44 THE EFFECT OF EMPOWERMENT, SELF EFFICACY AND JOB SATISFACTION ON JOB PERFORMANCE OF EMPLOYEES IN THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE’S PROCUREMENT ENTITIES Edy Gunawan*, Djaali**,I Ketut R. Sudiardhita*** The Secretariat General of the Ministry of Finance State University of Jakarta ** State University of jakarta*** gunawan3dy@gmail.com* djaali@unj.ac.id** iketutrsudiardhita@unj.ac.id*** Abstract The aims and purposes of this research are to identify and assess the direct effect of empowerment, self efficacy, and job satisfaction on job performance.This research is a quantitative research which conducts survey research methods and path analysis. The population in this study are Unit Layanan Pengadaan members in the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia which amount to 262 people in which 158 people are used as samples. Analitical tools of path analysis have been conducted to analize the data. Based on the result of examination of the hypothesis, its been concluded that (1) Empowerment has positive and significant effect on Job Performance; (2) Self Efficacy has positive and significant effect on Job Performance); (3) Job Satisfaction has positive and significant effect on Job Performance; (4) Empowerment has positive and significant effect on Job Satisfaction; (5) Self Efficacy has positive and significant effect on Job Satisfaction; (6) Empowerment has positive and significant effect on Self Efficacy. Keywords: Empowerment, Self-Efficacy, Job Satisfaction, Job Performance, Path Analysis The government is currently facing a challenge on how to achieve value for money from the use of state budget. The successful of national development implementation requires not only the efficiency and effectiveness with intensive control, but also requires the absorption of budget revenue and expenditure as a whole. The main problem encountered in the implementation of development today is the lack absorption of the budget. One of the main causes of this slow absorption lies in the area of procurement as government spending that is indeed expected to trigger the economic growth. Therefore, the development of government capacity to manage the procurement is a mandatory prerequisite for the fulfillment of the effectiveness and efficiency of national/regional budget spending. The development of government capacity in the context of human resources development owned by organizations is needed to provide optimal results. Human resources involved in the procurement of government goods and services (PBJP) are the budget user, proxy of budget user, the commitment maker officials, procurement services unit, procurement officers, and procurement result examination officer. Human resources owned by an organization that plays a big part in procurement process especially in selecting the vendors is the members of Procurement Service Unit (PSU). mailto:gunawan3dy@gmail.com* mailto:djaali@unj.ac.id 45 According to Ivancevich, Gibson, and Donelly (2012: 372), performance of employees refers to the degree of success in implementing the tasks and the ability to achieve the goals. Furthermore Shermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn (2011: 124) consider the performance as the quality of the achievement of the tasks, whether committed by individuals, groups or companies. There are several measures of the performance of employees, according to Gomes (2003: 142) which can be used as indicators of employee performance as follows: quantity of work, quality of work, job knowledge, creativeness, cooperation, dependability, initiative, personal qualities. Meanwhile, according to T.R. Mitchell in Sedarmayanti (2009: 51), performance includes several aspects, namely: prom quality of work, promptness, initiative, capability, communication. Then, Ivancevich et.al (2012: 532) suggests eight indicators of employment, namely the quantity of work, quality of work, job knowledge, attendance, initiative, cooperation, dependability, and the need of supervision. Another case with, Desler (2011: 338) which says there are 6 categories used to measure the performance of individual employees, which are quality, quantity, punctuality, effectiveness, independence, and work commitments. Based on some of the concepts that have been described above, employee performance can be defined as the results achieved in implementing the tasks that have been entrusted in order to achieve a goal legally, and in accordance with existing procedures, with the following indicators: quality, quantity, timeliness, effectiveness, and independence. One of the determinants in improving employee performance is empowerment. As stated by Suwatno Pariansa and Donni Juni Pariansa (2011: 182-183) quoting Rob Brown, empowerment is closely related to professionalism that was originally owned by the individual. Another suggestion from Hirmat R (2001: 46-48) explains that empowerment is basically about giving strength to those who have little or no power (powerless) in order to have the power of self-actualization. Moreover, Adnan M Al Sada (2003: 21) states several models of empowerment: a. Conger and Kanungo’s model: processing diagnosis stage, implementing empowerment strategies stage, providing resources through active achievement, representative experience, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal, empowering subordinates stage, and the final stage, the behavioral effects, b. Thomas and Tymon’s model: choice, competence, meaningfulness, progress, c. Spreitzer’s model: meaning, competency, self-determination, impact. Based on some of the concepts that have been described above, then empowerment is defined as the process of granting autonomy or greater and real authority to the employees in an organization through sharing of relevant information so that they can make decisions and take responsibility for the results to be achieved and have fun and self-satisfaction as experience with the following indicators: sense of meaning, self-determination, impact, choice, and progress. Morever, other factor that is believed to have an important role to employee performance is self-efficacy. Kreitner and Knicki (2008: 127) say that self-efficacy as a feeling or beliefs about his opportunity to successfully complete a specific task. This is in line with the opinion of Bandura in Lunenburg (2011: 1) which says that self-efficacy is a person's belief that he can successfully perform specific tasks. Furthermore, Gibson (2012: 159) says that self-efficacy has three dimensions which are size, strength, and generality. Besides empowerment and self-efficacy, the performance is also affected by the condition of job satisfaction that is driven by a strong motivation. According to Oshagbemi (2013:1), job satisfaction is about how a person with his work. The same explanation about the job satisfaction 46 is delivered by Colquitt (2009: 105) who states that job satisfaction is a fun emotional expression derived from an assessment of a job or an experience gained in work or in other words an expression of how an employee feels and thinks about his job. According to Luthan (2011: 142- 143) that there are a number of factors that affect job satisfaction, namely wage or salary, the work itself, opportunities, supervision, co-worker, and working conditions. Meanwhile, as quoted McKena, Hodgetts (2006: 297) identifies six factors that determine the causes of job satisfaction, namely: wages and benefits, promotion, job, leadership, working groups, working conditions. Based on some of the concepts that have been described above, job satisfaction can be defined as an emotional feeling someone to work with indicators: wages or salaries, promotion, supervision, co-workers, working conditions. This study aims to identify and assess the direct effect of: (1) Empowerment of employee performance; (2) self-efficacy to employee performance; (3) Job satisfaction to employee performance; (4) Empowerment of job satisfaction; (5) Self efficacy to job satisfaction; (6) Empowerment of self-efficacy. This study is expected to be useful, (1) theoretically to enrich the science in the field of human resource management, more specifically on empowerment, self- efficacy, job satisfaction, and employee performance and (2) practically to provide advice and input to: (a) For the academics, that the results of this study are expected to provide empirical evidence that can be used as additional references that enrich knowledge in the field of human resource management; (b) For the stakeholders, that the results of this study are expected to provide useful input in decision-making and policy-making related to empowerment, self- efficacy, job satisfaction, and employee performance at the procuring entity in the Ministry of Finance; (c) For the practitioner, as a reference in an effort to develop the science of human resources in the real world to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in the procurement of goods / services. METHOD This research was conducted in Ministry of Finance in October 2015 to October 2016 with PSU members as the object of this research. This is a quantitative research, using surveys and path analysis method. This research analyzes the direct influence of: (1) empowerment towards job performance; (2) self-efficacy towards job performance; (3) job satisfaction towards job performance; (4) empowerment towards job satisfaction; (5) self-efficacy towards job satisfaction; (6) empowerment towards self-efficacy. Procuring unit officers (members of Procurement Service Unit) in Ministry of Finance were taken as population in this research, totaling 262 persons in which 158 person were taken as research samples by using Slovin formula. Questionnaires were used as research instrument to support its variable data. This research used descriptive and inferential data analysis techniques. To test the hypothesis of the study, test requirements analysis was used, namely estimation error normality test, significance test and regression linearity test and path analysis. RESULT AND DISCUSSION 1. Result Description Descriptive analysis shows that (1) variable employee performance has average (mean) of 101.93; median of 102; mode of 101; standard error of 1.549; standard deviation of 3.78; variance (sample variance) of 14.3; data range (range) of 20; minimum score of 100 and maximum score 47 of 120; (2) variable empowerment has average (mean) of 110.42; standard error of 1.268; median of 111; mode of 111; standard deviation of 4.35; variance (sample variance) of 18.9; data range (range) of 26; minimum score of 86 and maximum score of 112; (3) self-efficacy variable has average (mean) of 119.16; standard error of 1.476; median of 119; mode of 119; standard deviation of 4.27; variance (sample variance) of 18.24; data range (range) of 22; minimum score of 99 and maximum score of 121; (4) the variable of job satisfaction has average (mean) of 111.37; standard error of 1.607; median of 111; mode of 112; standard deviation of 4.01; variance (sample variance) of 16.08; data range (range) of 19; minimum score of 111 and maximum score of 130. Table: Descriptive Statistics No. Measures Y X1 X2 X3 1. Mean 101,93 110,42 119,16 111,37 2. Standard Error 1,549 1,268 1,476 1,607 3. Median 102 111 119 111 4. Mode 101 111 119 112 5. Standard Deviation 3,78 4,35 4,27 4,01 6. Sample Variance 14,3 18,9 18,24 16,08 7. Range 20 26 22 19 8. Minimum 100 86 99 111 9. Maximum 120 112 121 130 10. Sum 17596 16105 17446 18827 11. Count 158 158 158 158 Source: Output from Generating Data 2. Analysis Requirement Test Statistical parametric is used with an assumption that the data used by each research variable that will be analyzed form a normal distribution. Requirement to be met in the path analysis is that the sample comes from a population that is normally distributed, and the relationship between the variables in the model should be significant and linear. Therefore, before testing the model, the test is conducted prior to the three requirements that apply in the analysis of the pathway which are Normality Test Error Estimates and Significance Tests and Linearity Regression a. Error Estimates Normality Test Error estimates normality test results show that (1) the distribution of employee performance data on empowerment comes from population with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that the value Lstatistics= 0.061 ≤ Ltable (n = 158; α = 0.05) 0.07; (2) the distribution of data on employee performance self-efficacy comes from population with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that Lstatistic = 0.0596 ≤ Ltable (n = 158; α = 0.05) 0.07 ; (3) the distribution of employee performance data on job satisfaction comes from 48 population with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that the value Lstatistic = 0.0650 ≤ Ltable (n = 158; α = 0.05) 0,07; (4) the distribution of job satisfaction data on empowerment comes from populations with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that Lstatistic = 0.0569 ≤ Ltable (n = 158; α = 0.05) by 0.07; (5) the distribution of job satisfaction data on self-efficacy comes from population with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that Lstatistic value = 0.0479 ≤ Ltable (n = 158; α = 0.05) by 0.07 .; (6) the distribution of the data on the empowerment of self-efficacy comes from population with normal distribution, it is shown from the calculation that Lstatistic= 0,0500 ≤ Ltable value (n = 158; α = 0.05) by 0.07. Table: Perstatistican Normality Test Error Estimates Results Summary Error Estimate Regression n Lstatistic Ltable Result Y on X1 158 0,0610 0,07 Normally distributed Y on X2 158 0,0596 0,07 Normally distributed Y on X3 158 0,0650 0,07 Normally distributed X3 on X1 158 0,0569 0,07 Normally distributed X3 on X2 158 0,0479 0,07 Normally distributed X2 on X1 158 0,0500 0,07 Normally distributed Source: Generated from Data Error Estimated Regression b. Significance Tests and Linearity Regression Significance test results show that (1) the simple linear regression model of employee performance on empowerment is Y = 90.75 + 0,20X1 with Fstatistic= 8.92 > Ftable= 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then he regression is significant; (2) the simple linear regression model employee performance on self-efficacy is Y = 89.79 + 0,20X2 with Fstatistic = 7.99 > Ftable = 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then it is a significant regression; (3) The simple linear regression model employee performance on the job satisfaction is Y = 81.50 + 0,25X3 with Fstatistic = 11.86 > Ftable= 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then it is a very significant regression; (4) The simple linear regression model of job satisfaction on empowerment is X3 = 98.72 + 0,20X1 with Fstatistic = 7.73 > Ftable value = 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then the regression is significant; (5) The simple linear regression model of job satisfaction on self-efficacy is X3 = 99.36 + 0,18X2 with Fstatistic = 5.90 > Ftable = 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then regression is significant; (6) the simple linear regression model of self-efficacy on empowerment is X3 = 93.77 + 0,16X2 with F = 4.43 > from F table value = 3.90 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic > Ftable then regression is significant. Table: Summary of Significance Test Regression Regression Model Significance Test Fstatistic Ftable 49 0.05 0,01 0,001 Y on X1 Ŷ = 90,75 + 0,20X1 8,92* 3,90 6,80 11,50 Y on X2 Ŷ = 89,79 + 0,20X2 7,99* 3,90 6,80 11,50 Y on X3 Ŷ = 81,50 + 0,25X3 11,86* 3,90 6,80 11,50 X3 on X1 X3 = 98,72 + 0,20X1 7,73* 3,90 6,80 11,50 X3 on X2 X3 = 99,36 + 0,18X2 5,90* 3,90 6,80 11,50 X2 on X1 X2 = 93,77 + 0,16X1 4,43* 3,90 6,80 11,50 Source: Output from Significance Test Regression linearity test results show that (1) the simple linear regression model employee performance on empowerment is Y = 90.75 + 0,20X1. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic=0.798 ≤ Ftable=1.68 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable then regression of Y on X1 is linear; (2) The simple linear regression model employee performance on self-efficacy is Y = 89.79 + 0,20X2. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic=1.29 ≤ Ftable=1.69 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable then regression Y on X2 is linear; (3) The simple linear regression model employee performance on the job satisfaction is Y = 81.50 + 0,25X3. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic=0,58 ≤ Ftable=1,73 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable then regression of Y on X3 is linear; (4) The simple linear regression model of job satisfaction on empowerment is X3 = 98.72 + 0,20X1. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic= 1.51 ≤ Ftable=1.68 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable, thenthe regression of X1 on X3 is linear; (5) The simple linear regression model of job satisfaction on self-efficacy is X3 = 99.36 + 0,18X2. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic=1.4 ≤ Ftable=1.69 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable then regression of X2 on X3 is linear; (6) the simple linear regression model of self-efficacy on empowerment is X3 = 93.77 + 0,16X2. From the linearity test it is obtained that Fstatistic=0.63 ≤ Ftable=1.68 at α = 0.05. Because Fstatistic ≤ Ftable then regression of X1 on X2 is linear. Table: Summary of Linearity Regression Test Results Regression Regression Model Linearity Test Fstatistic Ftable 0.05 0,01 0,001 Y on X1 Ŷ = 90,75 + 0,20X1 0,798RS 1,68 2,07 2,59 Y on X2 Ŷ = 89,79 + 0,20X2 1,29RS 1,69 2,09 2,63 Y on X3 Ŷ = 81,50 + 0,25X3 0,58RS 1,73 2,15 2,73 X3 on X1 X3 = 98,72 + 0,20X1 1,51RS 1,68 2,07 2,59 X3 on X2 X3 = 99,36 + 0,18X2 1,4RS 1,69 2,09 2,63 X2 on X1 X2 = 93,77 + 0,16X1 0,63RS 1,68 2,07 2,59 Source: Output from Linearity Regression Test 3. Hypothesis Test 50 The results show as follows: (1) the hypothesis testing on empowerment influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py1 as 0.163 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.095 < 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards job performance; (2) the hypothesis testing on self-efficacy influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py2 as 0.155 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.01 > 1.65) which means that self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job performance; (3) the hypothesis testing on job satisfaction influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py3 as 0.201 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.57 > 1.65) which means that job satisfaction has positive direct influence towards job performance. Moreover, (4) the hypothesis testing on empowerment influence towards job satisfaction has resulted path coefficient P31 as 0.191 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.43 > 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction; (5) the hypothesis testing on self-efficacy towards job satisfaction has resulted path coefficient P32 as 0.159 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.03 > 1.65) which means that self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction. The last, (6) the hypothesis testing on empowerment towards self-efficacy has resulted path coefficient P21 as 0.166 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.11 > 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards self- efficacy. Table: Summary of Hypothesis Test Results No. Direct Influence Path Coefficient dk tstatistic ttable α=0,05 α=0,01 1 𝑋1towards Y 0,163 158 2,095 1,65 2,35 2 𝑋2towards Y 0,155 158 2,01 1,65 2,35 3 𝑋3towards Y 0,201 158 2,57 1,65 2,35 4 𝑋1towards 𝑋3 0,191 158 2,43 1,65 2,35 5 𝑋2towards 𝑋3 0,159 158 2,03 1,65 2,35 6 𝑋1towards 𝑋2 0,166 158 2,11 1,65 2,35 Source: Output from Hypothesis Test Figure: Structural Relationships Between Variables Model r13 =0,22 31=0, 191 r1y =0,23 y1=0,163 r12 =0,17  21=0,166 r2y =0,22 y2=0,155 r23 =0,19 32=0, 159 r3y =0,27 y3=0,201 X1 X2 X3 Y 51 4. Analysis Based on the results obtained after performing the calculations and tests to answer the hypothesis, then an explanation is described as follows: a. Empowerment has positive direct influence towards job performance The hypothesis testing on empowerment influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py1 as 0.163 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.095 < 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards job performance. The result of this study is consistent with the theory stated by Wibowo (2009: 117) that: empowerment increases confidence in doing something, which has not previously been believed possible to be carried out by employee in the organization. Empowerment will improve the performance of organizations and individuals can carry out their talents fully. Likewise the opinion of Riniwati (2011: 11) which states that the empowerment managers and the top-level managers to lower level managers will largely determine passion or impulse to actualize themselves, to have achievement, and to use the authority to effectively utilize the capabilities of human resources optimally which will ultimately affect the performance in achieving organizational goals. This is reinforced by the results of research conducted by Ozgur Devrim Yilmaz (2015: 34-46) which concludes that psychological empowerment is positively correlated with employee performance and employee performance is largely influenced by self-determination and empowerment dimension and impact of research conducted by Taktaz Beazad (2012: 19-26) in which the study concludes that the empowerment variables have contributed dominantly and directly in affecting the performance. From the description above theory and based on empirical tests performed in this study, it proves that empowerment has positive influence on the employee performance. b. Self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job performance The hypothesis testing on self-efficacy influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py2 as 0.155 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.01 > 1.65) which means that self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job performance. The result of this study is consistent with the theory stated by Ivancevich and Konopaske (2013: 222), which explains that a person who has a high efficacy, would be inclined to believe that he would do well in work and tasks that are given, and this is supported by Bandura in Mathisen and Bronnick (2009: 21-29) that states self- efficacy is best obtained by combining the development of knowledge in the rules and strategies on real interest in everyone while being confident that they could use the rules and strategy well. These theories are in line with research conducted by Chei Ming Lan (2012: 387-391) who states in his research that there is a role of self-efficacy on employee performance in customer relation of automobile company in Taipei and research conducted by Timothy A. Judge (2007: 107 -127) that estimates that the unique contribution of self-efficacy for work is related to where the self- efficacy works. Therefore, based on the description of the theory above and empirical tests performed in this study, it proves that self-efficacy has positive direct influence on the employee performance. c. Job satisfaction has positive direct influence towards job performance The hypothesis testing on job satisfaction influence towards job performance has resulted path coefficient Py3 as 0.201 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.57 > 1.65) which means that job satisfaction has positive direct influence towards job performance. The result is consistent with the theory stated by a psychologist named Frederick Herzberg in SP Robbins and Judge (2015: 52 130) which states that employees who are intrinsically motivated will please works that allow them to use their creativity and inovation. Moreover, the relationship between job satisfaction and performance is reinforced by the view expressed by Robbins and Judge (2015: 53) which states that organizations that have employees who are more satisfied tend to be more effective compared to organizations that have employees who are not satisfied. The theory is in line with research conducted by Amilia prasaṅga (2012: 49-57), which proves that there is sufficient positive relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of the sailors in the Rapid Action Boat Squadron in the Sri Lanka Navy and research conducted by Timothy A. Judge ( 2001: 376-407) which demonstrates an association between job performance and job satisfaction. Therefore, based on the description of the theory above and empirical tests performed in this study, it proves that job satisfaction positive direct influence on the employee performance. d. Empowerment has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction The hypothesis testing on empowerment influence towards job satisfaction has resulted path coefficient P31 as 0.191 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.43 > 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction. The result of this study is consistent with the theory stated by Thomas and Velthouse and Seibert in Jian-Liang and Hai- Zhen (2012: 30) where Thomas and Velthouse define psychological empowerment as four cognition which reflect employee orientation for job roles which consists of meaning, competency, self-determination, and impact, while Seibert suggests that psychological empowerment is positively related to job satisfaction and negatively related to tension and employee turnover intensity. This is in line with research conducted by Li Fen Tseng Lin (2013: 21-29) that concludes the higher the psychological empowerment of identity for executives campus security from private university in Taiwan, the higher the work satisfaction will be. Similarly, research conducted by Kaid Abdullah Al Swidi (2012: 130-150) states that the higher the result of psychological empowerment which is owned by the employees, the higher the satisfaction of which is owned by each employee on Yemeni Islamic Banks will be. Therefore, based on the description of the theory above and empirical tests performed in this study, it proves that empowerment has positive influence on job satisfaction. e. Self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction The hypothesis testing on self-efficacy towards job satisfaction has resulted path coefficient P32 as 0.159 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.03 > 1.65) which means that self-efficacy has positive direct influence towards job satisfaction. The result of this study is consistent with the theory stated by Albert Bandura in Tara Helena Lam (2012: 15) which states that self-efficacy is a belief that gives confidence that someone is able to do a task or a job with a certain level of performance and thus gives effect to things related to life, related to job satisfaction. Employees who have a high self-efficacy can result in high levels of job satisfaction as well. It is supported by the result of research conducted by Mustafa Sure (2012: 370-378) on the survey towards Certified Public Accountants, which concludes that there is a significant relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction and research conducted by Esther T. Canrinus (2012: 115-132) in 1,214 Dutch teachers working in secondary education addressed that there is a relationship between self-efficacy and job satisfaction which plays a key that influences role in the relationship between indicators. f. Empowerment has positive direct influence towards self-efficacy 53 The hypothesis testing on empowerment towards self-efficacy has resulted path coefficient P21 as 0.166 and tstatistic is greater than ttable (2.11 > 1.65) which means that empowerment has positive direct influence towards self-efficacy. The result of this study is consistent with the theory stated by Schermerhorn (2011: 289) which defines that empowerment is a process whereby managers can help others to obtain and use the power needed to make the decisions that affect them and their work, while Newstrom (2011: 195) defines empowerment as a process that gives greater autonomy to employees through the sharing of relevant information and providing control over the factors that affect job performance. From both definitions, it seems that the empowerment of self-efficacy directly influences someone. It is also supported by the result of research conducted by Marzieh Moattari (2012: 1), which reveals that a combination of individuals and group empowerement can enhance self-efficacy, quality of life and clinical signs for patients in the hemodialysis process and research conducted by Sunu Widianto (2012: 2) who argues that the result of empowerment behaviors has positive effect on self-efficacy, then it is positively related to individual performance. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis carried out in the previous section, the findings in this study are as follows: (1) the empowerment of a positive direct effect on employee performance. This means that an increase in the empowerment affects employee performance improvement as members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance; (2) self-efficacy has a positive direct effect on employee performance which means an increase in self-efficacy affects employee performance improvement as members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance; (3) job satisfaction has a positive direct effect on employee performance. This means an increase in job satisfaction affects employee performance improvement as members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance; (4) empowering has a direct positive effect on job satisfaction which means an increase in empowerment affect an increase in job satisfaction of members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance ; (5) self-efficacy has a positive direct effect on job satisfaction which means that an increase in self- efficacy affects an increase in job satisfaction of members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance; (6) the empowerment has a positive direct effect on self-efficacy which means that an increase in empowerment affects an increase in self-efficacy of members in Procurement Services Unit (ULP) in the Ministry of Finance. The results of this study supports the science and theories of the experts and the results of previous studies that empowerment, self-efficacy and job satisfaction have a positive direct effect on employees performance. REFERENCES Al Sada, Adnan M. “A Literatur Review of Empowerment With A suggested Model for Bahrain Defense Force”. Naval Postgraduate Scholl Monterey, California. Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited MBA Professional Report., 2003. Al Swidi, Abdullah Kaid. “Is The Relationship between Employees Psychological Empowerment and employees Job Satisfaction Contingent on The Transformasional Leadership? A Study on The Yemeni Islamic Banks”. Asian Sosial Science. 2012. 54 Beazad, Taktaz.; Sedigheh Shabaani; Atefen Kheyri and Mahdieh Rahemipoor. “The Relation Between Psychological Empowerment and Performance of Employees”. Singaporean Journal of BusinessEconomic and Management Studies, 2012. Colquitt, Jason A., Lepine Jefry A. Michael dan J. Wesson. Organizational Bahavior, Improving erformance and Commitment in the Workplace. Int’l Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Desler, Garry. Human Resource Management. Twelfth Edition. England: Published By Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, Essex, 2011. Esther T. Canrinus; Michelle Helms-Lorenz; Douwe Beijaard; Jaap Buitink; Adriaan Hofman, “Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: exploring the relationships between indicatorsof teachers’professional identity” Eur J Psychol Educ., Vol. 27, 2012 Gibson, James L., et al. Organizations: Behavior, Structure, Processes. 14 th edition. Singapore: McGraw-Hill International Companies,Inc., 2012. Gomes, Faustino Cardoso. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia .Yogyakarta Andi Offset, 2003. Harry Hirmat R. Strategi Pemberdayaan Masyarakat, Bandung: Humaniora Utama Press, 2001. Judge, Timothy A.; Christine L. Jackson; John C. Shaw; Brent A. Scott and Bruce L. Rich. “Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: The Integral Role of Individual Differences”. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 92, No. 1, 2007. Judge,Timothy A. Carl J. Thoresen; Joyce E. Bono; Gregory K. Patton. “The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review”. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 127. No. 3, 2001. Kreitner, Robert dan Angelo Kinichi, Organizational Behaviour. Eighth Edition. New York: Mc Graw Hill/Irwin, 2008. Lai, Ming-Cheng. and Yen-Chun Chen. “Self Efficacy, Effort, Job Performance, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intention: The Effect of Personal Characteristics on Organization Performance”. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology. Vol. 3, No. 4, August 2012. Liang, Wang Jing and Wang Hai Zen. “The Influences of Psychological empowerment on Work Attitude and Behaviour in Chinese Organization”. Journal of Business Management. Vol 6 (30), 2012. Lin, Li-Fen Tseng, and Chun-chieh. “The Influence Of Leadership Behavior And Psychological empowerment On Job Satisfaction”. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 2013. Lunenburg, Fred C. “Self in the Workplace: Implication for Motivastion and Performance”. International Journal Of Management, Business, and Administration, Volume 14 Number 1, 2011. Luthan, Fred. Organizational Behaviour. 12th Edition. New York: Mc Graww Hill, 2011. 55 Mathisen, Gro Ellen dan Kolbjorn S. Bonnick. “Creative Self efficacy: An Intervention Study, University of Stavanger, Norway”. International Jouirnal of Education Research, 48, 2009. Moattari, Marzieh, Marzieh Ebrahimi, Nasrin Sharifi and Jamshid Rouzbeh, Moattari et al. “The effect of empowerment on self-efficacy, quality of life and clinical and laboratory indicators of patients treated with hemodialysis: a randomized controlled trial”. http://www.hqlo.com/content/10/1/115. diakses 10 Maret 2016 Newstrom, John W, Organizational Behavior, Human Behavior at Work. Thirteenth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 2011. Oshagbemi, Titus. Job Statisfaction in Higher Education. USA: Trafford Publishing, 2013. Prasanga, Amila and Aruna S. Gumage. “Job Satisfaction and Job Performance of The Sailors In Rapid Action Boat squadron Of Sri Lanka Navy”. Journal of Human Resource Manajement, 2012. Robbins, S.P. dan Judge. Prilaku Organisasi. alih Bahasa Ratna Saraswati dan Febriella Sirait. Edisi 16. Jakarta: Penerbit Salemba Empat, 2015. Schermerhorn, John R., et al. Organizational Behaviour. 11 th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc., 2010. Sedarmayanti. Sumber Daya Manusia dan Produktivitas Kerja. Cetakan Ketiga. Bandung: Mandar Maju, 2009. Sonnentag,Sabine. Psychological Management of Individual Performance. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002. Suwatno dan Donni Juni Priansa. Manajemen SDM; Dalam Organsiasi Publik dan Bisnis. Cetakan Keempat. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2014. Wibowo. Manajemen Kinerja. Edisi Kelima. Cetakan Ke-10. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2016. Widianto, Sunu. “The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Self Efficacy: Impact of empowering Leader Behavior on Individual Performance”. Center For Management and Business Studies (LMFE) Department of Management and Business. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/unpwpaman/. Diakses 4 Maret 2016. Yakin, Mustafa dan Oya Erdil. “Relationships Between Self-Efficacy and Work Engagement and the Effects on Job Satisfaction: A Survey on Certified Public Accountants”. Procedia:Social and Behavioral Sciencies , 2012. Yilmaz, Ozgur Devrim. “Revisiting the Impact of Perceived Empowerment on Job Performance: Results from Front-Line Employees”. TURIZAM. Volume 19, Issue 1, 2015.