188 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies Vol. 7, No. 3, 188-197, 2020 ISSN(E) 2313-7401/ ISSN(P) 2518-0096 DOI: 10.20448/journal.500.2020.73.188.197 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Effect of Quality of Work Life and Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Performance Workforce at the State University of Medan Muhammad Arsyad1  M. Syamsul Maarif2 Anggraini Sukmawati3 ( Corresponding Author) 1,2School of Business, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. 3Department of Management, Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia. Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) the influence of Quality of Work Life and leadership, both simultaneously and partially on job satisfaction (2) the influence of Quality of Work Life, leadership and job satisfaction simultaneously and partially on the performance of education personnel (3) the effect of job satisfaction on the performance of educators (4) the amount of the indirect influence of Quality of Work Life, leadership and job satisfaction on the performance of education personnel. The Research was conducted on educational personnel administrative center of the State University of Medan. The method used is a quantitative descriptive method using a questionnaire and analysis using Structural Equation Modeling. The results showed that the Quality of Work Life, leadership, both simultaneously and partially influence on job satisfaction, and leadership and job satisfaction simultaneously and partially on the performance of education personnel, while the Quality of Work Life does not influence simultaneously but partial effect and results research also showed job satisfaction can significantly affect the performance of educators. From the results of existing research suggests that the Quality of Work Life, leadership and job satisfaction indirectly provide improved performance in the university academic staff. Keywords: Quality of work life, Leadership, Job satisfaction, Performance of educators, Structural equation modeling (SEM). Citation | Muhammad Arsyad; M. Syamsul Maarif; Anggraini Sukmawati (2020). Effect of Quality of Work Life and Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Performance Workforce at the State University of Medan. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 7(3): 188-197. History: Received: 20 April 2020 Revised: 22 May 2020 Accepted: 24 June 2020 Published: 6 July 2020 Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Acknowledgement: All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Funding: Research was funded by the Domestic Postgraduate Education Scholarship (BPPDN) from the Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing. Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................... 189 2. Research Methods .......................................................................................................................................................................... 190 3. Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................................................. 190 4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 196 References ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 196 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.500.2020.73.188.197&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJSSMS/article/view/1835 https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AJSSMS/article/view/1835 Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 189 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Contribution of this paper to the literature The purpose of this study was to determine: (1) the influence of Quality of Work Life and leadership, both simultaneously and partially on job satisfaction (2) the influence of Quality of Work Life, leadership and job satisfaction simultaneously and partially on the performance of education personnel (3) the effect of job satisfaction on the performance of educators (4) the amount of the indirect influence of Quality of Work Life, leadership and job satisfaction on the performance of education personnel. 1. Introduction College as an institution of higher education providers plays an important role in shaping the human resources are resilient and have the responsibility to change the nation to make this nation a better and have a good performance. Human resources (HR) is an asset owned by the organization so that human resources as drivers for change there needs to be really guarded, cared for and respected in carrying out its activities, thus becoming the capital in shaping a better organization. In line with Kesuma (2007) one of the organization's efforts to produce educators who have the competitiveness of the changing times is by managing its human resources. Along with it to form the human resources that will have a good work in the work it is necessary to the role of education personnel in universities so that the administration can run smoothly and focused on achieving organizational goals. Educators are community members who are devoted and raised to support education (Act No. 20 of 2003). The Quality of work life to be expected in a college can indicate the state of the work carried out jointly by the individual and his work so as to make workers more productive and satisfying employment, particularly in the implementation of activities carried out daily. In addition to the quality of work life also provide an opportunity for educators to be able to provide the best and the opportunity to realize themselves and actively participate in giving a decision on the job. In the end, the quality of work life that is owned by the university to force employees will facilitate administration activities undertaken for the better, both at the faculty and at the university level so that the quality of work will foster a sense of pride in the work being done. Bureaucratic administration of existing and the basis for carrying out activities or decisions that are all arranged or arranged properly in the implementation of the administration. In terms of leadership in an organization both from the highest to the lowest, all of which must have good leadership so as to give an example, direct, influence and supervise or control the activities of his subordinates and try to provide a good working climate and maintained continuously. Along with the above expectations, the college, in this case, the State University of Medan (Unimed) is one of vision, namely to foster an academic atmosphere and a healthy organizational climate. With a vision that there needs to be seen how far the job satisfaction owned employees work in their activities. In terms of job satisfaction in terms of the quality of work life, university or work unit is still visible lack of job satisfaction employees in daily life, for example the tendency of the policies of a difficult boss to be changed or touched in the execution of their daily work, as hard to critique and enter build on the work performed. Judging from the relationship between the level employees subordinates, and superiors and subordinates are still visible putridities in doing the work, which originated from a lot and at least a given job superiors to subordinates. On the other side are also still visible cooperation there is also still look less good, both among employees in work units and between units, all of which assume would benefit certain individuals or units, it is very well seen in running their daily activities. Indifference to the employment of the employer's good subordinates, a supervisor must have good management in this regard, such as providing additional knowledge to subordinates who do not understand the job as on the job training (OJT) to subordinates. So that will form the knowledge of the work being done every day, in the end, its responsibility as civil servants (PNS). Besides the superior and subordinate relationships are also less well, in terms of giving tasks and directing the work, the boss always asks executed well and quickly, while the work is rarely discussed together or existing facilities are lacking, the work finally resolved a long time. Those things are a little neglected by the superiors who ultimately will affect employee satisfaction in daily life. Leadership in the spotlight here, the lack of feedback, encouragement or guidance work, discussion and direction in the work, all of this is rarely done in each work unit. Unit leaders more often to remind him or her presence discipline, which is something that is visible to the ranks of university rectors to work units responsibility. Another thing that is seen in job assignments from superiors to subordinates is still a lack of technical guidelines on the implementation of the task so that the assignment into something that is not effective in practice. Assignments are given effect on the ability of the employees own, so the accumulation of work in the respective different employees. Even still their employees who do not have a job in his unit because of their capacity and lack of attention boss against it. In total the university hopes that the implementation of the work in each unit can run properly and smoothly without problems of internal unit, because basically services to students as well as the main tasks each of which is the responsibility of each unit itself to support the achievement of objectives organization forward so that will create a good work culture more measurable and focused. According to Simanjuntak (2011) the duties and functions of each individual part of the subsection so that the individual has his responsibilities to his duties and functions that are decomposed with a specific task in terms of realizing the objectives of the organization. Job satisfaction is owned employees suspected of having an influence on the things mentioned above, so what is the job satisfaction in itself to be reduced. According to Akbar (2014) satisfaction will provide an option for fun (favorableness) or unpleasant (unfavorableness) on the selection of his work which of course will affect the individual. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 190 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 2. Research Methods 2.1. Location and Object Research The study was conducted at the State University of Medan Jl. Willem Iskandar Estate Market V Medan, Medan - North Sumatra. The object of research is the Effect of the Quality of Work Life and Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Performance Workforce Education at the State University of Medan. 2.2. Population and Sample In this study, the population is the educational staff's status as a civil servant in the position of administrative staff in the line-work environment Administrative Centre Medan State University totaling 222 teaching staff were spread over eight (8) units. Determination of the sample size in the study done using the formula Slovin, in order to get the total sample of 69 educators 68.94 rounded to the critical value (tolerance) of 10%. According to Prasetyo and Jannah (2008). 2.3. Equipment Data Analysis Equipment used for research hypothesis testing is done by the management of qualitative data analysis des- critic and cross tabulation (crosstab) while quantitative data analysis was done by using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with PLS approach, with the help of Software SmartPLS. For the purposes of acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis is done, the authors used a significance level of 5% (α = 0.05). Model lines in accordance with the framework, as in the following Figure 1. Figure-1. Research methods 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Characteristics of Respondents The respondents were civil servants with the status of civil servants in the working environment State University of Medan Administration Center. From the research conducted shows the results of the characteristics undertaken in the study, between can be seen in Table 1 by showing the percentage results that exist. Table-1. Results of respondent characteristics Characteristics of Respondents Total Percentage (%) Gender Man 37 53.6 Women 32 46.4 Age (years) 25 – 36 20 29.0 37 – 48 17 24.6 > 48 32 46.4 Education SMU 25 36.2 D3 4 5.8 S1 35 50.7 S2 5 7.2 Work Period (years) < 14 32 46.4 14 – 24 11 15.9 > 24 26 37.7 3.2. Relationship of Respondent Characteristics with Research Variables From the results of the existing research, each respondent characteristic is very weak, among others the age related to the research variables only seen in the QWL variable on the pride of the university (X19) with p-value equal to = 0.019. while age hubs with other variables are not visible. In the characteristic education, the Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 191 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group relationship is seen in the QWL and performance of educational personnel. QWL itself is seen on several indicators among the available facilities (X15) with p-value equal to = 0.009, job security (X17) with p-value equal to = 0.006, balanced compensation (X18) with p-value equal to = 0.004 and the pride of the university (X19) with p-value of = 0.004, while the performance of educational personnel is seen as the indicator of timeliness (Y25) with p-value equal to = 0.010 where the education owned has a positive effect on the time pattern or work discipline of educational staff. For the characteristic of the working period, the existing research shows that the working period only gives correlation or correlation to QWL through balanced compensation indicator (X18) with p-value equal to 0.007 and pride of university (X19) with p-value equal to 0.018. This indicates that the workforce of the educational staff is very valuable in each individual self, addition, educational personnel expect there to be a balanced compensation for the work done so far, which in turn fosters their pride in their work. 3.3. Model Evaluation The analysis conducted in this study using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with Partial Least Square (PLS) approach with SmartPLS software was first developed by Word as a common method to estimate path model using constructs or latent variables (exogenous and endogenous) with multiple research indicators (Ghozali, 2014). This analysis is used to find out how far the influence or suitability of the variables that exist on other variables. The path model of the analytical tool is used to analyze two elements, namely the outer model analysis of the model and the inner model. Outer model or measurement model is used to test the validity and reliability of indicators while inner model or structural model is used for causality test (hypothesis testing) (Jogiyanto, 2011). 3.4. Evaluation of Measurement Model (Outer Model) The model of measurement of latent variables on SEM PLS is divided into two models: reflexive model and formative model. In this study reflexive model is used, where the reflexive model performs an evaluation consisting of indicators of reliability, discriminant validity, internal consistency and convergent validity (Widarjono, 2015). This reflexive model has a loading factor value> 0.7 to the constructs or variables measured, but for the purposes of initial research, the loading factor values from 0.5 to 0.6 are considered sufficient in measuring the research (Ghozali, 2014). In this measurement model, as in Figure 3, there are 24 indicators that reflect the four latent variables used in the study. In Figure 3, each indicator shows that there is a loading factor value < 0.5 to the variable then it is necessary to eliminate and re-iterate it so that it will get the loading factor value > 0.5. Figure-2. Model of the initial measurement results From the final result of the measurement of the variables in Figure 2 by doing several iterations shows that there are 6 (six) indicators that have the loading factor> 0.5 of 9 (nine) indicators on the quality of work life variables seen on X13, X14, X15, X16, X17, and X18. Where indicator X15 (Facilities available) is the indicator that has the highest value in reflecting the quality of work life on job satisfaction with the value of 0.820. seen in Figure 3. Leadership variable consists of 4 indicators, all of which have value factor> 0.5 factor seen on indicator X21, X22, X23, and X24. The highest score indicator that reflects the leadership dimension of job satisfaction is X24 (Giving hope) with the value of 0.846. According to Putra (2005) the indicator that gives the dominant factor to the performance of the leadership of a boss is the his clever leader in reading the situation and sensitive to suggestions and input from subordinates so that the form of confidence of subordinates to work, which leads to the improvement of its performance. Expectations given by the leadership of each work unit provide meaning in giving a sense of satisfaction to the work in the university environment while the encouragement given to the leadership of his subordinates is less giving a sense of job satisfaction is done every day. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 192 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Figure-3. Model of final measurement iteration results on QWL variables. Figure-4. Model of final measurement iteration results on leadership variables In Figure 5, job satisfaction consists of 5 indicators which all have a loading factor value> 0.5 reflected by Y11, Y12, Y13, Y14, and Y15. From the indicator, Y13 (boss) is an indicator that has the highest value that reflects the work satisfaction of educational staff on the resulting performance of 0.871. Figure-5. Model of final measurement iteration results on job satisfaction variable From the results of existing indicators, a correct boss in carrying out his duties and responsibilities will provide a sense of high job satisfaction with his subordinates to produce a good performance in the work performed. In addition to the boss who provides value to the resulting performance is also supported by other indicators such as salary, a promotion that is supporting the work so that all will form cooperation among colleagues to the work itself, all of which will support the creation or formation of better performance in the environment individual work units. In line with Suparjono (2014) job satisfaction formed from a subordinate not only formed from a boss but from all elements of indicators that all affect the job satisfaction of a subordinate but the job satisfaction will be reduced if the lack of clarity of assignment done against the job. Therefore, the work itself must have the right direction and purpose so that job satisfaction will continue to be owned by every educational staff. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 193 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Figure-6. Model of final measurement iteration results on performance variables. From the results obtained on each latent variable, then tested the validity. Where the validity test is a test performed on latent variables, in this case using convergence validity test and discriminant validity test. Convergent validity test using Average Variance Extracted (AVE) with AVE value should be > 0.5 while discriminant validity test using cross loading method, AVE root is greater than the correlation of latent variable. Convergent validity test, this test is done to know or see how big the measurement of loading factor and value of Average Variance Extracted (AVE). The result of this research is that the value of loading factor and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value have fulfilled the validity requirement with the above average value or> 0.5 of the overall research indicator, so that the evaluation result of both has fulfilled the standard for validity test and value of Outer loading Table 1. According to Latan and Ghozali (2012) the loading factor value for the initial stage of development of measurement scale with the values of 0.5 - 0.6 is still considered sufficient and the value of AVE should be greater than 0.5. Table-2. Values of validity test results (AVE) AVE Information Leadership 0,628794 Valid Job Satisfaction 0,558441 Valid Performance 0,628159 Valid Quality of Work Life 0,557477 Valid Discriminant validity test performed to show the magnitude of AVE root and cross loading values. Where the square root AVE has a standard value greater than the correlation value between variables while cross loading indicator variable to latent variables must be greater value against other latent variables (Latan & Ghozali, 2012). From the results of the study shows that the value of AVE square root and cross-loading values have met the standards applied so that both of these tests have met the requirements in the evaluation of the reflexive model outer test in the validity test. Discriminant validity test results are AVE root and cross-loading Table 3. Table-3. AVE Root Value AVE √AVE Leadership 0,628794 0.792965 Job Satisfaction 0,558441 0.747289 Performance 0,628159 0.792565 Quality of Work Life 0,557477 0.746644 Note: Criteria: √AVE> correlation between constructs (variables). Table-4. Correlation Value between Variables (construct) Leadership Job Satisfaction Performance Quality of Work Life Leadership 1.000000 Job Satisfaction 0.726478 1.000000 Performance 0.552606 0.676291 1.000000 Quality of Work Life 0.626091 0.657384 0.502481 1.000000 Reliability test is a test performed to see the internal consistency of a measuring instrument, using composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha with a standard value> 0.7. From the result of the research, it shows that the value of value indicator of composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha is greater than 0.7, it is stated that the value has fulfilled the criteria of reliability test Table 5. 3.5. Evaluation of Structural Model (Inner Model) Structural models or measurement models illustrate the relationship between latent variables (exogenous and endogenous variables). This model is evaluated by using R-square (R2) for the constructor dependent variable (Endogen), in this case, the endogenous constructs of job satisfaction and performance of educational staff. The parameters used to evaluate the inner model in smartPLS begin by looking at the R-square test (test R2) and t- value. The value of R2 is used to see how far the endogenous variables can be influenced by exogenous variables in a measurement while the t-value value to show the significance of latent variable influence in the measurement model in hypothesis testing (Jogiyanto, 2011). Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 194 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group Cross Loading Leadership Job Satisfaction Performance Quality of Work Life X13 <- Quality of Work Life 0,636810 0,581225 0,323055 0,681450 X14 <- Quality of Work Life 0,488843 0,367898 0,184630 0,642232 X15 <- Quality of Work Life 0,390106 0,524779 0,363717 0,819614 X16 <- Quality of Work Life 0,436823 0,533242 0,496890 0,787769 X17 <- Quality of Work Life 0,347917 0,336551 0,337897 0,730041 X18 <- Quality of Work Life 0,498513 0,526774 0,459661 0,801698 X21 <- Leadership 0,808895 0,614691 0,476898 0,444976 X22 <- Leadership 0,806037 0,566445 0,392457 0,481409 X23 <- Leadership 0,704254 0,554134 0,429275 0,563331 X24 <- Leadership 0,845693 0,561878 0,446563 0,498853 Y11 <- Job Satisfaction 0,474477 0,771111 0,335373 0,642185 Y12 <- Job Satisfaction 0,626743 0,751277 0,421538 0,495917 Y13 <- Job Satisfaction 0,677380 0,871324 0,560799 0,566603 Y14 <- Job Satisfaction 0,412600 0,725228 0,418106 0,537217 Y15 <- Job Satisfaction 0,468548 0,589928 0,730872 0,228424 Y21 <- Performance 0,303502 0,316527 0,743019 0,223938 Y22 <- Performance 0,474970 0,541049 0,822648 0,289125 Y23 <- Performance 0,560892 0,590112 0,831214 0,415076 Y24 <- Performance 0,322729 0,460518 0,833804 0,475290 Y25 <- Performance 0,216544 0,384620 0,708511 0,359354 Y26 <- Performance 0,574420 0,732168 0,807461 0,527529 Table-5. Value of test results reliability Composite Reliability Cronbach’s Alpha Information Leadership 0.870899 0.801109 Reliable Job Satisfaction 0.861697 0.796800 Reliable Performance 0.909900 0.884349 Reliable Quality of Work Life 0.882369 0.840306 Reliable Figure-7. Inner model diagram. The value of R-Square (R2) of the job satisfaction variable will be influenced by the variable of quality of work life and leadership in the measurement, while the R-Square (R2) value of the performance variable of the education personnel will be influenced by all exogenous variables (quality of work life and leadership) and endogenous variables (job satisfaction). This R-Square (R2) value of job satisfaction variability has an R2 value of 0.595, the result of this measurement can be explained by the variable of quality of work life and leadership of 59.5% while the rest 40.5% can be explained by other variables outside the studied. The variability of the performance of educational staff has an R2 value of 0.468, whose measurement results can be explained by the variable quality of work life, leadership and job satisfaction of 46.8% while the remaining 53.2% is explained by other variables outside of the studied. Table-6. R-square value (R2). R-Square (R2) Job Satisfaction 0,595 Performance 0,468 Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 2020, 7(3): 188-197 195 © 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 3.6. Hypothesis Testing A Hypothesis test is used to determine the extent of significant or influence of exogenous variables on endogenous variables in a study conducted. The results of the hypothesis can be described as follows by looking at the results obtained in Table 7. Table-7. Bootstrapping results Loading Faktor T Statistics (|O/STERR|) Conclusion Quality of Work Life -> Job Satisfaction 0.333124 5.543585* Significant Leadership -> Job Satisfaction 0.517912 7.495753* Significant Quality of Work Life -> Performance 0.074109 1.032852 Not Significant Leadership -> Performance 0.106493 2.172636* Significant Job Satisfaction -> Performance 0.550208 8.776514* Significant Note: * significant influence on 5% real level (t-count > t-table 1.96 3.7. The Effect of Quality of Work Life on Job Satisfaction The result of hypothesis shown in Table 7, that the factor of quality of work life has a significant positive effect on the real level of 0.05 for 5.54 to the job satisfaction by stating H1 accepted and H0 rejected means the increasing quality of work life in the work unit environment will also increase job satisfaction educational staff in everyday life. Other Quality of work life indicators such as employee participation, development, and pride of the university are the parts that do not support the influence of job satisfaction in the organization (university). Where the participation of employees and others are expected later in improving job satisfaction, especially in established cooperation, other than it is expected with the participation of existing employees can provide input or job ideas and eventually foster a sense of job satisfaction is done, thus raises a good work spirit and lead to good performance too. In contrast to the opinion of Sukmawati, Cyrilla, and Andriana (2010) Participation positively given to the work done will foster job satisfaction which is one of the determining factors. But in this research, the determinant factor of the influence of QWL on job satisfaction is seen in available facility indicator, where with the facilities in university, it raises the work satisfaction of the high educational staff to what is their responsibility in the work in the work unit. Followed by Melia and Sukmawati (2011) employee participation factors in terms of adequately agreeing, where employees get the opportunity to give their ideas so that the work satisfaction grows but the organization is less run the idea that has given employees to superiors. 3.8. The Effect of Leadership on Job Satisfaction The result of the hypothesis is shown in Table 7, that the leadership factor has a significant positive effect on the real level of 0.05 of 7.50 to the job satisfaction with H1 accepted and H0 rejected means that the superior leadership will improve the job satisfaction in the work unit environment. Leadership performed by employers greatly affect the work satisfaction of subordinates in carrying out work activities undertaken in the work unit, where leadership will encourage, grow and provide direction in order to form subordinate confidence in doing the job given so that will create a new job satisfaction and directed in supporting the formation good performance. In line with the opinion of Yanti (2012) leadership of a boss gives effect to employee job satisfaction in this case at PT. Putra Sarana Trans-Borneo Banjarmasin, where the leadership performed by the boss properly and correctly can increase job satisfaction for employees especially in achieving the work goals. Therefore, the efforts or actions taken by superiors on their leadership greatly affect the work satisfaction of subordinates. The leadership style of a superior to subordinates will form teamwork in carrying out the work, so that leadership is the beginning of a boss's actions in managing subordinates. In line with the opinion of Safitri and Shabri (2012) The variables of the leadership style of democracy and teamwork partially affect the variable of job satisfaction made with subordinates to create a good team. 3.9. The Effect of Quality of Work Life on the Performance The result of the hypothesis shown in Table 7, the quality of work life variable has no significant effect on the real level of 0.05 of 1.03 to the performance of educational staff with t-count