinnati, Ohio: South - Western College Publishing.
	In article
[9]	Armstrong, M. & Baron, A. (1998), Performance Management Handbook, IPM, London
	In article
[10]	Mathis, L. Robert & Jackson, H. John. (2002). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
	In article
[11]	Flippo. Edwin B. (1998). Manajemen Personalia. Jilid 2. Jakarta : Erlangga.
	In article
[12]	Pemerintah Republik Indonesia (2011). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 46 Tentang Penilaian Prestasi Kerja Pegawai Negeri Sipil.
	In article
[13]	Holten, A. L., & Brenner, S. O. (2015). Leadership style and the process of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 2-16.
	In article		View Article
[14]	Valero, J. N., Jung, K., & Andrew, S. A. (2015). Does transformational leadership build resilient public and nonprofit organizations?. Disaster Prevention and Management, 24(1), 4-20.
	In article		View Article
[15]	Sani, A., & Maharani, V. (2015). Relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) Practices and Organizational Performance Moderated by Organizational Commitment. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 9(7), 185-188.
	In article
[16]	Robbins, Stephen P. & Timothy A. Judge. (2008). Perilaku Organisasi Edisi ke-12, Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
	In article
[17]	Lawler III, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1966). Predicting Managers' Pay and Their Satisfaction With Their Pay1. Personnel psychology, 19(4), 363-373.
	In article		View Article
[18]	Chang, Y., Leach, N., & Anderman, E. M. (2015). The role of perceived autonomy support in principals’ affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Social Psychology of Education, 1-22.
	In article		View Article
[19]	Şahin, İ., Akyürek, C. E., & Yavuz, Ş. (2014). Assessment of Effect of Leadership Behaviour Perceptions and Organizational Commitment of Hospital Employees on Job Satisfaction with Structural Equation Modelling. Journal of Health Management, 16(2), 161-182.
	In article		View Article
[20]	Yiing, L. H., & Ahmad, K. Z. B. (2009). The moderating effects of organizational culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 53-86.
	In article		View Article
[21]	Locke, E.A. (1997). Esensi kepemimpinan (Terjemahan), Jakarta. Mitra Utama.
	In article
[22]	Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. The International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554.
	In article		View Article
[23]	Jung, D. I., & Avolio, B. J. (1999). Effects of leadership style and followers' cultural orientation on performance in group and individual task conditions. Academy of management journal, 42(2), 208-218.
	In article		View Article
[24]	Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of management, 22(2), 259-298.
	In article		View Article
[25]	Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
	In article		View Article
[26]	Bass, Bernard M. "Does the transactional–transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries?." American psychologist 52.2 (1997): 130.
	In article
[27]	Baron, A. R. & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational Behaviour in Organization. Understanding and managing the human side of work. Canada: Prentice Hall.
	In article
[28]	Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
	In article		View Article
[29]	Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of vocational behavior, 14(2), 224-247.
	In article		View Article
[30]	Luthans, Fred. (2001). Organizational behaviour, 9th Editions, McGraw Hill, Boston.
	In article
[31]	Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior, 9th Editions, Prentice Hall International, Inc., Uper Saddler River, New Jersey, 07458.
	In article
[32]	Robbins, S.P. (2003). Organisational behaviour (10th ed). San Diego: Prentice Hall.
	In article
[33]	Baron, R.A. and J. Greenberg. (1990). Behavior in Organization: Understanding and Managing the Human Side of Work, Third Edition. Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.
	In article
[34]	Timpe, A. D. (1993). Kinerja (performance). Jakarta. Gramedia
	In article		PubMed
[35]	Heidjrachman Ranupandoyo dan Suad Husnan. (2000). Manajemen Personalia, Edisi 4, Cetakan Kesembilan Yogyakarta. BPFE.
	In article
[36]	Sakaran, U. (2000). Research Methodes For Businees. , New York. 3th John Willy & Sons, Inc.
	In article
[37]	Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
	In article
[38]	Raja, A. S., & Palanichamy, P. (2011). Transformational Leadership Styles and Employee Performance. Journal for Bloomers of Research, 3(2).
	In article
[39]	Ali, N., Babar, M. A. A., & Bangash, S. A. (2011). Relationship between leadership styles and organizational commitment amongst medical representatives of national and multinational pharmaceuticals companies, Pakistan (an empirical study). Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2(10), 524.
	In article
[40]	Behery, M., Paton, R. A., & Hussain, R. (2012). Psychological contract and organizational commitment: The mediating effect of transformational leadership. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 22(4), 299-319.
	In article		View Article
[41]	Othman, J., Mohammed, K. A., & DSilva, J. L. (2012). Does a Transformational and Transactional Leadership Style Predict Organizational Commitment among Public University Lecturers in Nigeria?. Asian Social Science, 9(1).165
	In article		View Article
[42]	Anwar, F., & Ahmad, U. N. U. (2012). Mediating role of organizational commitment among leadership styles and employee outcomes. an empirical evidence from telecom sector of Pakistan.
	In article
[43]	Rehman– Ur – Shams., Shareef, Aamer., Mahmood, Arfan & Ishaque, Amir.(2012) Perceived Leadership Styles and Organizational Commitment. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business. 4(1), 616-626. https://journal/archieves18.webs.com/616-626.
	In article
[44]	Zehir, C., Sehitoglu, Y., & Erdogan, E. (2012). The effect of leadership and supervisory commitment to organizational performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 207-216.
	In article		View Article
[45]	Brahmasari, I. A., & Suprayetno, A. (2009). Pengaruh Motivasi Kerja, Kepemimpinan dan Budaya Organisasi Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja Karyawan serta Dampaknya pada Kinerja Perusahaan (Studi kasus pada PT. Pei Hai International Wiratama Indonesia). Jurnal Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan (Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship), 10(2).124.
	In article
[46]	Noor, A. (2015). Effects of Transformational Leadership, Personal Value, Job Satisfaction on Lecturer Performance. Researchers World, 6(2), 84.
	In article
[47]	Suryanto, E., Leonardo Budi, H., & Fathoni, A. (2015). Pengaruh Kepuasan Kerja dan Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Prestasi Kerja Karyawan Pada Cv Jm Jaya Motor Semarang. Journal of Management, 1(1).
	In article
[48]	Anwar, A., & Santosa, B. (2015). Pengaruh Variabel Kepuasan Kerja, Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), dan Trust in Leader Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai. Jurnal Relasi STIE Mandala Jember, 19.
	In article
[49]	Mutmainah, H. (2013). Pengaruh kompensasi, pelatihan, dan peran supervisor terhadap kinerja yang dimediasi oleh kepuasan kerja pada karyawan paguyuban batik laweyan Surakarta. Graduasi, 29.
	In article
[50]	Rantung, E. (2015). Analisis Pengaruh Budaya Organisasi, Gaya Kepemimpinan Melayani Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Yang Dimediasi Oleh Kepuasan Kerja (Studi Pada Pegawai Kantor Sinode Gereja Masehi Injili di Minahasa). Jurnal Riset Bisnis dan Manajemen, 3(2).
	In article
[51]	Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). Organization-based self-esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management journal, 32(3), 622-648.
	In article		View Article

Table 2. Goodness of Fit indices

Download as

PowerPoint Slide

Larger image(png format)

• Tables index

Veiw figure

View current table in a new window

View previous table