527 MODERATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE EFFECT OF PATERNALISTIC LEADERSHIP ON HOTELS’ EMPLOYEE WORK ENGAGEMENT IN THE EASTERN PART OF INDONESIA Volume: 3 Number: 3 Page: 527 - 543 1Wenehenubun S.P., 2Vanesa V.H., 3Shanty D., 4TRIYANI., 5Silalahi H.H., 6Hartijasti Y. 1Visual Communication Design, Arts and Design Faculty, University of Multimedia Nusantara, Tangerang, Indonesia 2Hotel Management Faculty, Politeknik Jakarta Internasional, Jakarta, Indonesia 3Accounting Faculty, STIE Jayakusuma, Jakarta, Indonesia 4,5Economic and Business Faculty, University of Trisakti, Jakarta, Indonesia 6Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia Corresponding author: Wenehenubun S.P. E-mail: simon.wenehenubun@umn.ac.id Article History: Received: 2022-05-18 Revised: 2022-09-13 Accepted: 2022-11-11 Abstract: This study aims to examine the moderating role of organizational culture on the effect of paternalistic leadership on employee work engagement in the Eastern part of Indonesia. A simple random sampling technique was used. Using an online questionnaire via Google Forms, data was collected from 169 respondents which consisted of staff to manager level at 14 hotels in the Eastern part of Indonesia. This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to analyze the relationship. The result reveals that in Eastern Part of Indonesia, paternalistic leadership does not affect on employee work engagement. Likewise, the moderating role of organizational culture does not completely have a positive effect on paternalistic leadership and work engagement. The results of this research indicate that theoretically, the PL style can only be applied in organizations that focus more on administrative or management. This research only focuses on hotel business organizations in the Eastern part of Indonesia and does not involve other business units. In addition, this study only uses quantitative methods with online questionnaires. Further research should involve many hotels throughout The Eastern part of Indonesia, including the more comprehensive business unit. It is also necessary to use the interview method to ensure the quality of the research results. Keywords: Employee Work Engagement; Organizational Culture; Paternalistic Leadership; Hotel Industry; Eastern Part of Indonesia. Cite this as: WENEHENUBUN, S.P., VANESA V.H., SHANTY D., TRIYANI., SILALAHI H.H., HARTIJASTI Y. (2022) “Moderating Role Of Organizational Culture On The Effect Of Paternalistic Leadership On Hotels’ Employee Work Engagement In The Eastern Part Of Indonesia.” International Journal of Environmental, Sustainability, and Social Sciences, 3 (3), 527 – 543. INTRODUCTION Hotel leaders in the Eastern part of Indonesia face the challenge of increasing employee work engagement. This challenge is even higher in crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Employees tend to work based on routine tasks and are less enthusiastic. They can leave their jobs for personal or family matters and lack discipline in completing their work (Wabia et al., 2021). So, hotel leaders need to find the right strategy to manage this situation. One of them is finding the right leadership style. Leadership styles such as transformational leadership impact engagement whether in a virtual setup (Mutha & Srivastava, 2021). Leaders who have a fatherly attitude, nurture, protect, give advice, show examples, and are role models will make employees work better, be motivated, mailto:simon.wenehenubun@umn.ac.id 528 more manageable, and earn their respect (Erlangga et al., 2013). This kind of paternalistic leadership style will increase employees' sense of engagement (Oge et al., 2018). The result confirmed findings of Cenkci and Özçelik (2015) that PL's incredibly benevolent leadership has a significant effect on subordinates' work engagement. Furthermore, organizational culture (OC) also forms a sense of employee engagement (Humairoh & Wardoyo, 2017). Organizational culture refers to a system of personally and collectively accepted work meanings that operate for certain groups at certain periods (Pettigrew, 1979 in Bhardwaj and Kalia, 2020). Organizational culture is formed from the characteristics of the corporate culture, the culture of the local community, and the values of each individual. In line with that, Schein (2017:26) asserts that OC is an accumulation of shared learning from groups when solving problems of external adaptation and internal integration; which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, feel, and behave about the problem. Hotel employees from different cultures work together. Some employees are native to the area (local), employees who are not native to the area but have lived and lived in the local area for a long time, and overseas employees who come to work in the area. These employee characteristics shape the organizational culture at the hotel. Local culture in The Eastern part of Indonesia challenges forming organizational culture. In Maluku, Zacharias (2019) found that OC reflected in employee empowerment, team orientation, clarity of direction, and company goals influence employee performance of the Maluku Provincial Public Works Agency. Edowai et al. (2020) concluded that the OC and government employees ' work discipline increase their performance in Deiyai Regency, Papua Province. Research results from Wibawanto et al. (2021) show that there is a strong influence of discipline, motivation, and work culture on the performance of the employees of the Office of Industry and Trade in West Papua Province. Different findings by Wabia et al. (2021) in the BPKD of Tambraw District. By observation, he found the phenomena of discipline behavior among government employees. Employees who are late to the office are quite high, employees also often leave their work during office hours and discipline is low for example, during breaks many workers do not return to the office, and monthly work reports are always late. This reveals that work culture does not affect employee performance. The findings of Wabia et al. (2021) on employee characteristics and organizational culture become a reference for our research on the influence of leadership, work culture, and work engagement of private employees in The Eastern part of Indonesia, especially in hospitality. Paternalistic Leadership (PL) and Work Engagement (WE). In many kinds of literature, WE are closely related to burnout, financial performance, company performance, job performance, labor deviation, workaholic, ethical leadership, leader-member interaction, intention to quit, work- life balance, emotional work behavior, organizational citizenship (Garczynski et al., 2013; Alfes et al., 2013, Ozsoy et al., 2013; Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012; Agarwal, 2012; Konermann, 2012; Johnson, 2011; Van Wijhe et al., 2011; Xanthopoulou et al. ., 2009; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Consistent with this concept regarding the motivational role of job resources, several studies have shown a positive correlation between job resources (performance feedback, social support, and supervisory coaching) and WE (strength, dedication, and absorption) (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). Leaders who are directly involved in the work-life of employees have an important role in determining the level of employee participation (Bamford et al., 2013). Some previous studies have shown that WE influence leadership behaviors such as ethical leadership (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012), leader-member interaction (Agarwal et al., 2012), and authoritarian leadership (Cenkci & Ozcelik, 2018). Paternalism is a leadership model favored by many countries, such as Turkey, India, China, and Mexico (Karlsson, 2015). Paternalistic leadership behavior is standard in cultures with high 529 power distance (Schroeder, 2011). The involvement of paternalistic leaders in subordinates' lives is seen as part of the anxiety and protective role of leaders in eastern cultures with high power distance, but individualism is seen as an invasion of privacy. Nal and Sevim (2020), in a study on hospital employees in Turkey found a strong influence of PL on EW. These results are in line with the results of research from Aycan (2006) in Turkey which shows that paternalism is seen as a cultural property that has been identified as a high-level leadership style. In Turkey, employees prefer to work in organizations that provide protection and protect the family environment. Turkish employees attach great importance to the quality of relations in the workplace and the interest shown to the employer's employees (Turesin Tetik & Kose, 2015). The same results confirm the findings of Oge et al. (2018) and Cenkci and zçelik (2015). Based on the arguments above, the following hypothesis can be formulated: H1. There is a positive and significant influence of paternalistic leadership on work engagement. Organizational Culture (OC), Paternalistic Leadership (PL), and Work Engagement (WE). PL can be seen as a leadership approach suitable for workplace relationships characterized by collectivism and humane values (Irawanto, 2009). Leadership and OC can be closely related (Peters and Waterman 2004). Leaders must have a deep understanding of cultural identity and impact to manage effectively. In general, employees are difficult to convince to contribute fully to the organization. According to them, the organization belongs to the management or the authorities. There is no obligation for them to have a sense of belonging to the organization where they work (Irawanto, 2009). In contrast to Western culture, OC is usually closely related to Indonesian culture. In Indonesia, authority is considered a very important part of organizational life and is mainly related to seniority (Yudianti & Goodfellow, 1997). Indonesians consider someone a senior if they have a managerial position and the length of time they have worked in an organization, including age. Rai (2016) suggests that there is a positive relationship between organizational culture and employee engagement, although it is not significant. This is different from the research conducted by Humairo and Wardoyo (2017); Soeharso and Nurika (2020) which stated that there was a positive and significant relationship between OC and WE. Employees contribute to achieving organizational goals but must be directed by competent leaders. According to Soeharso and Nurika (2020), effective leaders need to show compassion through a paternalistic approach rather than an autocratic style. Humairoh and Wardoyo (2017) found that if the employee's perception of the culture in an organization is good, the employee will feel satisfied with his job. Employees who are satisfied with their work and perceive their work as fun will tend to have good performance. This lies the importance of company leaders: they must know the satisfaction of their employees. If employees' satisfaction has reached the highest level, there will be an attitude of employee attachment to the company (Humairoh & Wardoyo, 2017). Several factors that can affect WE are leadership, communication, management style used, level of trust and respect for the work environment, organizational culture, and the reputation of the organization itself (Soeharso & Nurika, 2020). To be able to increase employee engagement, it is necessary to have an excellent organizational culture that can be accepted by all employees in the company (Soeharso & Nurika, 2020) Based on the arguments above, the following hypothesis can be formulated: H2. The moderating role of organizational culture can strengthen paternalistic influences leadership on work engagement. 530 Figure 1. Research Model METHODS Sample. Respondents were 169 people, consisting of 92 staff, 28 supervisors, and 49 managers/directors who worked in 13 3 and 4-star hotels in The Eastern part of Indonesia. There are 99 male respondents and 70 female respondents. A total of 20 people worked under 1 year, 72 people worked 1-3 years, 30 people worked 4-6 years, 15 people worked between 7-9 years, 24 people worked 10-12 years, 4 people worked 13-15 years and 4 people worked more than 15 years. 69 respondents are migrants, 40 were born or raised immigrants in this area and 60 respondents are local natives. Scale and measure. The structured questionnaire consists of three parts containing 81 statements using a five-point Likert scale. A scale of 1 indicates strongly disagree and a scale of 5 indicates strongly agree. Questionnaires were circulated via google form and filled out online. The WE was adapted from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) with 3 dimensions, using 15 statement items. The PL was adapted from Irawanto et al. (2012) with 6 dimensions using 36 statement items, and OC was adapted from Sashkin & Rosenbach (2013) with 5 dimensions, using 30 statement items. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The research respondents are the village head or village secretary and the head of financial affairs. This study succeeded in collecting 72 questionnaires (the return rate of the questionnaire was 100%), and all questionnaires were used in further analysis. The characteristics of respondents are relatively varied. Nearly 80% are male (56 people) and 16 women. Most (60 people) were aged between 30-50 years, and 12 people were aged between 20-29 years. The level of high school / vocational education there is 15 people and diplomas/scholars 52 people, with levels of experience between 1 to 12 years. Respondents with the position of village head were 10 people, while the village secretary was 26 people, and the head of financial affairs was 36 people. Testing the instrument's validity using the Pearson correlation (Ghozali, 2012) shows that all the statements have a validity of each score point statement more than 0,3. Therefore, it shows that the research instrument is valid. A reliability test is used to measure the consistency of answers to statements for a variable in this study. Every variable measured using statements in the instrument has a value (Cronbach's Alpha > 0.60) it can be concluded reliably. This study uses a regression model so that classical assumptions must be tested to fulfill the requirements of the causality model. Testing for normality using the test Kolmogorov-Smirnov, while heteroscedasticity uses Glejtser. The regression model of this research has passed the Normality and Heteroscedasticity test. The descriptive statistics of this study are shown in Table 1 below. Paternalistic Leadership Organizational Culture Work Engagement H.1 H.2 531 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics N Min Max mean Std. Dev HR 72 34 48 41, 85 3, 270 PAR 72 37 50 43, 24 3, 617 PEM 72 66 90 77, 44 7, 136 PRO 72 42 55 47, 53 3, 914 AK 72 39 55 49, 01 4, 378 Source: Data Processed Based on the descriptive statistical results, the average level of HR competence, the community participation felt by the respondent, the leadership factor, and the respondent's perception of prosocial behavior and the level of accountability of village fund management are believed to be relatively high. Hypothesis testing using Moderated Regression Analysis with the test result is presented in Table 2 below it. Table 2: Moderated Regression Testing Results B Std. Error Beta T Sig. 1 (Constant) 0, 089 0, 412 0, 216 0, 829 HR 0, 396 0, 112 0, 343 3, 526 0, 001 PAR 0, 158 0, 109 0, 148 1, 445 0, 153 PEM 0, 009 0, 037 0, 024 0, 237 0, 814 PRO 0, 319 0, 107 0, 285 2, 972 0, 004 SDM * PRO 0, 015 0, 006 0, 212 2, 432 0, 018 PAR * PRO - 0, 007 0, 038 - 0, 022 - 0, 194 0, 847 PEM * PRO 0, 119 0, 048 0, 284 2, 493 0, 015 Adjusted R - square 0.654 F count 17,273 F sig 0,000 Source: Data Processed Based on the test results shows that the coefficient of determination Adjusted R-Square is 0.654, which means that the variation of HR competencies, community participation and leadership, together with the prosocial behavior of village government officials, can explain the accountability of village fund management by 65,4%, while 34,6% is explained by other factors not included in this testing model. Meanwhile, the regression model testing results through the F-test show that this model has a decent (fit). Moreover, to assess the significance level of F with α = 0,05 showed the Sig. F of 0,000 <0,05 and F value of 17, 273, so this means that the regression model is feasible to be used in this study. Based on Table 2, there is a summary of the MRA test results to be interpreted and hypothesis testing. Coefficient β 5 = 0,015; shows that the interaction of HR competencies and prosocial behavior is positive so that it can significantly increase the accountability of village fund management (Sig. 0,018 <0,05). It means that the influence of HR competencies and prosocial behavior is reinforced by enhancing accountability village fund management, where other independent variables are held constant. Thus, Hypothesis 1 can be accepted that prosocial behavior strengthens the effect of HR competencies on village fund management accountability. Coefficient β 6 = -0,007; that-the interaction variable of community participation and prosocial behavior has no significant relationship (sig. 0.847>0,05) to the variable accountability of village fund management. It means that prosocial behavior influences the relationship between 532 community participation variables and village fund management accountability, where other independent variables are considered constant (Bustaman et al., 2018; Jayawarsa, Saputra, et al., 2021). Thus, Hypothesis 2 cannot be accepted that prosocial behavior cannot strengthen the influence of community participation on village fund management accountability (Atmadja et al., 2021; Ekayuliana et al., 2018; Wahyudi et al., 2019). β7 =0,119; that the interaction variable between leadership and prosocial behavior has a positive and significant relationship to the accountability variable of village fund management (Sig. 0.015 <0,05). It means that prosocial behavior influences can strengthen the relationship between leadership variables and village fund management accountability, assuming that other independent variables are considered constant. Thus, Hypothesis 3 can be accepted that prosocial behavior strengthens the influence of leadership on the accountability of village fund management (Saputra et al., 2019). Validity and reliability. Pre-survey validity test using factor analysis with an initial sample of 40 respondents. The validity test criteria are the measurement items are declared valid if the Loading Factor is above 0.50 and the feasibility of factor analysis with KMO (Kaiser Meyer Olkin Measure of Sampling) is above 0.50. While the reliability evaluation (reliability test) with Cronbach's alpha method with a minimum value of 0.70. Table 3. Reliability Test Results Variable Number of items Loading Factor KMO Cronbach’s Alpha Paternalistic Leadership (PL) (X) 36 0,504 – 0,886 0,717 0,968 Work Engagement (WE) (Y) 16 0,531 – 0,865 0,700 0,951 Organizational Culture (OC) (M) 29 0,532 – 0,939 0,729 0,974 Based on the table above, it can be seen that the initial research instrument is acceptable with the level of validity for the PL variable between 0.504 - 0.886 with Cronbach's alpha of 0.968. Of the 36 measurement items, there are 8 (eight) that are less valid, namely VL4, VL5, VL9, AL1, AL4, AL9, BL1 and BL2. For the variable of the 16 measurement items, there is 1 less valid item, namely V6, and overall LF lies between 0.531 - 0.865 with a reliability level of 0.951. The level of validity of OC is acceptable with an LF between 0.532 - 0.939 with Cronbach's alpha of 0.974. As for the 29 items, there are 5 (five) items that are less valid, namely MC5, MC6, AG5, CO6 and CS2. Overall the evaluation of the pre-survey instrument was acceptable. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics of Variable Dimensions Dimension Mean Correlation Between Variable Dimensions VL AL BL MIC MCL MIP MM MC AG CT CO CS V D A VL 4,60 1,00 AL 4,02 0,81 1,00 BL 4,17 0,76 0,77 1,00 MIC 4,19 0,83 0,85 0,74 1,00 MCL 4,28 0,89 0,75 0,77 0,80 1,00 MIP 4,45 0,92 0,81 0,80 0,93 0,95 1,00 MM 3,61 0,54 0,53 0,67 0,57 0,61 0,67 1,00 MC 4,96 0,46 0,43 0,47 0,50 0,49 0,53 0,40 1,00 AG 5,42 0,54 0,51 0,54 0,61 0,55 0,61 0,48 0,93 1,00 CT 5,32 0,56 0,53 0,59 0,63 0,58 0,64 0,48 0,93 0,95 1,00 CO 4,91 0,59 0,54 0,52 0,62 0,58 0,64 0,48 0,86 0,89 0,91 1,00 CS 4,72 0,63 0,59 0,63 0,66 0,67 0,71 0,53 0,78 0,85 0,87 0,83 1,00 V 5,09 0,52 0,45 0,50 0,54 0,54 0,59 0,43 0,81 0,81 0,80 0,77 0,74 1,00 D 5,19 0,58 0,52 0,52 0,64 0,57 0,64 0,44 0,87 0,89 0,89 0,87 0,82 0,86 1,00 A 4,95 0,58 0,52 0,49 0,62 0,55 0,62 0,43 0,85 0,86 0,86 0,87 0,78 0,77 0,97 1,00 533 Note: Visible leadership (VL), Authoritarian leadership (AL), Benevolent leadership (BL), Moral incorruptness leadership (MIL), Moral courage leadership (MCL), Moral impartialness leadership (MIP), Moral magnanimity leadership (MM), Managing change (MC), Achieving goals (AG), Coordinated teamwork (CT), Customer orientation (CO), Cultural strength (CS), Vigor (V), Dedication (D), Absorption (A). From a total of 169 respondents, they tend to answer with a positive response to each dimension of the study indicated by a score above 4 except for the Moral Magnanimity Leadership (MM) dimension with a score of 3.61. The correlation between the dimensions shows a positive correlation between the dimensions of the study. Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Confirmatory Factor Analysis is an evaluation of causality between research variables with dimensions or measurement items. The level of validity is accepted if the loading factor (LF) ≥ 0.7. Evaluation of reliability is seen from construct reliability (CR) and variance extracted (VE). The reliable CR values are 0.70 and AVE ≥ 0.50 (Wijayanto, 2008:64). The research model is a second-order factor, where at the first-order factor level, namely causality between dimensions and measurement items, the LF is valid above 0.70 with acceptable CR and AVE. As for the second-order level, the causality factor between variables and the dimensions that measure them is as follows. Table 5. Loading fact or, Construct Reliability and Average Variance Extracted Variable Paternalistic Leadership Variable Dimension Loading Factor Construct Reliability Average Variance Extracted Paternalistic Leadership (PL) Visible leadership (VL) 0,93 0,961 0,779 Authoritarian leadership (AL) 0,84 Benevolent leadership (BL) 0,82 Moral incorruptness leadership (MIL) 0,92 Moral courage leadership (MCL) 0,94 Moral impartialness leadership (MIP) 0,98 Moral magnanimity leadership (MM) 0,72 CFA on the paternalistic leadership variable has an LF between 0.72 – 0.98 were the dimensions measure paternalistic leadership with CR 0.961 and AVE 0.781. The dimensions that reflect the highest measurement are moral courage, moral impartiality leadership, visible leadership, and moral incorruptness leadership. On the other hand, the dimension of magnanimity leadership, although it has an acceptable LF, still needs improvement. Table 6. Loading factor, Construct Reliability and Average Variance Extracted Variable Organization Culture Variable Dimension Loading Factor Construct Reliability Average Variance Extracted Organization Culture Managing change (MC) 0,94 0,975 0,885 Achieving goals (AG) 0,97 Coordinated teamwork (CT) 0,98 Customer orientation (CO) 0,93 Cultural strength (CS) 0,88 CFA on the variable organization culture has an LF between 0.88 – 0.98 which indicates that the dimensions have a strong correlation in reflecting the measurement of the organizational culture 534 variable. The level of reliability is acceptable with a CR value of 0.975 and an AVE value of 0.885. Overall, the organizational culture looks strong in the aspects of coordinated teamwork, achieving goals, managing change, and customer orientation. However, the aspect of management change (cultural change) even though it has an acceptable LF, it looks like it needs improvement. Table 7. Loading factor, Construct Reliability and Average Variance Extracted Variable Working Engagement Variable Dimension Loading Factor Construct Reliability Average Variance Extracted Working Engagement Vigor (V) 0,84 0,952 0,869 Dedication (D) 0,98 Absorption (A) 0,87 CFA on the work engagement variable has an LF between 0.89 – 0.97 with an acceptable level of reliability, namely CR 0.952 and AVE 0.869. The dimension that reflects the highest measurement is dedication. Structural Model. The structural model describes the causality of the influence between the research variables. The criteria for the significance of the influence between variables are shown by the T statistic above 1.96. This study hypothesizes that there is a moderating organization culture on the influence of Paternalistic Leadership (PL) on Work Engagement (WE). According to Cortina et al. (2001), there are several methods of interaction with LISREL, namely Kenny and Judd (1984) by integrating all dimensions that measure variables, the Joreskog and Yang (2000) method uses a single indicator by creating a latent variable score (LVS). The significance of the moderation test is seen from the moderating effect, namely the interaction variable between organization culture (OC) and Paternalistic Leadership (PL). In this Structural Equation Modeling analysis, models can interpret the results. Table 8. Structural Model Hypothesis Model PL → WE 0,056 (1,25) OC → WE 0,88 (11,60)*** PL x OC → WE PL x (MC) --> WE -0,33 (-2,64)** PL x (AG) --> WE 0,38 (2,34)** PL x (CT) --> WE 0,26 (1,44) PL x (CO) --> WE -0,18 (-2,71)** PL x (CS) --> WE -0,15 (-2,04)** CFI 0,92 NNFI 0,92 RMSEA 0,13 SRMR 0,16 AIC 4808,29 CAIC 5456,48 PNPI 0,83 Note. Paternalistic Leadership (PL), Work Engagement (WE), Organizational Culture (OC), Managing change (MC), Achieving goals (AG), Coordinated teamwork (CT), Customer orientation (CO) dan Cultural strength (CS). (**) sig 5%, (***) sig 1%. 535 Table 9. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Interaction Variable Variable Interaction and Dimensions Ineraction Amongs Dimensions Loading Factor T Statistic Const ruct Relia bility Varianc e Extracte d Paternalistic Leadership and Managing Change Interaction Visible leadership x Managing change 0,956 17,584 0,963 0,79 Authoritarian leadership x Managing change 0,888 17,005 Benevolent leadership x Managing change 0,842 15,586 Moral incorruptness leadership x Managing change 0,95 17,408 Moral courage leadership x Managing change 0,968 17,653 Moral impartialness leadership x Managing change 0,984 17,762 Moral magnanimity leadership x Managing change 0,56 11,901 Paternalistic Leadership and Achieving Goals Interaction Visible leadership x Achieving goals 0,961 17,659 0,962 0,787 Authoritarian leadership x Achieving goals 0,89 17,11 Benevolent leadership x Achieving goals 0,827 15,304 Moral incorruptness leadership x Achieving goals 0,955 17,445 Moral courage leadership x Achieving goals 0,97 17,726 Moral impartialness leadership x Achieving goals 0,986 17,809 Moral magnanimity leadership x Achieving goals 0,533 11,763 Paternalistic Leadership and Coordinated Teamwork Interaction Visible leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,958 17,612 0,965 0,799 Authoritarian leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,883 17,053 Benevolent leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,874 16,086 Moral incorruptness leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,953 17,452 Moral courage leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,968 17,68 Moral impartialness leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,985 17,777 Moral magnanimity leadership x Coordinated teamwork 0,564 11,933 Paternalistic Leadership and Customer Orientation Interaction Visible leadership x Customer orientation 0,96 17,605 0,956 0,764 Authoritarian leadership x Customer orientation 0,871 16,751 Benevolent leadership x Customer orientation 0,784 14,02 Moral incorruptness leadership x Customer orientation 0,942 17,294 Moral courage leadership x Customer orientation 0,959 17,47 Moral impartialness leadership x Customer orientation 0,984 17,757 Moral magnanimity leadership x Customer orientation 0,527 11,333 Paternalistic Leadership Visible leadership x Cultural strength 0,947 16,488 0,97 0,824 Authoritarian leadership x Cultural strength 0,899 15,046 536 and Cultural Strength Interaction Benevolent leadership x Cultural strength 0,867 14,196 Moral incorruptness leadership x Cultural strength 0,945 16,439 Moral courage leadership x Cultural strength 0,963 17,032 Moral impartialness leadership x Cultural strength 0,984 17,767 Moral magnanimity leadership x Cultural strength 0,723 10,853 Evaluation of Confirmatory Factor Analysis of interaction variables on the dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership and organization culture is acceptable where all interaction indicators have a Loading Factor above 0.70 and a T statistic above 1.96 (valid and significant), Hair et al. (2010), but some interaction indicators show Loading Factor above 0.50 (acceptable), Igbari et al. (1997). The interaction of the organizational culture dimension with all dimensions of Paternalistic Leadership looks stronger on the dimensions of Moral impartiality leadership and Moral courage leadership which is indicated by the highest Loading Factor value compared to other interactions. On the other hand, the interaction of all dimensions of organization culture looks slightly lower on the Moral magnanimity leadership dimension. Structural Model Diagram ** significant 5%, *** significant 1% Hypothesis Testing. Hypothesis 1. There is a positive and significant influence of Paternalistic Leadership (PL) on Work Engagement (WE). The influence of PL on WE can be seen from the model without or by including the Organizational Culture (OC) moderating variable in the structural model. Model is an extension of the moderating variable where the moderation test involves every dimension of OC and it appears that the influence of PL on WE is not significant (path coefficient 0.056) with t statistic (1.25), less than 1.96. These results reinforce the notion that when hotel policies function the OC variable as a moderating variable in the model, the influence of paternalistic leadership on work engagement is not dominant. Thus hypothesis 1 is rejected. 537 Hypothesis 2. The moderating role of organizational culture can strengthen the influence of paternalistic leadership on work engagement. Testing the significance of the OC as a moderating variable can be seen from the model. Testing separately at each level of the OC dimension, it appears that several significant OC dimensions are seen, namely managing change (path coefficient -0.33), achieving goals (path coefficient 0.38), customer orientation (path coefficient -0.18), and cultural strength (path coefficient -0.15). Managing change, customer orientation, and cultural strength significantly weaken the influence of PL on WE. Improvement of organizational culture in aspects of managing change, customer orientation, and cultural strength will reduce the influence of PL on WE. The dominance of hotel management in PL will decrease along with the strengthening or improvement of the organizational culture in the aspects of managing change, customer orientation, and cultural strength. On the other hand, by improving the aspect of Achieving goals (path coefficient 0.38), the influence of Paternalistic Leadership (PL) on Work Engagement (WE) will strengthen. Thus hypothesis 2 is acceptable. In general, the role of OC is significant and negative, while only AC is significant and positive. The goodness of Fit Test. Based on the model suitability test, the following explanation can be described: (a) Absolute Fit. To test how close the match between the sample covariance matrix and the model covariance matrix, the Root Mean Square Error Approximation (RMSEA) and SRMR values can be used where the model with RMSEA tends to judge the model to be less fit because the calculated RMSEA is more than 0.08, on the contrary, the SRMR model tends to show the model fit (less than 0.10); (b) Comparative Fit. The value is shown by the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Non- Normed Fit Index (NNFI) in the models. NNFI and CFI above 0.90 indicate a fit model with the data. These results indicate that the influence model between the hypothesized variables tends to match the empirical data; (c) Parsimonious fit relates the model's Goodness of Fit to the estimated number of parameters, i.e., the parameters needed to achieve a fit at that level. Parsimonious can be interpreted to obtain the highest degree of fit for each degree of freedom in this case. The Parsimonious Normal Fit Index (PNFI) value of the SEM model is 0.76 to 0.83 and in the model. This PNFI value is used to compare two or more models that have different degrees of freedom. Smaller AIC and CAIC values indicate a better model. The results of the suitability test or model fit test show that not all tests provide a fit conclusion. It is very rare to find data that give good results with all conformity tests, even though there are still many criteria for assessing the suitability test categorized as fit. Therefore, the model can still be said to be good. This follows the opinion of Widarjono (2010), who states that from several model feasibility tests, the model is said to be feasible if at least one of the model feasibility methods is met. Of course, a model in its feasibility test that can meet more than one model criteria will be much better than a model that only meets one feasibility test. Research on PL in several Asian countries shows that PL is very relevant and practiced in organizational and business management (Arun et al., 2020). PL is considered suitable and follows the characteristics of Asian society, which highly value the leader's authority. Research in Pakistan (Soomre et al., 2021) as well as in Turkey (Oner, 2012) and China (Hou et al., 2019) reinforces the role of PL. In Indonesia, especially in Java, the influence of PL in government organizations is powerful and significant in encouraging employee performance (Irawanto et al., 2012). However, no research was found on the influence of PL in business or non-governmental organizations. In the Eastern Part of Indonesia, paternalistic culture is practiced by people in their lives. A paternalistic leader is a role model for his members. PL is very influential in government institutions on employee performance (Zacharias, 2019., Edowai et al., 2020). This leadership model is a type of paternalistic leadership, which is generally found in the world of bureaucracy (Sianipar & 538 Nurhasana, 2020). This fact was contrary to research findings. The research shows that PL in the hospitality sector does not have a strong and significant influence on employee WE. The influence of PL on WE is only 0.056 (1.25) < 1.96. This means that PL cannot increase the WE of hotel employees in the Eastern part of Indonesia. This phenomenon can be explained by comparing the PL applied in government organizations and indigenous peoples' organizations with business organizations. Two aspects can be considered: First, in fact, the authority of paternalistic leaders in government institutions is generally held by leaders who are the natives. The leader has cultural values that influence his leadership. He is perceived as a role model by subordinates. Then when implementing PL, this leadership model can improve the performance of employees. Meanwhile, generally, the leader of the hotel is held by an individual who comes from outside of the area. Hotel owners, top-level management, and middle level come from outside the Eastern part of Indonesia. This of course affects the pattern of their approach to employees. Second, the characteristics of government organizations with their work culture are different from those of business organizations. From the subordinate side, the work demands of government employees are less strong when compared to the work demands of employees. Government leaders only keep administrative work and employee performance run according to predetermined standards, while business leaders must ensure that employees work according to targets and be creative so that businesses can survive in difficult situations. This is where hotel leaders focus on achieving company targets rather than a more paternalistic approach. The impact is that hotel leaders cannot apply the PL model, which local employees generally practice. If so, the implementation of PL by hotel leaders does not match the characteristics of the employees and therefore does not affect their WE. Furthermore, research on the role of OC as a moderator between leadership and performance shows a positive and significant effect. Soeharso and Nurika (2020) that leadership, communication, management style used, level of trust and respect for the work environment, organizational culture, and reputation of the organization influence employee WE. Ababneh (2021) found that OC has a positive and significant impact on WE. Several kinds of research in The Eastern part of Indonesia have shown that OC plays a positive and significant role in the performance of government office employees (Zacharias, 2019; Edowai et al., 2020; Wibawanto et al., 2021). Wabia et al. (2021) show that OC has less effect on employee performance. Testing the hypothesis by looking at the moderating role of OC between PL and WE shows that the OC dimension together can moderate PL and WE and its significance on both sides. First, only the achieving goal dimension has a positive and significant effect, strengthening the relationship between PL and WE by 0.38 (2.34). Second, other OC dimensions such as Coordinated teamwork (CT), Customer orientation (CO), and Cultural strength (CS) have a negative and significant effect, namely weakening the influence of PL on WE. This finding aligns with Wabia et al. (2021) that OC in the Eastern part of Indonesia has less effect on employee and employee performance and WE. The phenomenon can explain this finding that the background of hotel leaders and their culture and work guidance that focuses on goals have encouraged employees to improve their performance and have high WE. Meanwhile, it could be that the applied leadership pattern emphasizes a superior-subordinate (hierarchical) approach and is task-oriented, causing aspects of personal relationships, teamwork, customer orientation, and organizational culture to receive less attention. Furthermore, from the employee side, the negative significance of CT, CO, and CS could be due to the lack of strengthening the human resources capacity of hotel management in each of these dimensions. If we look at the average, it can be concluded that the organizational culture of hotels in The Eastern part of Indonesia is inadequate in increasing employee WE. 539 Prosocial behavior strengthens the effect of HR competencies on village fund management accountability means that the higher the competence of village government officials, the higher the accountability of village fund management, especially if village government officials have high prosocial behavior (Stavrova & Siegers, 2013). In addition, village government officials' high sense of devotion to help, share, cooperate, empathize, and be honest causes a stronger desire to be responsible for managing village funds (Chamidah et al., 2020; Jayawarsa, Purnami, et al., 2021). Prosocial behavior cannot strengthen the effect of community participation on village fund management accountability (Stavrova & Siegers, 2013). On the contrary, prosocial behavior weakens the effect of community participation on village finance and accountability, although it is not statistically significant. It reflects a sense of devotion to the concept of ngayah, which village government officials increasingly own; during the high community, participation will be able to reduce accountability in village fund management (Mariyatni et al., 2020; Siregar & Muslihah, 2019). Prosocial behavior strengthens the influence of leadership on accountability in village fund management. Therefore, the village government officials who have high levels of prosocial behavior to serve and ngayah higher will become increasingly accountable management of village funds. CONCLUSION This study has found that PL style leadership does not increase the WE of hotel employees in The Eastern part of Indonesia. This is contrary to research done so far. In addition, OC can be a moderation in the PL leadership style towards WE employees, although the degree of moderation is only partially. These results indicate that the PL leadership style for business organizations cannot be applied in this area. So, hotel management needs to find a more relevant leadership style, for example, transactional leadership, transformative leadership, and others. Furthermore, hotel management needs to motivate employees to achieve organizational goals through mentoring and strengthening routine tasks. Theoretical implications. Previous research in various Asian countries has shown that the PL has increased employee performance, subordinate trust, innovation, motivation, and work engagement in companies (Rawat & Lyndon, 2016; Hou et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2019). In Indonesia, especially in The Eastern part of Indonesia, research on PL is mainly done by government organizations. The results obtained are in line with other studies. However, research in private companies, namely hotels, shows something different, namely PL does not affect employee WE. Likewise, the moderating role of OC does not completely have a positive effect on PL and WE. The results of this research indicate that theoretically, the PL leadership style can only be applied in organizations that focus more on administrative management. In theory, organizational culture always animates employee work engagement. In organizations that do not show the achievement of financial targets, PL is more relevant and has a positive effect on WE employees. On the other hand, in private organizations that demand the achievement of financial and business targets, the PL leadership cannot encourage employee performance and WE. In addition, the role of OC as a moderator between PL and WE for hotels in The Eastern part of Indonesia is only partial, namely in achieving organizational goals. Practical implications. PL-style leadership for hotel employees in The Eastern part of Indonesia cannot increase employee WE. This means that hotel leaders need to find a leadership style that fits the characteristics of the local community. In addition, the role of OC as a moderating influence partially shows that hotel management needs to develop a stronger organizational culture through socializing the organization's vision and mission and inculcating corporate values in a planned and systematic manner. This study has shown that the PL leadership style accompanied by an emphasis 540 on achieving goals for employees will increase their WE. This finding has practical implications for hotel management to keep improving their targets or goals if they continue to apply the PL leadership style in the future. Limitations and future research. This research only focuses on hotel business organizations in the Eastern part of Indonesia and does not involve other business units. Also, this study does not cover all cities and provinces and the number of respondents is still small. In addition, this study only uses quantitative methods with online questionnaires. Further research should involve many hotels throughout The Eastern part of Indonesia, including the more comprehensive business unit. It is also necessary to use the interview method to ensure the quality of the research results. REFERENCES Ababneh, O.M.A., & Mohammed, O. (2021). The impact of organizational culture archetypes on quality performance and total quality management: the role of employee engagement and individual values, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(6), https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2020-0178 Cenkci, A.T., Özçelik, G. (2015). Leadership Styles and Subordinate Work Engagement: The Moderating Impact of Leader Gender, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4. Arun, K., & Gedik, N.K., Okun, O., & Sen, C. (2021). Impact of cultural values on leadership roles and paternalistic style from the role theory perspective, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Sustainable Development, 17 (3), 422-440. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD- 10-2020-0128 Aycan, Z. (2006). Paternalism: Towards conceptual refinement and operationalization, in K.S. Yang, K.K. Hwang, & U. Kim (Eds.), Indigenous and Cultural Psychology: Understanding People in Context, 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28662-4_20 Aycan, Z., and Fikret-Pasa, S. (2003). Career choices, job selection criteria, and leadership preferences in a transitional nation: The case of Turkey. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026112127918 Bakker, A.B., & Bal, P.M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (1), 189-206. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596 Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476 Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Brummelhuis, L.L.T. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: the role of conscientiousness. J. Vocat. Behav. 80, 555-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008 Bhardwaj, B., & Kalia, M. (2020). Contextual and task performance: role of employee engagement and organizational culture in the hospitality industry, Vilakshan - XIMB Journal of Management, 18(2), 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-08-2020-0089 Cheng, B.S., Chou, L.F., & Fang J.L. (2000). Paternalistic leadership scale: Construction and measure of a triple model. Indigenous Psychology Journal, 14(1), 3-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/t35288- 000 Cheung, F., & Wu, A.M.S. (2012). An investigation of predictors of successful aging in the workplace among Hong Kong Chinese older workers. International Psychogeriatrics, 24, 449- 464. https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021100192X Dorfman, P.W., Howell, J.P., Hibino, S., Lee, J.K., Tate, U., & Bautista, A. (1997). Leadership in Western and Asian countries: Commonalities and differences in effective leadership processes across https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-05-2020-0178 https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-10-2020-0128 https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-10-2020-0128 https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28662-4_20 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026112127918 https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X402596 https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.08.008 https://doi.org/10.1108/XJM-08-2020-0089 https://doi.org/10.1037/t35288-000 https://doi.org/10.1037/t35288-000 https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161021100192X 541 cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 8(3), 233-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(97)90003-5 Edowai, R., Abubakar, H., & Mane, A. (2020) Pengaruh Kepemimpinan, Budaya Organisasi Dan Disiplin Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Pada Dinas Kesejahteraan Sosial Kabupaten Deiyai Provinsi Papua. Indonesian Journal of Business and Management, 2(2), 121-127. https://doi.org/10.35965/jbm.v2i2.473 Farh, J.L., & Cheng, B.S. (2000). Cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context, 84-127. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511590_5 Gelfand, M.J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annu Review Psychology, 58, 479-514. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559 Green, J., Liem, G.A.D., Martin, A.J., Colmar, S., Marsh, H.W., & Mcinerney, D. (2012). Academic motivation, self-concept, engagement, and performance in high school: Key processes from a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1111-1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.016 Harter, J.K., Schmid, F.L., & Hayes, T.L. (2002). A meta-analysis is a business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268-279, https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268 Hofstede, G., Gert, J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations Software of the mind. New York: Mc Graw Hill. Humairoh & Wardoyo (2017). Analisis pengaruh budaya organisasi terhadap employee engagement dengan kepuasan kerja sebagai variable intervening (studi kasus: pelabuhan jasa layanan Pelabuhan). Ilmu Manajemen, 9 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.31937/manajemen.v9i1.594 Irawanto, D. W., Ramsey, P L., & Tweed, D.C. (2012). Exploring paternalistic leadership and its application to the Indonesian public sector, The International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 8(1), 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/17479881211230637 Irawanto, D. (2009). An analysis of national culture and leadership practices in Indonesia. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(2), 41-8. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i2.4957 Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. Dec Acad. Manag, 33, 692-724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 Khan. M. A. (2010). Effects of human resource management practices on organizational performance- an empirical study of oil and gas industry in Pakistan. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 24(6), 157-174. Kanten, S., & Sadullah, O., (2012). Empirical research on relationship quality of work-life and work engagement. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci, 62, 360-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.057 Karlsson, M. S. (2015). Expatriate paternalistic leadership and gender relations in small European software firms in India. Culture and Organization, 21(5), 409-426. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1068776 Keser, A., & Yilmaz, G. (2018). Work Engagement, in Keser, A., Yilmaz, G., & Yurur, S. (eds), Behavior in Working Life: Current Approaches. Umuttepe Press, Kocaeli. Lau, Wai Kwan et al. 2019. Remapping the construct of paternalistic leadership, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 764-776. DOI 10.1108/LODJ-01-2019- 0028. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0028 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90003-5 https://doi.org/10.35965/jbm.v2i2.473 https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511590_5 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085559 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.016 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268 https://doi.org/10.31937/manajemen.v9i1.594 https://doi.org/10.1108/17479881211230637 https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i2.4957 https://doi.org/10.2307/256287 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.057 https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2015.1068776 https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-01-2019-0028 542 Hou, B., Hong, J., Zhu, K., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Paternalistic leadership and innovation: the moderating effect of environmental dynamism, European Journal of Innovation Management, 22 (3), 562-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2018-0141 Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89-96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89 Mustafa, G. & Lines, R. (2012). Paternalism as a predictor of leadership behaviors: A bi-level analysis. Eurasian Business Review, 2(1), 63-92. Doi: 10.14208/BF03353808 Oge, C., Cetin, M., & Top (2018). The effects of paternalistic leadership on workplace loneliness, work-family conflict and work engagement among air traffic controllers in Turkey. Journal of Air Transport Management, 66, 25 -35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.10.003 Oner, Z. H. (2012). Servant leadership and paternalistic leadership styles in the Turkish business context A comparative empirical study, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 33 (3), 300-316. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216489 Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2006). Leader-member exchange (LMX), paternalism, and delegation in the Turkish business culture: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2), 264-279. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400185 Pellegrini, E. K., & Scandura, T. A. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34(3), 566-593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063 Pellegrini, E. K., Scandura, T. A., & Jayaraman, V. (2010). Cross-cultural generalizability of paternalistic leadership: An expansion of leader-member exchange theory. Group and Organization Management, 35(4), 391-420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378456 Peters & Waterman (2004). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(4), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393015 Prapti Mutha and Manjari Srivastava. 2021. Decoding leadership to leverage employee engagement in a virtual team, International Journal of Organizational Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2021-2856 Rawat and Lyndon. 2016. Effect of paternalistic leadership style on subordinate's trust: An Indian study, Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-05-2016-0045 Sashkin, M., & Rosenbach, W. (2013). Organizational Culture Assessment Questionnaire. International and Pan America, copyright conventions. Doi: https://leadingandfollowing.com/documents/OCAQParticipantManual.pdf Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES, Preliminary Manual Utrecht Work Engagement Scale Schein, Edward. 2017. Organizational Culture and Leadership (5th Edition), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, Schroeder, J. (2011). The impact of paternalism and organizational collectivism in multinational and family-owned firms in Turkey. The University of South Florida, College of Arts and Sciences, Graduate Theses and Dissertations, Florida. Sianipar and Nurhasanah. 2020. The Culture of Paternalism, The Role of Women in Kek, And Women Politics in The Time of the Covid-19 Pandemic, Jurnal Syntax Transformation, Vol. 1 No. 9, p-ISSN: 2721-3854 e-ISSN: 2721-2769. https://doi.org/10.46799/jst.v1i9.159 Soeharso, S.Y., & Nurika, R. (2020). Pengaruh budaya organisasi terhadap employee engagement dengan work ethic (Hard Work) sebagai variabel moderator: studi kasus pada karyawan generasi milenial di PT X. Mind Set, 11, 46 - 54. Doi: https ://doi.org/10.35814/mindset.v11i01.1363 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-07-2018-0141 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216489 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400185 https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316063 https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110378456 https://doi.org/10.2307/2393015 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-07-2021-2856 https://doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-05-2016-0045 https://leadingandfollowing.com/documents/OCAQParticipantManual.pdf https://doi.org/10.46799/jst.v1i9.159 https://doi.org/10.35814/mindset.v11i01.1363 https://doi.org/10.35814/mindset.v11i01.1363 543 Soomro, B.A., Memon, M., & Shah, N. (2021) Paternalistic leadership style, employee voice and creativity among entrepreneurs: empirical evidence from SMEs of a developing country, Management Decision, 59 (2), 285-305, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1207 Zacharias, T. (2019). Pengaruh Budaya dan Iklim Organisasi Terhadap Kinerja Melalui Komitmen Organisasional Dan Motivasi Kerja Pegawai Pada Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Provinsi Maluku, JAKPP (Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan dan Pelayanan Publik), 5(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.31947/jakpp.v1i1.4351 Wabia, D., Saerang, D.P., & Taroreh, R.N. (2021). The Effect of Organizational Culture, Work Discipline, and Communication Competency, on Employee Performance in The Regional Financial Management Agency of Tambrauw Regency, West Papua Province, International Journal of Culture and Modernity, 5, 46-64. Doi: https://ijcm.academicjournal.io/index.php/ijcm/article/view/44 Walumbwa, F.O., Cropanzano. R., & Goldman, B.M. (2011). How Leader-Member Exchange Influences Effective Work Behaviors: Social Exchange and Internal-External Efficacy, Perspectives, Personnel Psychology, 64, 739-770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744- 6570.2011.01224.x Wibawanto, Y. T., Razak, M., & Hidayat, M. (2021) Pengaruh Disiplin, Motivasi dan Budaya Kerja terhadap Kinerja Aparatur Sipil Negara pada Dinas Perindustrian Dan Perdagangan Propinsi Papua Barat, Journal of Applied Management and Business Research (JAMBiR), 1, 39-46. Doi: http://www.al-idarahpub.com/index.php/jambir/issue/view/1 Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2009). Work engagement and financial returns: A diary study on the role of job and personal resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 183-200. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633 Yeh, C. W. (2012). Relationships among service climate, psychological contract, work engagement, and service performance. J. Air Transp. Manag. 25, 67-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.08.011 Yudianti, N. & Goodfellow, R. (1997), An introduction to Indonesian corporate culture, in Goodfellow, R. (Ed.), Indonesian Business Culture, Butterworth-Heinemann, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1207 https://doi.org/10.31947/jakpp.v1i1.4351 https://ijcm.academicjournal.io/index.php/ijcm/article/view/44 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01224.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01224.x http://www.al-idarahpub.com/index.php/jambir/issue/view/1 https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X285633 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.08.011