84 ABSTRACT This study aim to determine and analyze the effect of organizational structure and work motivation on the employe performance at Automotive Distributor in Indone- sia. This study use quantitative research method with survey technique to respond the test hypotheses that have been formulated. The respondents are 100 employees, the sampling technique used was sampling random technique. The questionaire of organizational structure and work motivation and employe performance were vali- dated with the product moment correlation formula, while reliability was meas- ured by the Alpha Cronbach formula. Tested of the hypothesis in this study use of the path analysis. The research result of the study found that: (1) The organiza- tional structure affects positively on employee performance (2) The work motiva- tion affects positively on employee performance and (3) The organizational struc- ture affects positively on work motivation. The results of the study show that in the effort to improve the employe performance can be done by the effective of organi- zational structure and to improve of work motivation. Keywords: Organizational Structure, Work Motivation, Employe Performance. Received: 12 October 2020 ; Accepted: 23 November 2020 ; Publish; December 2020 How to Cite: Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Automotive Distributor in Indonesia. Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Ven- dor’s Employee performance at Automotive Distributor in Indonesia Oloan Situmorang Universitas Negeri Jakarta Email: oloansitumorang_7647140261@mahasiswa.unj.ac.id Mukhneri Mukhtar Universitas Negeri Jakarta Email: mukhneri@unj.ac.id Mahmuddin Yasin Universitas Negeri Jakarta Email: mahmuddinyasin@unj.ac.id https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 85 INTRODUCTION In an increasingly competitive industrial era, especially the automotive industry, any company that wants to win the competition in the business world will pay full at- tention to the quality of its human resources. In this case, the employing company has full attention to ensure the logistics partner can support its business well. So that the employing company has a role to ensure that the logistics vendor can run its services efficiently. Employees are an important resource for the company, because they have the skills, energy and creativity that are needed by the company to achieve its goals. In a dynamic business environment, by running a business with vendors, each vendor com- pany needs an organizational structure that is able to provide the best performance and is able to develop highly motivated and agile employees in carrying out its business processes. Through an optimal organizational structure, high employee motivation, effective decision-making processes will provide value to the organization through performance. PT. Toyota-Astra Motor, the vehicle logistics division (VLD) has a role in carry- ing out vehicle logistics operations, namely handling new vehicles, starting from re- ceiving from factories, installing accessories and distributing vehicles to all dealers in Indonesia while maintaining vehicle quality (fresh from the oven) and safe operation (safety operation) for all stakeholders. Various functions of business unit activities in the Logistics Division. In carrying out its roles and responsibilities, VLD partners with logistics vendors / suppliers to carry out some of its functions. Internally, VLD is always built on the Toyota Way philosophy. The Toyota way is all about tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge gained from experience and reflection, not from reading recipes. The two pillars of the Toyota Way are Re- spect for people and continuous improvement. Each pillar is translated into cultural values that are applied daily, especially in the innovative behavior of every employee who supports Toyota's business. Marchet et.al (2017) stated that “third party logistics (3PL) providers are primar- ily required to perform services that add value to the shippers business than the ship- pers can accomplish on their own. This value can be taken in different perspectives and includes principle aspects. So that researchers have an interest in conducting re- search on the vendor employee analysis unit. " From the results of evaluating the performance of existing vendors, there are still not optimal achievements, such as on time delivery of new vehicles from the factory to the dealer (on time delivery), and defects in new vehicles (damage ratio) during the process. delivery of new vehicles. The performance of vendor employees has an im- portant role to play in supporting company performance, which in turn will have an impact on VLD performance. Many factors influence employee performance, including organizational struc- ture and work motivation. Ivancevich (2011) states that performance is a set of em- ployee jobs related to behavior in accomplishing organizational goals. Gibson et al. (2012), view that performance is the level of success in carrying out tasks and the abil- ity to achieve predetermined goals. Employee performance, according to Gomes (2003) can be successful at work includes: (1) Quantity of work: (2) Quality of work, (3) Job knowledge, (4) Creativeness, (5) Cooperation, (6) Dependability,, (7) Initia- tive, (8), Personal qualities. In an effort to improve employee performance, it is necessary to be supported by a solid and professional organizational structure, because in practice work specializa- Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 86 tion, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization and de- centralization, formalization has a direct effect on the amount of work, quality of work, breadth of knowledge about work and skills, authenticity of the idea of willingness to cooperate with others (fellow members of the organization), awareness and trustworthiness, enthusiasm for carrying out new tasks, and personality. Organizational structure is a formal organizational framework that is carried out through the division of tasks and responsibilities, grouped and coordinated, building relationships between individuals and groups and creating formal channels to provide authority and allocate resources (Robins and Coulter, 2009). An Organizational Struc- ture defines how work tasks are formally divided, grouped and coordinated. The indi- cators regarding organizational structure according to Stephen Robbins in the index team (2006) are as work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization and decentralization, formalization. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Employee Performance According to Suwarto M.S (2014), performance is the behavior or what employ- ees do. There are 2 behavioral characteristics that can be labeled as performance, Colquit et al. (2019)., States Job performance is formally defined as the value of the set of employee behaviors that contributes either positively or negatively to organiza- tional goal achievement. It has three components: 1) task performance, or transfor- mation of resources into goods and services; 2) citizenship behaviors, or voluntary em- ployee actions that attribute to the organization; and 3) counterproductive behavior "Gibson et al., (2012), states" Performance refers to the level of success in implement- ing the task and the ability to achieve the goals set. Otherwise good performance and successful if the desired goal can be achieved with good quality "According to Ivancevish (2008)" Performance is a set of employee work related behaviors designed to accomplish organizational goals " behavior in completing organizational goals. While Cascio (2015), describes performance as a way to ensure that individual or team workers know what is expected of them and remain focused on effective performance by paying attention to objectives, measures and assessments. Some measurements of employee performance, according to Gomes (2005) that can be used as indicators of employee performance as follows: (1) Quantity of work: The amount of work done in a specified period; (2) Quality of work: The quality of work achieved is based on conditions of suitability and readiness; (3) Job knowledge: The extent of knowledge about the job and its skills; (4) Creativeness: Authenticity of ideas arising from actions to solve problems that arise; (5) Cooperation: Willingness to cooperate with others (fellow members of the organization); (6) Dependabiity: Aware- ness and trustworthiness in terms of attendance and completion of work on time; (7) Initiative: enthusiasm to carry out new tasks in enlarging their responsibilities; (8) Per- sonal qualities: Regarding personality, leadership, hospitality and personal integrity. 2. Organization Structure Various definitions of organizational structure have been put forward by man- agement experts. According to Robbins, (2012), Organizational structure is the formal arrangement of jobs within an organization, which serves many purposes divides work, assigns tasks and responsibilities, coordinates diverse organizational tasks, clusters jobs into units, establishes relationships among individuals, groups and departments, Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 87 establishes formal lines of authority and allocates and deploys organizational re- sources. An organizational structure defines the way tasks are divided, grouped and for- mally coordinated. The indicators of the organizational structure according to Robbins in the index team are work specialization, departmentalization, chain of command, span of control, centralization and decentralization, formalization. According to Shane, (2008) that there are three components to the organizational structure; namely (1) shows formal reporting channels, (2) identifies the grouping of individuals into depart- ments into the organization as a whole; and (3) includes system designs to ensure smooth communication, coordination and integration of cross-departmental efforts. Robin (2012) also agree that the organizational structure describes how work tasks are formally grouped and coordinated. According to him there are also six key elements that need to be considered in designing the organizational structure, namely: "1) work specialization, 2) grouping departments, 3) chain of command, 4) scope of control, 5) centralization and decentralization, 6) formalization. According to Mullins (2003), Structure is the pattern of relationships among po- sitions in the organization and among members of the organization. The structure makes possible the application of the process of management and creates a framework of orders and commands through which the activities of the organization can be planned, organized, directed and controlled. The structure defines tasks and responsi- bilities, work roles and relationships, and channels of communication. According to Richard (2004), there are 3 main requirements that must be consid- ered when determining the organizational structure, namely 1) The organizational structure must show formal relations between employees, including the level of hierar- chy, and the range of control of managers and supervisors; 2) Organizational structure establishes a work group for employees, merging groups within departments, and inte- grating departments into the company as a whole; and 3) Organizational structure in- cludes system planning to ensure effective communication, good coordination and in- tegration between departments. Kreitner, Robert (2010) said that the current organizational structure planning is required to be responsive to the changing demands of dynamic external conditions such as technological progress, product development, market development, globaliza- tion and others. The structure must be flexible, not rigid. So that the term learning or- ganization appears, or organizations that are ready to proactively respond to creativity, innovation, technological progress, and changes in the external environment in order to achieve company goals. According to Brooks (2009), "Organization structure is the way an organization is configured into work groups and the reporting and authority relationships that con- nect individuals and groups together. Structure act to create separate identities for dif- ferent work groups and have a big influence on the effectiveness with which individu- als and groups communicate. Brooks (2009), states variables and concepts of organiza- tional structure include: centralization and decentralization, integration, specialization, formalization, span of control, bureaucracy. According to Jerald (2010), the organiza- tional structure is "the formal configuration of individuals and groups with respect to the allocation of tasks, responsibilities, and authority within the organization," (formal configuration of individuals and groups within the allocation of duties, responsibilities and authority within organization). According to Shane, Steven L.Mc (2008), the or- ganizational structure is defined as "the division of labor as well as the conditions of conditions, communication, workflow, and formal power that direct organizational ac- Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 88 tivities," (division of work and coordination patterns, communication, formal employ- ment and power lines related to organizational activities). To deepen the understanding of organizational structure, it is necessary to under- stand various organizational structure designs that can be done through several ap- proaches. Approach 3. Motivation According to Luthans (2008), "Motivation as a process that starts with the physi- ological of psychological deficiency or needs that activates behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal or incentive". Furthermore Luthans (2008) that in a motivation system consists of three elements that interact and are interdependent, namely: needs (needs), drives (incentives), incentives (incentives), while Nohria (2002) states, there are 4 im- pulses (four) drive) that applies to everyone, namely drive to acquire (drive to reach), drive to bond (drive to bond) and drive to learn (drive to learn), Steven L (2009) states motivation refers to forces within a person that affects the di- rection, intensity, and persistence of voluntary behavior. Motivation according to Pinder (1998), motivation is a set of energetic forces that originate both within as well as beyond an individual's being, to initiate work-related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity and duration. The theory that is often used by experts in conducting research on motivational problems is the theory that has to do with human needs. One theory related to motiva- tion is the theory of needs developed by Maslow. Abraham Maslow developed a theo- ry of motivation known as (hierarchy of needs). Maslow in Burton, (2012) holds that the theory of the hierarchy of human needs can be used to describe and predict motiva- tions. Motivation theory is based on two assumptions. First, what someone's needs have been fulfilled. Second, needs are a hierarchy of interests. In this theory a classifi- cation of needs is proposed which consists of five groups of human needs that form a hierarchy of needs, namely the first physical needs (physiological Neds), the physical needs of a person are in dire need of food, clothing and shelter. After the activity ful- fillment needs are met and has decreased, then the need for security increases. When the physical needs for food, clothing, shelter have been met, then a person switches to the need to associate with the community, the need for affiliation with others, the need to find meaningful relationships. According to David Nadler and Edwar Lawler in Stone (2005) that motivation is the result of three different types of beliefs that a person has. The three types of beliefs are expectations or beliefs, valuable or yielding, the adequacy of funds (valance). In this connection Lazaroiu (2015) states that work motivation has a direct effect on em- ployee performance, so increasing work motivation is an effective way to improve em- ployee performance. Salleh, Dzulkifli (2011) shows that affiliate motivation has a pos- itive relationship with performance. Research by Mawoli & Babandako (2011) states that academic staff motivation influences the performance of university employees ,, for that the improvement of university employee performance can begin with the aca- demic motivation of their employees. Synthesis of motivation is the size of the work done by an employee in carrying out their duties with indicators of employee motivation, including: (1) employee's de- sire to get good performance, (2) employee's drive to get awards and recognition for the work performance achieved, (3 ) encouragement of employees to get a sense of security at work, (4) relationships between employees with fellow workers at work, and (5) needs of employees are met (6) secondary needs are met. Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 89 RESEARCH METHODS The method used in this study is to use a survey method that is conducting re- search directly into the field. Data collection tool used was a questioner (questionnaire). With this data collection tool data can be obtained in accordance with the research theme. Research data is captured using a questionnaire developed by re- searchers and given to samples from the population. Research respondents numbered 100 employer. Samples were determined using cluster random sampling techniques. Instruments of organizational structure, work motivation and performance are validat- ed by product moment correlation, while reliability is measured by Cronbach's Alpha. Data is analyzed using path analysis techniques. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Testing Hypothesis Pathway In Hypothetic Models py1, py2, p21. Path coeffi- cients in the hypothetical model of the study are py1, py2, p21, in determining the magnitude of the path in a hypothetical model the study is obtained by determining the magnitude of the path coefficient value, and then the path coefficient significance test is continued. 1) Structural path coefficient 1 Causal relationships between variables in sub-structural 2 consist of one endog- enous variable, Y ( Employee performance ) and two exogenous variables, X1 ( Or- ganizational Structure ) and X2 ( Work Motivation ) From the results of data pro- cessing the structural path coefficient 1 as follows: Table 1 Path coefficient and Path Significance Test structure 1 Table 2 Coefficient terminated R Square for structure 1 Coefficients a Model Unstandard- ized Coeffi- cients Standard- ized Co- efficients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 73.93 7 4.346 17.01 1 .00 0 Organization structure .189 .044 .396 4.308 .00 0 Work motiva- tion .122 .042 .267 2.899 .00 5 a. Dependent Variable: Employee Performance Model Summary Mod- el R R Squar e Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .560a .314 .300 2.905 a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Motivation, Organi- zation structure Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 90 a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Motivation, Organizational Structure From the path coefficient table, the analysis results obtained the path coefficient p value of 0.396 and tcount 4.308, with ttable (0.05: 98) = 1.98, so tcount> ttable, reject H0, meaning that the variable X1 has a positive effect on the Y variable. It is thus proven that the organizational structure has a direct positive effect on employee performance. The results of the analysis obtained the path coefficient p32 of 0.267 and tcount 2.898, with ttable (0.05: 98) = 1.98, so tcount> ttable, reject H0, meaning that the X2 variable has a pos itive direct effect on the X3 variable. Thus it is proven, that work motivation has a direct positive effect on decision making. From the results of the analysis, the coefficient of determination obtained by 0.314 so that it can be stated that the organizational structure and work motivation have a direct positive effect on employee performance 2) Structural Path coefficient 2 Causal relationships between variables in sub-structural 2 consist of one endogenous variable, X2 and one exogenous variable, X1. From the results of processing the structural path coefficient 3 data as follows: Table 3. Path coefficient and Structural Significance Test Structure 2 Table 4. R Square terminated coefficient for structure 2 From the path coefficient table, the analysis results obtained p21 path coefficient of 0.422 and tcount = 4.381, with ttable (0.05: 98) = 1.98, so tcount> ttable, reject H0, meaning that the variable X1 has a positive effect on the X2 variable. It is thus prov- en, that organizational structure has a direct positive effect on work motivation. From the results of the analysis, the coefficient of determination obtained by 0.164 so that it can be stated that the organizational structure has a direct positive ef- fect on work motivation. Based on the test analysis of the path above, it can be explained the following hy- pothesis testing: 1. The organizational structure (X1) has a positive direct effect on employee perfor- mance (Y) and indirectly through work motivation (X2). From the results of the path analysis of the influence of organizational structure (X1) on employee performance (Y) obtained path coefficient ρу1 of 0.395 with a tcount of Coefficients a Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standard- ized Coeffi- cients T Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 48.42 0 9.212 5.256 .00 0 Organiza- tion struc- ture .422 .096 .405 4.381 .00 0 a. Dependent Variable: Work motivation Model Summary Mod- el R R Squar e Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .405 a .164 .155 6.971 a. Predictors: (Constant), Organization Structure Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 91 4.284, while the value of ttable = 1.98 (α = 0.05; df = 98). Because tcount> ttable, then H0 is rejected, H1 is accepted. Thus it can be concluded that the organizational structure has a direct positive effect on employee performance. While the effect of organizational structure (X1) on employee performance (Y) through work motivation (X2) is the result of the path coefficient ρу1 x ρу3 (0.365) x (0.296) = (0.154). Thus it can be concluded that the organizational structure has a direct positive effect on employee performance through work motivation. 2. Work motivation (X2) has a positive direct effect on employee performance (Y) From the results of the path analysis the effect of work motivation (X2) on employ- ee performance (Y) obtained the path coefficient ρу2 of 0.269 with a tcount of 2.917 while the value of ttable while 1.98 (α = 0.05; df = 98). Because tcount> ttable, then, H0 is rejected, H1 is accepted. While the influence of work motivation (X2) on em- ployee performance (Y). Thus it can be concluded that work motivation has direct and indirect positive effects on employee 3. The organizational structure (X1) has a positive direct effect on work motivation (X2) The statistical hypothesis tested was a positive direct effect on organizational structure (X1) on work motivation (X2). From the results of the path analysis of the influence of organizational structure (X1) on work motivation (X2) obtained path coefficient ρ21 of 0.422 with tcount = 4.381 while the value of ttable = 1.98 (α = 0.05; df = 98). Because tcount> ttable, then H0 is rejected, H1 is accepted. Thus it can be concluded that the organizational structure has a direct positive effect on work motivation. Disscusion From the results of hypothesis testing shows that there is an effect of organiza- tional structure directly and indirectly effects positively on employee performance. The more positive the organizational structure, the employee's performance tends to increase. As stated by MC Robbins, Sephen P, (2012) states that a good organiza- tional structure can produce good performance, therefore in an effort to improve per- formance can be done through strengthening the organizational structure. In an effort to improve employee performance, it needs to be supported by the structure solid and professional organizations, because in practice work specialization, departmentaliza- tion, chain of command, range of control, centralization and decentralization, formal- ization has direct and indirect effects on the amount of work, quality of work, breadth of knowledge about work and skills, authenticity of the idea of willingness to work together with others (fellow members of the organization), awareness and trust- worthiness, enthusiasm for carrying out new tasks, and personality In managing company resources, work motivation has a direct effect on em- ployee performance, because managing employees by increasing organizational au- thority, delegating tasks, supervising work division can directly influence work quan- tity, work quality, work effectiveness, work efficiency, and work methods. Accord- ing to Kreitner, Robert (2010) that the drive to work effectively can be influenced by decision making, because decision making requires the identification and selection of alternative solutions that lead us to the desired conditions in accordance with organi- zational expectations. Likewise, according to Glinow, (2008), that the process of choice in making a decision, starting from identifying a problem and recognizing an opportunity, involves several parties how to process a decision, identify and develop possible solutions in line with the interests of motivation in the organization. The results of hypothesis testing indicate there is an effects of organizational structure on work motivation. As stated by . The conclusion shows that the more pos- Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 92 itive the work motivation, the lower the decision making. The proportion of decision making variance can be explained by work motivation. CONCLUSION Based on the research discussion, organizational structure affects employee per- formance and indirectly through work motivation. This shows the comparison of em- ployee performance variables can be approved by the organizational structure. The more effective the organizational structure it will increase the performance of employ- ees, beside that work motivation affects employee performance. If the work motivation may be upgraded, it will encourage the employees to improve thier performance and relating to the organizational structure of work motivation. This shows the variety of work that can be seen by the organizational structure. The effective and lean organiza- tional structure, it will encourage work motivation .This final section of our paper discesses the limitations of this study and suggest potential direction for future re- search. First, the empirical findings are based on Vendor’s data and hence country- specific factors may limit the external validity of these findings. A simple generaliza- tion of this study might not apply to others countries. Second , In order to extract de- tailed information on collaborations, our analysis used unique project level data and relied on small sample of observations. Further research is needed on larger sample using additional method of enquiry analysis. A larger sample would also permit us to ask wheter other specific characteristics of industry and automotive partners play a role in increasing performance Recommendation Based on the results of the study showed that motivation is the lowest variable influence on employee performance. Therefore, in improving the performance of em- ployees, it is necessary to increase and improve motivation by increasing employee motivation to get good performance, increasing employees to get awards and perfor- mance to improve their performance, encouraging employees to get a sense of security at work, relationships between employees and participants at work, and the needs of employees are met, secondary needs are met need to improve the organizational sys- tem. In building achievement, it is necessary to strive through giving of insintive and rewarding employees who excel by giving a position on a sturdy chair or giving other awards that can support employee performance. In increasing motivation, the company supports providing a sense of security at work providing work facilities that meet the needs and work standards that ensure employee safety. In building employee motiva- tion, the company also supports building harmonious relationships through vertical and horizontal communication, this is because community communication is a strategic factor in building good organizational structure. Acknowledgement The researcher would like to thank the leaders and staff of the PT. Toyota Astra Motor Indonesia of who had helped in the completion of this research. Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01 93 REFERENCE Brooks, W. (2009). Organisasional Behavior. London: Pearson educated. Cascio, wayne F. (2015). Managing human resources. London: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Colquitt, Lepine, W. (2019). Organizational behavior, Improving performance and commitment in the workplace (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Educa- tion. Gomes, F. C. (2005). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset. Ivancevish, J. . I. (2008). Organizational Behvior and Management. singapore: McGraw-Hill. Kreitner, Robert, A. kinicki. (2010). Organizational BehavioR. New York: McGraw- Hill. Lazaroiu, G. (2015). Employee Motivation and Job Performance, Linguistic and philo- sophical Investigations. 14, 97–102. Marchet, G. (2017). Value creation models in the 3PL industry: what 3PL providers do to cope with shipper requirements. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 47. Mawoli, M. A., & Babandako, A. (2011). An evaluation of staff motivation, dissatis- faction and job performance in an academic setting. A ustralian Journal of Busi- ness and Management Research, 1(9), 1–14. Mullins, J. L. (2003). Management and organizational behavior. London: Pitman Pub- lishing. Robbins, S. P, M. C. (2012). Management. New Jersey: Pearson educated. Suwarto M.S, F. . (2014). Manajemen Kinerja. Jakarta: Cahaya Atma Pustaka. Vasilescu, C. (2011). Effective Strategic Decision Making. Journal of Defense Re- sources Management (JoDRM), 2(1), 101–106. Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Organizational Behaviour. USA: Harcourt College. Situmorang, O., Mukhtar, M., Yasin, M. (2020). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 84-93 The Effect Organizational Structure and Work Motivation On Vendor’s Employee performance at Auto- motive Distributor in Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.07 https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.004.2.01