Available Online at www.ijcrr.

in
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review
ISSN 0976 – 4852
Research CrossRef DOI: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468

March, 2018|Volume 09|Issue 03|

Section: Section: Management and Economics

The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee

Engagement and Employee Performance (Study at PT.
Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)

Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih, I Wayan Sujana, I Nengah Suardika

Received 2018-01-16; Accepted 2018-03-06

Abstract:
Human resources as one of the important indicators of achieving organizational goals effectively and
efficiently and performance is the answer to the success or failure of organizational goals that have been set.
Performance can be seen from the achievement of target employees in an organization. Performance at
PT.Interbat Bali Nusra Ambon has decreased in 2017 compared to 2016. The purpose of this research is to
confirm the linkage of leadership style to job satisfaction, employee engagement and employee performance
of PT.Interbat Bali Nusa Ambon. The population and sample in this study is the total population of 53
employees. The analysis technique used in this research is structural equation modeling (SEM) based on
variance or component based SEM, known as Partial Least Square (PLS). From the research result, it is
found that leadership style has positive and significant effect to job satisfaction, leadership style has no
significant effect on employee engagement, leadership style has no significant effect on employee
performance, but leadership style will affect employee's work through work mediation and employee
engagement, job satisfaction positive and significant impact on employee engagement, employee
engagement has a positive and significant impact on employee performance and employee engagement has a
positive and significant impact on employee performance.
Keywords: Leadership style, job satisfaction, employee engagement, employee performance

Preliminary:
example of a leader. Employee performance has
Human resources (HR) is a major factor in an
been defined as work performance in terms of
organization. In achieving its objectives, an
quantity and quality expected from every employee
organization needs human resources as a system
(Khan et al., 2010). With the increasing
manager. This will make human resource
competition, the company has recognized the
management as one of the important indicators of
importance of employee performance because if the
achieving organizational goals effectively and
employee performance increases it will affect the
efficiently. Performance is the answer to the success
company's performance and profitability of the
or failure of organizational goals that have been
company. Factors affecting both performance and
established, can be improved by providing a good
work performance are skill and ability, knowledge,

International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468 Page | 20592
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
work plan, personality, work motivation, leadership,
leadership style, organizational culture, job
satisfaction, work scope, loyalty, commitment, work
discipline (Kasmir, 2016 : 189).Performance can be
seen from the achievement of target employees in
an organization. Performance can be seen from the
achievement of the target through Monitoring
Growth 2017 for the last 2 years starting in 2016
until 2017 at PT. Interbat, Bali area, Nusra, Ambon
indicating that the achievement of the target has
decreased. In the year 2016 the achievement of the
target year for 8 months the resulting sales meet the
target even exceed the target and only 4 months of
sales generated under the targets indicated from the
ACH (Achievement) calculation, while in 2017
period January to July, sales generated only 1
months that meet the target and sales during 6
months that do not meet the targets shown from the
ACH (Achievement) calculation every month.
Based on these data and the results of observations
and information obtained through interviews that
the decline in performance occurs due to leadership
changes that cause employee dissatisfaction that
refers to the theory of job satisfaction is the theory
of justice that states a person will be satisfied or not
satisfied depending on whether a person feels the
existence of justice or not over a situation and result
in decreased employee involvement in the job thus
affecting employee performance. Based on the
above explanation, this study was conducted to
confirm the linkage of Leadership Style to Job
Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and Employee
Performance of PT.Interbat Bali Nusa Ambon ".
Literature Review:
Leadership Style
Leadership is defined as the ability to influence
groups toward the attainment of goals (Robbins,
1993). Leadership enables an organization to
translate its potential performance into productivity
(Samuel, 2005). The Style of Leadership is the way
the leader acts and or how he influences his
members to achieve certain goals. Experts judge
that each person's leadership style is different
(Edison, Anwar, and Komariyah, 2016: 93).The
notion of leadership style according to Hersey and
Blanchard is a behavioral pattern when someone
tries to influence others and they accept it. Robinss
(2006) identifies four types of leadership styles
including: Charismatic leadership style,
Transactional leadership style, Transformational
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468
leadership style, Visionary leadership style.
According to Fiedler's Contingency Model that each
individual's leadership style is only effective in
certain situations. The Hersey-Blanchard
Leadership Model also takes the perspective of
situational leadership. For Blanchard the main
situational variable, when determining the right
leadership style, is the readiness or level of
employee development. Consequently there are four
leadership styles: Directing, Coaching, Supporting,
Delegating. Ideal leadership perspectives have been
discussed since 1939 by renowned strategist Kurt
Lewin and his colleagues through experiments that
culminate on three common points of leadership
style : Autocratic, Democrat, and Laissez-Faire. In
this study, the leadership style used as an indicator
is the leadership style according to Kurt Lewin
(1939).
Job satisfaction:
Attitude (attitude) is evaluative questions, either
pleasant or unpleasant about the object, person or
event. Attitude reflects how feelings about
something. Each individual has a different attitude
that leads to a positive or negative evaluation that
workers have aspects of their work environment,
most research in organizational behavior has seen
three attitudes: job satisfaction, job involvement,
and organizational commitment. According to
Robbin and Judge (2015: 46) job satisfaction a
positive feeling about work, resulting from an
evaluation of its characteristics. A person with a
high level of job satisfaction has a positive feeling
about his job while a low level person has a
negative perception. Locke (1976) describes job
satisfaction as "a pleasant or positive emotional
state due to a job assessment or a person's work
experience". Many factors have been corroborated
by researchers such as enthusiastic behavior,
hygiene factors, managerial responsibility and
workplace environment by developing different
theories (Darrow, 1971, Igalens and Roussel, 1999;
Brewer et, al. 2008; Ahsan et al , 2009; Kuo et al.,
2007).Indicators of job satisfaction according to
Gibson, Ivancevich, and Donnely (1993) are Wages,
Employment, Promotional Opportunities,
Supervisors, Co-workers. The job satisfaction
indicator according to Robbins and Judge (2015) is
Work itself, Salary, Promotion, Supervision,
Coworker, in this research, job satisfaction indicator
Page | 20593
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
used is job satisfaction according to Robbins and
Judge (2015).
Employee Engagement:
Employee engagement can be defined in different
ways. The employees involved are the people who
produce the results, do not often change jobs and
most important is the company's ambassador at any
time. The performance of the employees involved
as defined by the Hay group is as follows "the
results achieved by stimulating employees" the
enthusiasm for work and directing it towards
organizational success (Chandani, Mehta, Mall and
Khokhar: 2016) Employee engagement is an
engagement individual, satisfaction, and enthusiasm
for the work it is doing. To evaluate this, it can be
done by asking workers whether workers have
access to resources and opportunities to learn new
skills, whether the worker feels his job is important
and meaningful, and whether the interaction they
with their colleagues and superiors give results. The
highly engaged workers have a passion in their
work and feel a deep connection with their company
(Robbin and Judge, 2015: 48). Kahn (1990) is the
first researcher to say that involvement means the
presence of a psychological employees while
performing their duties organizational tasks. There
are several factors of employee involvement:
recruitment, job designing, career development
opportunities, Leadership, Empowerment, Equal
opportunities and fair treatment, training and
development, performance management,
compensation, health and safety, job satisfaction
communication, family friend linnes . As for the
results of employee involvement there are two
results:
1. Individual Out comes (Individual Results):
a. Motivation
b. Commitment
c. Satisfaction
d. Loyalty
e. Security works
d. Higher performance
2. Organizational Outcomes (Organizational
Results):
a.Higher profits and Productivity
b.Quality Improvement
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468
c.Customer satisfaction and loyalty
d. Increase Retention
e.Revenue growth
Measurement of employee engagement by using
UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale)
measuring instrument. From some measuring tools
that measure employee engagement. UWES is the
most academic measuring tool used by researchers
around the world. UWES (Utrecth Work
Engagement Scale) designed by researchers based
on the theoretical concepts of Schaufeli & Bakker
(2004) are: Vigor, Dedication, Absorption
Employee performance:
Performance is the result of a process that refers and
is measured over a specified period of time under
predetermined terms or agreements. While
understanding performance management according
to Michael Armstrong (2006: 1): "performance
management can be defined as a systematic process
for improving organizational performance by
developing the performance of individuals and
teams". Performance or performance is the result or
output of a process (Nurlaila, 2010: 71). According
to a behavioral approach in management,
performance is the quantity or quality of something
produced or services provided by someone doing
the work (Luthans, 2005: 165). Performance is an
achievement of work, namely the comparison
between the work with the standard set (Dessler,
2000: 41). Performance is the result of work both in
quality and quantity achieved by a person in
carrying out the task according to the responsibility
given (Mangkunagara, 2002: 22). Indicators to
measure the performance of individual employees
there are six indicators, namely (Robbins, 2006:
260): Quality, quantity, timeliness, effectiveness,
independence, According Jhon Miner (1988)
indicators that become benchmarks to achieve or
assess performance, as follows : Quality, are: error
rate, damage, precision; Quantity, namely: the
amount of work produced; Use of time in the work,
are: absence rate, delay, effective working time /
hours lost; Cooperation with others in work. In this
study, the indicator used from employee
performance is employee performance according to
Jhon Miner (1988).
Page | 20594
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
Research History:
Research conducted by Omidifar (2013) found a
positive relationship between leadership style and
job satisfaction, some researchers also found the
results in line as performed by Sallem (2014)
showed a leadership style partially influence on job
satisfaction. Durowoju, Toyosi, Yusuf and Sakiru
(2013) show the style of formulation and initiative
high leadership structure will lead to achievement
motivation and job satisfaction. Ahmad, Adi, Noor,
Rahman and Yushuang (2013) demonstrate
transformational leadership and transactional
leadership factors can affect nurses' job satisfaction.
Different results from Ansi1, Kusdi, and Prasetya
(2015) studies show that leadership style has an
effect on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment is negative and insignificant.
Research conducted by Nwokolo, Ifeanacho and
Anazodo (2016) found a leadership style predicting
significant employee engagement among teachers
and several studies with outcomes performed by
Vidyakala (2014) show the results of leadership
styles affecting employee engagement and have a
significant relationship with all factors in employee
engagement, Jun NI (2016) show results Leadership
style positively affects employee engagement and
management performance, Khuong and Yen (2014)
with leadership style results have a positive effect
on employee engagement. Different results are
shown by Wefald, Reichard, and Serrano (2011)
which states a weaker (negative) relationship
between engagement and leadership performed in a
medium-sized financial institution.
Research conducted by Desderio, Piason, and
Bhebhe (2016) found a leadership style to be
positively correlated to employee performance
according to research in line with some studies
conducted byParacha, Qamar, Mirza, Hassan &
Waqas (2012) which shows a significantly positive
leadership style associated with employee
performance. Eddeen (2015) suggests that
leadership style has an effect on employee
performance. Different results are shown from the
results of several studies conducted by Trang,
Armanu, Sudiro, and Noermijati (2013) suggesting
leadership style has no significant effect on
employee performance. Tambalean (2014). Showed
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468
work stress and leadership style negatively affect
employee performance.
Research conducted by Babu, Suhasini and
Narayanappa (2017) finds job satisfaction is a
response to employee engagement, employee
engagement and job satisfaction associated with
each other, the research is in line with several
studies conducted by Vorina, Simonič and Vlasova
(2017) showed relationship between employee
engagement and positive and significant job
satisfaction. Deshwal (2015) shows that there is a
positive relationship between job satisfaction and
employee engagement. Kaliannan and Adjovu
(2014) show the results of job satisfaction alongside
the overall employee engagement positively.
Different results are shown by Heriyanti and
Ramadan (2012), which states that job satisfaction
moderated by employee engagement has no effect
on employee performance.
Job satisfaction is significantly related to job
performance according to research conducted by
Javed (2014). The study is in line with several
studies conducted by Khan and Afzal (2016)
showed job satisfaction has a positive and
significant relationship with employee performance
perceptions. Susanty and Miradipta (2013) show job
satisfaction has a positive effect on employee
performance. But the different results shown by
Masydzulhak, Ali and Anggraeni (2016) show the
effect of job satisfaction and employee performance
is negative and insignificant.
Employee engagement positively and significantly
influenced employee performance according to
research conducted by Mariza (2016) the research is
in line with some research conducted by Allameha,
Barzoki, Naeini, Khodaeid and Abolghasemian
(2014) showed employee engagement has positive
and significant value influence performance,
Jagannathan (2014) shows that engagement is
significant in terms of performance. Different
results show some studies conducted by Ali,
Hussain, and Azim (2013) using regression analysis
showing employee engagement to direct
relationships Organizational social capital
investment and employee performance negative,
Heriyati and Ramadan (2012) indicate employee
engagement is not significant effect on employee
performance.
Page | 20595
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
Conceptual Framework

the total population of only 53 employees, Data

Hypothesis Formulation:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The leadership style has a
positive effect on job satisfaction
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The leadership style positively
affects employee engagement
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The style of leadership has a
positive effect on employee performance
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Job satisfaction positively
affects employee engagement
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Job Satisfaction has a positive
effect on employee performance
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Employee engagement
positively affects employee performance.
Research Methodology:
In this study population and sample is the entire
population that existed or called the census due to
collection methods used in this study (Sugiono:
2010) are interviews, documentation,
questionnaires. Testing of instrument of research is
Analytical technique used is structural equation
modeling (SEM) based on variance or component
based SEM, known as Partial Least Square (PLS).
Research Result and Discussion:
The results of the four variables have an AVE value
above 0.50 and all variables have an AVE root value
higher than the correlation coefficient between one
variable with other variables so that it can be said
that the data has good discriminant validity, the
composite reliability of the four latent variables has
been above 0.70, delivered that the reliable
indicator block measures the variable. The results of
the path coefficient validation test on each path for
direct effect and effect can be seen as follows:

Direct Effects Testing Results:

Interconnection Path Coefficient T-Statistik Conclusion

Variables (Bootstrapping)

Leadership style (X) -> Job satisfaction (Y1) 0.828 21.553 H1 accepted

Leadership style (X) -> Employee engagement (Y2) 0.106 0.895 H2 rejected

Leadership style (X) -> Employee performance (Y3) -0.354 1.733 H3 rejected
Job satisfaction (Y1) -> Employee engagement (Y2) 0.794 7.943 H4 accepted
Job satisfaction (Y1) -> Employee performance (Y3) 0.413 2.312 H5 accepted
Employee engagement (Y2) -> Employee performance (Y3) 0.696 5.433 H6 accepted

International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468 Page | 20596
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
Analysis Results Model

Significant test of the mediation variables in the model can be checked from indirect effect test results with
the following results:

Mediation Variable Job satisfaction (a) (b) (c) (d) Information

Leadership style (X) → Employee performance (Y3) -0.354 0.974 0.828 0.413 Full mediation
Non-sig Sig Sig Sig

Recapitulation of Mediation Variable Testing leadership style (X) on employee performance (Y3).
Result: In order to know the overall effect for each
relationship among variables as researched, it can
The result of the test of mediation variable that can
be presented recapitulation of direct effects, indirect
be submitted is job satisfaction (Y1) is the key
effects, and total effect as follows:
variable as mediation that able to mediate positively
and significantly on the indirect influence of

Calculation of Direct, Indirect and Total Effects:

No Relationship Variable Effect Effect Effect

Directly Indirect Total

1 Leadership style (X) → Job satisfaction (Y1) 0.828S - 0.828

2 Leadership style (X) → Employee engagement (Y2) 0.106NS - 0.106

3 Leadership style (X) → Job satisfaction (Y1) → Employee -0.354 NS
0.341 -
performance (Y3) 0,013
(0.828*0.413)
Leadership style (X) → Job satisfaction (Y1) → Employee -0.354NS 0.457 0.103
engagement (Y2) → Employee performance (Y3)
(0.828*0.794*0.696)
4 Job satisfaction (Y1) → Employee performance (Y2) 0.794 S
- 0.794
5 Job satisfaction (Y1) → Employee performance (Y2) 0.413S - 0.413
6 Employee engagement (Y2) → Employee performance (Y3) 0.696S - 0.696

International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468 Page | 20597
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
These findings provide guidance on a good
leadership style will increase job satisfaction and
increase employee engagement so that employee
performance will increase according to company
goals. Based on these results provide indications,
leadership style will be able to improve the work of
employees if employees feel satisfied in the work so
that will cause a sense of employee engagement that
is able to produce optimal employee performance at
PT. Interbat Bali Nusra Ambon.
Conclusions:
From the results of this study, it can be concluded
that:
1. The better the leadership style applied then
the employee will be more satisfied in
working.
2. The applied leadership style is not able to
increase employee involvement in work.
3. Whatever style of leadership is applied then
it is not able to improve employee
performance, but the style of leadership will
be able to improve the work of employees if
employees feel satisfied in working so that
will cause a sense of employee engagement
that can improve employee performance, the
higher employee job satisfaction will
increase employee engagement in work.
4. He higher the job satisfaction of employees
will increase employee engagement in work.
5. The more satisfied employees in the work it
will encourage the achievement of higher
work.
In improving employee performance at PT.Interbat
Bali, Nusa Tenggara, Ambon, leaders are expected
to give more attention to the type of leadership style
that will be applied in leading employees to pay
attention to promotion in employee satisfaction, and
also pay attention to the spirit of Vigor, absorption,
Dedication in engagement so as to produce
maximum employee performance in accordance
with company objectives.
References:
1. Agustiningsih, Hiqma Nur, et al,. 2016. The
Effect of Remuneration, Job Satisfaction and
OCB on the Employee Performance. Science
Journal of Business and Management. 4(6):
212-222.
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468
2. Ahmad, Abd Rahman, et al. 2013. The
Influence of Leadership Style on Job
Satisfaction among Nurses. Asian Social
Science. Vol. 9, No. 9.
3. Al-Ansi, Abdullah M., et al. 2015. Analysis
Impact of Leadership Style and Pay Fairness
on Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment. Scientific & Academic
Publishing. 5(2): 55-61.
4. Ali, Muhammad Asghar, et al,. Organizational
Investment in Social Capital (OISC) and
Employee Job Performance: Moderation by
Employee Job. International Review of
Management and Business Research. Vol.2
Issue.1.
5. Allameh, Sayyed Mohsen, et al,. 2014.
Analyzing the effect of Employee Engagement
on job performance in Isfahan Gas Company.
International Journal of Management Academy.
2 (4): 20-26.
6. Aryana, I Gusti Lanang Putu. 2016. Pengaruh
Kompensasi Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan
Melalui Kepuasan Kerja (Studi Pada PT. BPR
Mitra Bali Artha Mandiri). Tesis.
7. Babu, T. Naresh, et al,. 2017. Role of Talent
Management in Job Satisfaction and Employee
Engagement in Information Technology
Industry. SSRG International Journal of
Economics and Management Studies. ISSN:
2393 – 9125.
8. Dalluay, Dr. Van S., & Jalagat, Dr. Revenio C.
2016. Impacts of Leadership Style Effectiveness
of Managers and Department Heads to
Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Performance
on Selected Small-Scale Businesses in Cavite,
Philippines .International Journal of Recent
Advances in Organizational Behaviour and
Decision Sciences (IJRAOB). Vol: 2 Issue: 2.
9. Desderio, Chavunduka M., et al. 2016.
Leadership style and employee performance in
Parastatals: A case of the transport sector.
Journal of Business Management Science. VOL
2 ISSUE 1
10. Deswal, Dr. Shavita. 2015. A study of job
satisfaction in relation to employee
engagement. International Journal of Applied
Research. 1(9): 303-304.
11. Eddeen, Fadimatu Jalal. 2015. An Assessment
of Leadership Styles and Employee
Performance in Small and Medium Enterprises
in Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria. International
Page | 20598
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
Journal of Economics, Finance and
Management Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 3. pp. 319-
324.
12. Edison, Dr. Emron, Anwar, Dr. Yohny, &
Komariah, Dr, Imas. 2016. Manajemen Sumber
Daya Manusia (Strategi dan Perubahan Dalam
Rangka Meningkatkan Kinerja Pegawai dan
Organisasi). Penerbit Alfabeta : Bandung.
13. Ghozali, I., 2008. Structural Equation Modeling
: Metode Alternatif Dengan Partial Least
Square. Badan Penerbit Universitas
Diponegoro, Semarang.
14. Ghozali, Imam. 2005. Aplikasi Analisis
Multivariate dengan SPSS. Semarang: Badan
Penerbit UNDIP : Semarang.
15. Ghozali.,Imam. 2009. Aplikasi Multivariate
Dengan Program SPSS. Badan Penerbit
Universitas Diponegoro: Semarang.
16. Hair, Joshep F. 2010. Multivariate Data
Analysis Always learning. Edisi 7. Penerbit
Prentice Hall : New Jersey.
17. Heriyati, Pantri & Ramadhan, Ahmad Sechi.
2012. The Influence of Employee Satisfaction in
Supporting Employee Work Performance and
Retention Moderated by the Employee
Engagement Factor of an Institution (An
Empirical Study of Binus Business School). Int.
Journal of Economics and Management. 6(1):
191 – 200.
18. Jagannathan, Anitha. 2014. Determinants Of
Employee Engagement and Their Impact On
Employee Performance. IJPPM-01-2013-0008.
19. Javed. Massoma. 2014. Determinants of Job
Satisfaction and its Impact on Employee
Performance and Turnover Intentions.
International Journal of Learning &
Development. Vol. 4, No. 2.
20. Jun Ni, Hui. 2016. The Relationship among
Leadership Style, Employees Engagement and
Management Performance in Grid Company.
International Conference. ISBN: 978-1-60595-
357-1.
21. Kaliannan, Maniam & Adjovud, Samuel Narh.
2015. Effective employee engagement and
organizational success: a case study. Published
by Elsevier Ltd. 1877-0428.
22. Kasmir, Dr. S.E, M.M. 2016. Manajemen
Sumber Daya Manusia (Teori dan Praktek).
Penerbit PT. RajaGrafindo Persada : Jakarta.
23. Khan, Dr, Hafiz Ghufran Ali & Afzal, Dr.
Muhammad. 2016. The Effect of Reward
International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468
Systems, Organizational Commitment and
Experience on Job Satisfaction with respect to
Employee’s Perceived Performance. NUML
International Journal of Business &
Management. Vol. 11, No: 2.
24. Khuong, Mai Ngoc & Yen, Nguyen Hoang.
2014. The effects of leadership styles and
sociability trait emotional intelligence on
employee engagement A study in Binh Duong
City, Vietnam. Excellent Publisher. Volume 2
Number 1. pp. 121-136.
25. Mariza, Ita. 2016. THE IMPACT OF
EMPLOYEES’ MOTIVATION AND
ENGAGEMENT ON EMPLOYEES’
PERFORMANCE OF MANUFACTURING
COMPANIES IN JAKARTA INDONESIA.
IJABER, Vol. 14, No. 15.
26. Masydzulhak, Prof. Dr., et al,. 2016. The
Influence of work Motivationand Job
Satisfaction on Employee Performance and
Organizational Commitment Satisfaction as an
Intervening Variable in PT. Asian Isuzu Casting
Center. Quest Journals. Journal of Research in
Business and Management. Volume 4 ~ Issue
10. pp: 01-10.
27. Nwokolom, E.E., et al. 2016. Perceived
Organizational Justice and Leadership styles
as Predictors of Employee Engagement in the
Organization. Nile Journal of Business and
Economics. 4: 16-28.
28. Omidifar, Reza. 2013. Leadership Style,
Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction: A Case Study on High School
Principals in Tehran, Iran. American Journal
of Humanities and Social Sciences. Vo1. 1, No.
4.
29. Parancha, M. Umer, et al. 2012. Impact of
Leadership Style (Transformational &
Transactional Leadership) On Employee
Performance & Mediating Role of Job
Satisfaction Study of Private School (Educator)
In Pakistan. Global Journals Inc. (USA)
Publisher. Volume 12 Issue 4.
30. Putra, Wayan Rekayana Yasa. 2016. Pengaruh
Gaya Kepemimpinan dan Motivasi Terhadap
Disiplin Kerja dan Kinerja Karyawan Pada
Koprasi Pegawai Bina Sejahtera Kabupaten
Badung. Tesis.
31. Robbins, Stephen P. & Judge, Timothy A. 2015.
Perilaku Organisasi (Organizational Behavior).
Edisi 16. Penerbit Salemba Empat : Jakarta.
Page | 20599
Ni Nengah Rupadi Kertiriasih et al. The Effect of Leadership Style to Job Satisfaction, Employee Engagement and
Employee Performance (Study at PT. Interbat, Bali, Nusra, and Ambon)
32. Saleem, Hina. 2014. The impact of leadership PSIKOHUMANIORA: Jurnal Penelitian
styles on job satisfaction and mediating role of Psikologi . Volume 1 No. 1. 113-130.
perceived organizational politics. Published by 40. Toyosi, Durowoju Stella, et al. 2013. Influence
Elsevier Ltd. 1877-0428. of Leadership Styles on Job Satisfaction of
33. Solimun. 2010. Analisis Multivariat Pemodelan Employees in Small and Medium Enterprises.
Struktural Metode Partial Least Square- PLS. European Journal of Business and
Penerbit CV. Citra: Malang Management. Vol.5, No.21.
34. Sugiono, Prof. Dr. 2008. Metode Penelitian 41. Trang, Irvan, et al. 2013. Organizational
Bisnis, Penerbit Alfabeta: Bandung Commitment as Mediation Variable Influence
35. Sugiono, Prof. Dr. 2011. Statistik of Work Motivation, Leadership Style and
Nonparametris. Penerbit CV Alfabeta : Badung. Learning Organization to the Employees
36. Susanty, Aries & Miradipta, Rizqi. 2013. Performance (Studies at PT. Pelabuhan
Employee’s Job Performance: The Effect of Indonesia IV (Limited) Branch Bitung). IOSR
Attitude toward Works, Organizational Journal of Business and Management. Volume
Commitment, and Job Satisfaction. Jurnal 7, Issue 2. PP 12-25.
Teknik Industri. Vol. 15, No. 1. 42. Vidyakala, Dr. K. 2015. A Study on the
37. Swasthi.S. 2013. Effecting Employee Relationship between Leadership Styles and
Engagement Factors. International Journal of Employee Engagement. The International
Scientific and Research Publications. Volume Journal Publishers. Volume: 04, Number: 06.
3, Issue 8. 43. Vorina, Anto, et al,. 2017. AN ANALYSIS OF
38. Tambalean, Febriany Prichilia. 2014. THE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB
EFFECT OF WORK STRESS AND SATISFACTION AND EMPLOYEE
LEADERSHIP STYLES ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT. ECONOMIC THEMES.
PERFORMANCE PT. BNI (PERSERO) TBK. 55(2): 243-262.
MANADO BRANCH . Jurnal EMBA . Vol.2 44. Wefald, Andrew J., et al. 2011. Fitting
No.4. Hal. 301-308. Engagement Into a Nomological Network: The
39. Titien. 2016. Penyusunan dan Pengembangan Relationship of Engagement to Leadership and
Alat Ukur Employee Engagement. Personality. SAGE Publisher. XX(X) 1 –16.

International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 9, Issue. 03, Page no: ME 20592-20600
doi: https://doi.org/10.15520/ijcrr/2018/9/03/468 Page | 20600