ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE ...count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77 and the Commitment of Employees of a count of 5.71 and Career Development of a count

ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE

COMMITMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT ON

EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE OF PT. BANK DKI, JUANDA -

JAKARTA PUSAT

Sarwani,1 Dayat Hidayat,2 Aziz Mauliawati3

Abstract

Analysis of the Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development on the

Performance of Employees PT. Bank DKI, Juanda-Central Jakarta. The purpose of this research is

to determine the effect of self-efficacy, employee commitment, and career development partially

or simultaneously on employee performance. This research was conducted using descriptive and

quantitative analysis methods. The sampling technique used was proportional random sampling

with a sample of 75 respondents. The results of the partial hypothesis test obtained the value of

count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77 and the Commitment of Employees of a count of 5.71

and Career Development of a count of 21.16; while the value of t table = 1.67. The probability values

for all independent variables were all less than 5% (p <5%). Simultaneous hypothesis test results

obtained F count value of 207.56 and probability value <5%, while Ftable value = 3.12. Based on the

calculation of the coefficient of determination partially, the results obtained the variable self-

efficacy of 87.7%, variable employee commitment of 30.9% and career development variables of

86%, and the simultaneous calculation of the coefficient of determination was 89.8%. Based on

the results, it can be concluded that partially the variables of self-efficacy, employee commitment,

and career development had a significant effect on employee performance. Self-efficacy variables

had the most dominant influence (87.7%) on employee performance, while employee

commitment had the weakest influence (30.9%) on employee performance. Simultaneously, the

variables of self-efficacy, employee commitment, and career development had a significant effect

on employee performance by 89.8% and the regression equation of Y = 7.969 + 2.733X1 + 0.109X2

+ 1.726 X3.

Index Terms: Self Efficacy, Employee Commitment, Career Development, Employee Performance

1 Sarwani is a senior lecturer at Pamulang University (UNPAM), Banten, Indonesia. E-

mail: [email protected]. 2 Dayat Hidayat is a researcher and graduate of Pamulang University (UNPAM), Banten,

Indonesia. 3 Aziz Mauliawati is Employee of PT. Bank DKI, Pamulang Indonesia.

Journal of Xi'an University of Architecture & Technology

Volume XII, Issue II, 2020

Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3289

mailto:[email protected]

1. Introduction

The dynamic condition of banking competition requires a lot of improvement and excellent

service to provide customer satisfaction, especially many state-owned banks, region-owned

banks, and private banks that are competing to launch new programs that can provide

convenience for their customers. Therefore, banking companies must continue to improve and

develop the performance of their employees to be able to provide satisfying services for

customers. Several factors can be developed to improve employee performance, namely, the

companies motivate the employees to produce mature self-efficacy so that the employees can

work confidently, the companies encourage the employees to increase their commitment, and the

employers provide an attraction for employees to work well by developing career development

programs open to all employees.

Self-efficacy is considered important in encouraging employee performance because of its

relationship with life in an organization in which the self-confidence and firm belief are needed

from the employees. The higher the level of efficacy of the employees on the values of self-

confidence, meaning that the employees will know what to do and what can be expected of

themselves, so they always act quickly to overcome various existing problems.

Another factor that can affect employee performance is employee commitment.

Commitment also drives the employees to be loyal and have a sense of ownership of the

organization. Thus, every time they work, they are orientated to work well and then produce

appropriate work, to provide high work performance and deliver the organization to achieve its

goals. Furthermore, to improve employee performance, the career development factor has a

significant influence.

Bank DKI (Daerah Khusus Ibukota/Capital Special Region) continues to improve the quality

and competence of its human resources through various education and training programs, both

regular and non-regular programs [1]. The training programs are provided through in-house

training, as well as training programs in collaboration with leading educational institutions [2].

To accelerate the empowerment and creation of cadres of future leaders, Bank DKI has

carried out various human resource development programs, namely the Staff Development

Program, Manager Development Program, and Executive Program Development [2]. Although

the development system has been implemented to improve employee performance such as self-

efficacy, employee commitment, and career development, changing times demand continuous

improvements coupled with the increasingly complex patterns of thought and behavior of

customers that demand more advantages [3]. Thus, improvement efforts to meet customer needs

cannot be seen as a simple matter and the internal parts of the company must have awareness

because otherwise, the customers will look away to other banks.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3290

To implement a more objective performance assessment system, Bank DKI continues to

harmonize the valid and objectively accountable system through key performance indicators

(KPI). The KPI program is also intended to measure the mapping of the strength of human

resources currently owned by Bank DKI, as well as a cascading map of company-level strategies

that are broken down into work unit strategy maps and work targets [4]. The KPI, as a measure

of the success of the performance, will also be a reference for the application of reward and

punishment which will later be related to the CASH (Cara Agar Semua Happy/Ways to Make

Everyone Happy) program [5] [6].

Based on the explanation above, it is interesting and challenging to conduct research related

to the theory and empiricism that have relevance to performance, self-efficacy, employee

commitment, and career development. The title of this research that will be held is: "Analysis of

the Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development on Employee

Performance of Bank DKI-Case Study of Bank DKI Jakarta Central Bank employees" [7].

The problem formulation of the case above is; Does self-efficacy significantly influence

employee performance? Does employee commitment significantly influence employee

performance? Does career development significantly influence employee performance? Do self-

efficacy, employee commitment, and career development simultaneously significantly influence

employee performance?

2. Literature Review

a. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy as in “one’s beliefs about the ability to produce levels of performance”

influences events that affect one’s life. Besides, self-efficacy is defined as “self-assessment of the

ability to regulate and carry out actions desired to achieve the goal.” In this sense, self-efficacy

can determine how a person feels, motivates himself, and behaves so that it can influence

behavior.

Based on the definitions, it can be concluded that self-efficacy is one’s belief in one’s ability

to organize and display effective performance behaviors so that one can complete certain tasks

well. Self-efficacy is also a personal factor that mediates between behavioral factors and

environmental factors. Factors that influence self-confidence can originate from four principles of

information sources, namely performance attainment, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion,

and physiological state. There are three dimensions of self-efficacy in individuals in determining

taken actions, namely: a). The dimension of magnitude (difficulty level), 2). Dimension of strength,

3). Dimension of generality [8].



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3291

b. Employee Commitment

Employee commitment is the desire of the employees to maintain their membership in the

organization and to be willing to make efforts for the achievement of organizational goals.

Employment commitment consists of work commitment, career/professional commitment, and

organizational commitment. Organizational Commitment, according to Luthans (2006) in Wijaya

[9], is defined as the desire to maintain oneself to remain a member of the organization and to be

willing to try hard as part of a work organization.

Career/Professional Commitment is a perception that is centered on a person's loyalty,

determination, and expectations, guided by a system of values or norms that direct the person to

act or work according to certain procedures to carry out their duties. Employees who work longer

hours will have a higher professional commitment than those who are new to the same

profession. Work/Job Commitment refers to a commitment given not to the organization or one's

career, but to the job itself. Someone who feels attached to the job has a strong sense of duty or

obligation from the job, and puts intrinsic value on the job as a "central life interest."

Employees who are committed to their company will be responsible for their duties and

have the possibility to leave the company are smaller than employees whose commitment levels

are lower. In connection with high employee commitment, Steers in Wijaya [9] stated that

employee commitment to the company will show four things, namely:

1. High level of participation in company activities.

2. Strong desire to keep working so they can continue to achieve the goals they believe in.

3. Full involvement in the work, because the work is a key mechanism and means for

individuals to contribute to the achievement of company goals.

4. Willing to put forth a lot of effort for the benefit of the organization.

Commitment, as the nature of an individual's relationship with the organization that

allows a person to have a high commitment, shows: a). Strong desire to remain a member of the

organization; b). Willingness to do their best in the interests of the organization; c). Strong trust

and acceptance of the organization's values and goals [10].

c. Career Development

According to Rivai [11], career development is the process of increasing individual work

skills to achieve the desired career. Furthermore, career development based on Rivai’s statement

is an increase in workability in the context of achieving a higher job position in an organization.

Usually, this career development attracts employees to work, with a high position or a position



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3292

guaranteeing financial adequacy and adequate work facilities plus a sense of pride in having a

respected work position.

Based on the explanation, it can be concluded that career development is a certain position

to be achieved by every employee who requires certain abilities and certain qualifications

according to specified career criteria. Besides, the existence of career development is used as a

tool to attract employees to work in totality, namely employees put out all their best abilities at

work.

Two dominant factors can affect one's career in addition to other factors, namely:

1. Life Stages, which can be classified into four stages:

a. The first stage is identity placement. Someone is at this stage at the age of 10 to 20 years

old. Individuals investigate choices and begin careers to move into the adult world.

b. The second stage is growth and placement in a career. This stage begins at the age of 20

to 40 years old. In this stage, a person chooses a placement and a position on a career path.

c. The third stage is maintaining and adjusting. This stage generally ends at the age of 50

years and older. Career change and separation occurred during this phase because people

seriously question their quality of life.

d. The fourth stage is the decline. The reduction in physical and mental abilities might

accelerate to this stage. At this stage, a person has low aspirations and motivation even

though extra careers are always possible and can be adjusted [12].

2. Career Anchor

Edgar Schein identifies five different motives that explain how to choose and prepare for a

career which came to be called a career anchor, which includes [13]:

a. Managerial competence. The career goal of managers is to develop interpersonal, analytical,

and emotional competence qualities. People who use this anchor want to manage other

people.

b. Technical or functional competence. The anchor for engineering people is to continue

developing their technical talent.

c. Security anchor. For individuals who deliberately seek safety is to adjust their career

circumstances to a particular organization and geographical location.

d. Creativity. Creative individuals have entrepreneurship. They want to create everything

they have.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3293

e. Autonomy and independence. The career anchor for independent people is a desire to be free

from the organization. Their value of autonomy and desire to become leaders or work for

themselves.

d. Performance

Performance is a universal concept which is the operational effectiveness of an

organization, parts of the organization, and its employees based on predetermined standards and

criteria. Organizations are run by humans, hence performance is human behavior in playing the

role that they perform in an organization to meet the standards of behavior that have been set to

produce the desired results and actions. According to Dessler [14], there are at least six

dimensions that can be used to build employee performance, namely Quality, Productivity, Job

knowledge, Reliability, Availability, and Independence [15].

3. Research Methodology

This research was conducted with a descriptive data analysis method in which the

descriptive data were grouped and tabulated, and then explained and analyzed quantitatively in

terms of causal relationships (influences) between the variables being studied using the Structural

Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis tools [16].

The population in this research was 292 Bank DKI employees. With the sampling technique

using the proportional stratified random sampling and the Slovin formula with an error value of

5%, the number of respondents was obtained, namely 169 people [17]. They are distributed as

follows:

Table 4.1: Number of Respondents

No Employee Number of

Employees

Respondents

1 Corporate Secretary 24 14

2 Change Management Office 6 4

3 Human Resource Group 69 40

4 Treasury Group 30 17

5 Information Technology Group 49 28

6 Strategic Planning Group 19 11

7 General Affair Group 48 28

8 Financial Budgeting Group 47 27

Total 292 169



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3294

4. Results and Discussion

a. Results of Descriptive Analysis

Table 4.2: Self-Efficiency Questionnaire Data

Dimension Indicator Statement

SA A QA D SD Total

Magnitude (Ability in doing difficult work)

Able to complete a work in progress

F 50 108 9 2 0 169

% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100

Work challenge F 63 104 2 0 0 169

% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Pride for the work F 52 115 2 0 0 169

% 30.67 68.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Initiative F 45 110 14 0 0 169

% 26.67 65.33 8.00 0.00 0.00 100

Ability in executing work program

F 45 120 2 2 0 169

% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 255 557 29 4 0 845

% 30.13 65.87 3.47 0.53 0.00 100

Strength

(Stable belief)

Considering suggestions F 45 95 29 0 0 169

% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100

Subordinate motivation F 83 50 36 0 0 169

% 49.33 29.33 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Firm action F 50 108 9 2 0 169

% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100

Belief in abilities F 63 104 2 0 0 169

% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Evaluation F 61 95 13 0 0 169

% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 302 452 89 2 0 845

% 35.73 53.33 10.67 0.27 0.00 100

Generalization(Mature preparation)

Readiness for risks F 59 74 36 0 0 169

% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Additional tasks F 59 81 29 0 0 169

% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3295

Overtime F 61 72 36 0 0 169

% 36.00 42.67 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Work productivity F 59 79 31 0 0 169

% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100

Risk abilities F 59 81 29 0 0 169

% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 297 387 161 0 0 845

% 34.93 45.87 19.20 0.00 0.00 100

TOTAL SUM ∑ F 854 1396 279 6 0 2535

% 33.6 55.02 11.11 0.27 0 100

Source: Processed primary data

Table 4.3: Response Criteria

Dimension N Mean Standard Deviation

Minimum Maximum Response Criteria

Magnitude 169 4.26 0.54 3.72 4.80 High to Very High

Strength 169 4.25 0.64 3.60 4.89 High to Very High

Generalization 169 4.16 0.72 3.44 4.88 High to Very High


From the responses (Table 4.2), of the 3 dimensions and 15 indicators given, the Magnitude

dimension has the most dominant value in which 65.87% of the respondents stated: "agree". On

the Strength dimension, 53.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The Generalization dimension had

the lowest value with the answer "agree" amounting to 45.87%. Furthermore, in Table 4.3, it can

be seen that the dimension of Magnitude moved from 3.72 to 4.80, meaning that the criteria of

responses about the Magnitude dimension moved in the range of "High to Very High". The

strength dimension had a value moving from 3.60 to 4.89, which means the criteria of the

responses about the Strength moved in the range of "High to Very High". The Generalization

dimension moved from 3.44 to 4.88, which means that the criteria of responses about the

Generalization dimension moved in the range of "High to Very High.”

From the responses in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, it can be concluded that for all statements about

the Self-Efficacy variable, the majority of respondents answered "agree" (55.02%) and "strongly

agree" (33.6%). This illustrates that Bank DKI already had a strong Self-Efficacy that was

embedded in each of its employees, making it easier to achieve goals and objectives.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3296

Table 4.4: Employee Commitment Questionnaire Data


SA A QA D SD Total

Affective Commitment

Responsibility F 68 95 4 2 0 169

% 40.00 56.00 2.67 1.33 0.00 100

Comfort F 79 79 11 0 0 169

% 46.67 46.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 65 77 7 1 0 150

% 43.33 51.33 4.67 0.67 0.00 100

Continuance Commitment

Totality in working F 77 88 2 2 0 169

% 45.33 52.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 100

Maintain working F 79 79 11 0 0 169

% 46.67 46.67 6.67 0.00 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 69 74 6 1 0 150

% 46.00 49.33 4.00 0.67 0.00 100

Normative Commitment

Working with best performance

F 70 77 20 2 0 169

% 41.33 45.33 12.00 1.33 0.00 100

Oriented in optimum results

F 59 79 31 0 0 169

% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100

Sum ∑ F 57 69 23 1 0 150

% 38.00 46.00 15.33 0.67 0.00 100

TOTAL SUM ∑ F 191 220 36 3 0 450

% 42.44 48.89 8 0.67 0 100





Affective 169 4.37 0.61 3.77 4.98 High to Very High

Continuance 169 4.41 0.60 3.80 5.01 High to Very High

Normative 169 4.21 0.72 3.49 4.93 High to Very High




Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3297

From the responses (Table 4.4), of the 3 dimensions and 6 indicators given, the Affective

Commitment dimension was the most dominant in which 51.33% of respondents stated: "agree".

In the Continuance Commitment dimension, 49.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The

Normative Commitment dimension had the lowest value with the "agree" answer amounting to

46.00%.

From Table 4.5, it can be seen that the dimensions of Affective Commitment moved from

3.77 to 4.98. This means the criteria of the responses about the Affective dimension moved in the

range of "High to Very High". The Continuance dimension moved from 3.80 to 5.01 which means

that the responses were in the range of "High to Very High". Furthermore, the Normative

Dimension moved from 3.49 to 4.93, meaning that the criteria moved in the "High to Very High"

range.

From the responses in Tables 4.4 and 4.5, it can be concluded that in all statements about

the Employee Commitment variable, the majority of respondents answered “good” (48.89%) and

“very good” (42.44%). This illustrates that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to upholding the

regulations in carrying out the work.

Table 4.6: Career Development Questionnaire Data


SA A QA D SD Total

Training

Material F 50 108 9 2 0 169

% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100

Career development F 63 104 2 0 0 169

% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Training and education F 52 115 2 0 0 169

% 30.67 68.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Individual training F 45.0723 110.4077 13.52 0 0 169

% 26.67 65.33 8.00 0.00 0.00 100

Needs analysis F 45 120 2 2 0 169

% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100

Sum F 113 247 13 2 0 375

% 30.13 65.87 3.47 0.53 0.00 100

Work Assessment

Opportunity F 45 95 29 0 0 169

% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100

Development program F 83 50 36 0 0 169



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3298

% 49.33 29.33 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Target achievement F 50 108 9 2 0 169

% 29.33 64.00 5.33 1.33 0.00 100

Reward F 63 104 2 0 0 169

% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Assessment F 61 95 13 0 0 169

% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100

Sum F 134 200 40 1 0 375

% 35.73 53.33 10.67 0.27 0.00 100

Work Experience

Skill F 59 74 36 0 0 169

% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Potential F 56 79 32 2 0 169

% 33.33 46.67 18.67 1.33 0.00 100

Opportunity F 61 72 36 0 0 169

% 36.00 42.67 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Sum F 78 100 46 1 0 225

% 34.67 44.44 20.44 0.44 0.00 100

Work Relationship

Support Career development

F 59 79 31 0 0 169

% 34.67 46.67 18.67 0.00 0.00 100

Self-potentials F 58.5923 81.12 29.2877 0 0 169

% 34.67 48.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100

Self-adaptation F 63.0877 103.6477 2.2477 0 0 169

% 37.33 61.33 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Environmental adaptation F 60.84 94.64 13.52 0 0 169

% 36.00 56.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 100

Awareness F 58.5923 74.36 36.0477 0 0 169

% 34.67 44.00 21.33 0.00 0.00 100

Sum F 133 192 50 0 0 375

% 35.47 51.20 13.33 0.00 0.00 100

TOTAL SUM ∑ F 458 739 149 4 0 1350

% 33.92593 54.74074 11.03704 0.296296 0 100




Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3299




Training 169 4.26 0.54 3.72 4.80 High to Very High

Work Assessment 169 4.25 0.64 3.60 4.89 High to Very High

Work Experience 169 4.13 0.74 3.39 4.13 Medium to High

Work Relationship 169 4.22 0.66 3.56 4.22 High to Very High


From the respondent's answer (Table 4.6), of the 4 dimensions and 18 indicators provided,

the Training dimension had the most dominant in which 65.87% of respondents stated: "agree".

In the dimension of Work Assessment, 53.33% of respondents stated: "agree". The dimension of

Work Relationship had a value of 51.20%. The dimension of Work Experience had the lowest

value with the answer "agree" amounting to 44.44%.

Furthermore, Table 4.7 shows that the Training dimension had a value of 3.72 to 4.80,

meaning that the criteria of responses moved in the range of "High to Very High". The dimension

of Work Assessment moved from 3.60 to 4.89, meaning that the criteria of responses moved in

the range of "High to Very High". The dimension of Work Experience moved from 3.39 to 4.13,

meaning that the criteria of responses moved in the "Medium to High" range. Whereas, the

dimension of Work Relationship moved from 3.56 to 4.22, meaning that the criteria of responses

moved in the range of "High to Very High". From the responses in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, it can be

concluded that in all statements regarding the Career Development variable, the majority of

respondents answered "good" (54.74%) and "very good" (33.93%). This illustrates that the

employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different positions within a certain time, in

preparing career development programs and preparing for a higher level.

Table 4.8: Performance Questionnaire Data


SA A QA D SD Total

Performance

Target F 54 113 2 0 0 169

% 32.00 66.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Mistake F 47 106 16 0 0 169

% 28.00 62.67 9.33 0.00 0.00 100

Working well F 43 119 5 2 0 169

% 25.33 70.67 2.67 1.33 0.00 100



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3300

Readiness F 45 95 29 0 0 169

% 26.67 56.00 17.33 0.00 0.00 100

Achievement F 81 50 38 0 0 169

% 48.00 29.33 22.67 0.00 0.00 100

Punctuality F 54 113 2 0 0 169

% 32.00 66.67 1.33 0.00 0.00 100

Attendance F 45 108 16 0 0 169

% 26.67 64.00 9.33 0.00 0.00 100

Co-worker F 45 120 2 2 0 169

% 26.67 70.67 1.33 1.33 0.00 100

Leader adaptation F 54 90 23 2 0 169

% 32.00 53.33 13.33 1.33 0.00 100

TOTAL F 208 405 59 3 0 675

% 30.81 60.00 8.74 0.44 0.00 100



Dimension N Mean Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum Response Criteria

Performance 169 4.21 0.61 3.60 4.82 High to Very High


From the responses (Table 4.8) of the 9 indicators given, the Working Well and Having

Good Relations with Co-workers were the most dominant dimensions with the same value in

which 70.67% of the respondents stated: "agree". The dimensions of Target Achievement and

Punctuality also had the same value in which 66.67% of respondents stated: "agree". Furthermore,

Table 4.9 shows that the Performance dimension moved from 3.60 to 4.82. It means that the

criteria of responses about the dimension of Performance moved in the range of "High to Very

High"

From the answers of respondents presented in Tables 4.8 and 4.9, it can be concluded that

in all statements about the Performance variable, the majority of respondents answered "good"

(60.00%) and "very good" (30.81%). This illustrates that the employees of Bank DKI were able to

work well and to adapt and build good relations with co-workers to achieve the company's goals

and objectives.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3301

b. Verificative Testing

1). Analysis of Variable Constructions

To find out the questionnaire data testing, it was necessary to test the construct of each

variable. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) testing was performed to determine the

constructed model that forms the overall measurement model using the LISREL statistical

application. There are three independent variables in this research, namely Self-Efficacy,

Employee Commitment, and Career Development.

The results of data processing for the exogenous construct using the SEM method with

the LISREL 8.70 statistical application obtained the model as in Figure 4.1 and explained in Table

4.10.

Figure 4.1: Overall Relationship Structure of Exogenous Variables

Based on the results of processing using the LISREL 8.70 application, the measurement

model (CFA) for each variable and indicator relationships shown by the loading factor of each

indicator is presented in Table 4.10 as follows.

X1

X11

Ko0.746

0.764

0.694

0.642

0.724

0.562

0.947

0.931

0.913

0.924

0.416

X12

KoX13

KoX21

KoX22

KoX23

KoX31

KoX32

KoX33

KoX34

Ko

0.444

0.201

0.587

0.684

7 0.475

0.147

0.167

0.103

0.134

X2

X3

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.238

0.271

0.325



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3302

Table 4.10: Analysis Results of the Exogenous Variable Measurement Model

Dimension

Standardized Solution

(Loading Factor) T-value R2 Error

Self -Efficacy

Employee Commitmen

t

Career Development

X11, Magnitude 0.764 14.308 0.799 0.416

X12,Strangth 0.746 11.282 0.584 0.444

X13,Generalization 0.694 10.895 0.556 0.201

X21,Affective Commitment

X22,Continuance

Commitment

X23,Normative

Commitment

0.642

0.724

0.562

8.081

9.313

6.918

0.413

0.525

0.285

0.587

0.684

0.475

X31, Training

X32, Work Assessment

X33, Work Experience

X34, Work Relationship

0.947

0.931

0.913

0.924

16.312

15.811

15.281

15.599

0.897

0.853

0.826

0.833

0.147

0.167

0.103

0.134

Source: LISREL data processing results

a). Self-efficacy (X1)

Table 4.10 illustrates that Self-Efficacy (X1) with the Magnitude dimension (X1.1) with a

loading factor of 0.764 with an R2 of 79.9% had the highest degree of importance compared to

other dimensions, while the Generalization dimension (X1.3) with loading factor of 0.694 and R2

value of 55.6% had the lowest degree of importance. Such a situation illustrated that Bank DKI

had the ability and stable confidence in completing difficult work. This means that employees of

Bank DKI already had a strong Self-Efficacy that was embedded in each of its employees so that

it was easier for Bank DKI to achieve goals and objectives.

b). Employee Commitment (X2)

Table 4.10 illustrates that Employee Commitment with the dimension of Continuance

Commitment (X2.2) with a loading factor of 0.724 and an R2 of 52.5% had the highest degree of

importance on the variable of Employee Commitment compared to other dimensions. While the

Normative Commitment dimension (X2.3) with a loading factor of 0.562 and an R2 of 28.5% had



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3303

the lowest degree of importance. This illustrated that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to

completing work and upholding regulations in carrying out work.

c). Career Development (X3)

Table 4.10 illustrates that Career Development with Training dimension (X3.1) with a

loading factor of 0.947 and an R2 of 89.7% had the highest degree of importance on career

Development variables compared to other dimensions. While the dimension of Work Experience

(X3.3) with a loading factor of 0.913 and an R2 of 82.6% had the lowest degree of importance. This

illustrated that the employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different positions within a

certain time, in preparing career development programs and preparing for a higher level.

2). Structural Model Analysis

Analysis of the formulated structural models of the research was carried out by taking

into account the values or the relationship coefficients calculated from each model. In this

analysis, the values of the Fit Indices are discussed as the LISREL 8.70 output.

The next analysis was the Full Model SEM analysis which was intended to test the models

and hypotheses developed in this research. Testing the model in the SEM was conducted with

two tests, namely the model fit test and the causality significance test through the regression

coefficient test. The test results are presented in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2: Full Structural Equation Model (SEM)

X11

KoX1 0.746

2.733 0.694

0.642

0.724

0.562

0.947

0.931

0.913

0.924

0.416

X12

KoX13

KoX21

KoX22

KoX23

KoX31

KoX32

KoX33

KoX34

Ko

0.444

0.201

0.587

0.684

7 0.475

0.147

0.167

0.103

0.134

X2

X3

Y

Y1

0.854

0.186

1.726

0.109

0.764



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3304

The research model, as stated in the figure, was then tested for fit by using various goodness-

of-fit criteria to obtain an adequate level of conformity. The fit tests on the full SEM model are

summarized in Table 4.11 as follows.

Table 4.11: Goodness of Fit Test Results for Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

No GOF Measure Model Criteria Estimate Description

1 χ2(Chi-Square)

df=169

P-Value >0.05 144.546 with P-

Value=0.000

Sample size≥100

2 GFI 0.8≤GFI≤0.9 0.847 Good

3 AGFI 0.8≤AGFI≤0.9 0.809 Good

4 NNFI ≥ 0.95 0.968 Good

5 CFI ≥ 0.95 0.972 Good

6 RMSEA ≤ 0.08 0.0615 Good

Source: Processed data

Table 4.11 shows the results of the goodness of fit calculations of the full model and the results

were classified as good, with a GFI value of 0.847; AGFI = 0.809; NNFI = 0.968; CFI = 0.972; and

the RMSEA value = 0.0615, while the P-count value was smaller than 0.05. This value indicates

that the overall measurement model in this research had a marginal fit with the data. This means

that the GFI, AGFI, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA measurement indices were within the expected value

range.

b. Effect of Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Personal Development, on Performance

The results of processing using the Lisrel application are:

Y = 7.969 + 2.733*X1 + 0.109*X2 + 1.726*X3, Errorvar. =0.491, R²=0.898

1). Hypothesis testing

Based on the conceptual framework of the research, the hypothesis of this research is X1

(Self-Efficacy), X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career Development) on Y (Performance)

either partially or simultaneously [18]. To test the hypothesis, statistical tests were performed by

calculating the SEM Analysis as quantitative analysis.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3305

a). Simultaneous Test (Overall)

H0: ρYX1 = ρYX2 =ρYX3 = 0; Meaning: Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career

Development do not influence Employee Performance

H1: ρYX1 ≠ ρYX2 ≠ρYX3 ≠ 0; Meaning: Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career

Development Influence Employee Performance

To test whether there is a strong simultaneous/overall influence between X1 (Self-Efficacy),

X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career Development) on Y (Employee Performance), it can

be seen from the results of the F test as follows:

𝐹 = (𝑛 − 𝑘 − 1)𝑅𝑦𝑥𝑘

2

𝑘(1 − 𝑅𝑦𝑥𝑘2 )

F =(169 − 3 − 1)0.898

3(1 − 0.898)= 484.22

Based on the calculation, the F count value is 484.22, Ftable with degrees of freedom v1 = 3, v2

= (169-3-1) = 165 and α = 5%, the value of F table = 2.66, it can be concluded that there was a

simultaneous influence between X1 (Self-Efficacy), X2 (Employee Commitment) and X3 (Career

Development) on Y (Employee Performance) [19].

b). Partial Test (Separate)

Partial test using t test was conducted to find out which independent variable significantly

influenced the dependent variable.

The rejection criteria H0 is if t count is greater than t table or t0>ttable, with the number of samples =

169.

1). Partial Test of Self-Efficacy on Performance

H0:ρYX1 = 0;Meaning: Self-efficacy (X1) has no influence on Performance (Y)

H1:ρYX1 ≠ 0; Meaning: Self-efficacy (X1) has to influence on Performance (Y)

For the path coefficient X1 = 2.733, t count of 22.773 was obtained with a significance level α

of 5%, the value of t table or t0.05.169 = 1.974, thus t count = 22.773 was greater than t table = 1.974. This

means that Self-Efficacy (X1) had a significant influence on Performance (Y).



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3306

Table 4.12: Partial Test of Self-Efficacy (X1) on Performance (Y)

Structural Path Coef. tcount ttable Pvalue Conclusion

ρYX1 2.733 22.73 1.97 0.000 H0was rejected

X1hadsignificant influence on

Y


2). Partial Test of Employee Commitment to Performance

H0:ρYX2 = 0; Meaning: Employee Commitment (X2) does not influence Performance (Y)

H1:ρYX2 ≠ 0; Meaning: Employee Commitment (X2) influences Performance (Y)

For the path coefficient X2 = 0.109, the t count value of 4.225 was obtained by significance level

of α of 5%, the value of t table or t0.05.169 = 1.97, and since t count = 3.225 was greater than t table = 1.97,

then H0wasrejected, or in other words, Employee Commitment (X2) had significant influence on

Performance (Y).

Table 4.13: Partial Test of Employee Commitment (X2) on Performance (Y)

Structural Path Coef. tcount ttable Pvalue Conclusion


X2hadsignificant influence on

Y


3). Partial Test of Career Development on Performance

H0:ρYX3 = 0; Meaning: Career Development (X3) does not influence performance (Y)

H1:ρYX3 ≠ 0; Meaning: Career Development (X3) influences performance (Y)

For the path coefficient, X3 = 1.726, the t value of 21.161 was obtained by significance level of α

of 5%, and the value of t table or t0.025.167 = 1.97, and since tcount = 21.161 was greater than t table = 1.97,

then Career Development (X3) had significant influence on Performance (Y).



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3307

Table 4.14: Partial Test of Work Motivation (X3) on Job Satisfaction (Y)

Structural Path Coef. t count t table P-value Conclusion


X3hadsignificant influence on Y


c. Discussion

Based on the results of descriptive tests for the Self-Efficacy variable, it is known that on

statements about self-efficacy variables, the majority of respondents answered "agree" (55.02%)

and "strongly agree" (33.6%). This illustrated that Bank DKI already had strong Self-Efficacy that

was embedded in each of its employees so that they were able to implement all prepared

programs so that the company's goals and objectives can be achieved. Based on the results of

hypothesis testing, it is known that Self-Efficacy had a significant influence on performance by

27.33%. The results of this analysis are following Bandura stating that self-efficacy as self-

assessment of the ability to regulate and carry out the desired actions to achieve goals. With

strong self-efficacy, one can assess one's ability to organize and carry out directed steps to achieve

a goal. Self-confidence is one of the personal factors that mediate the interaction between

behavioral factors and environmental factors. High perceived self-confidence will motivate the

individual to act more cognitively directed, especially if the goal to be achieved is clear [20].

Based on the descriptive test of employee commitment, it is known that on statements about

the Employee Commitment variable, the majority of respondents answered "good" (48.89%) and

"very good" (42.44%). This illustrated that Bank DKI had a strong commitment to upholding the

regulations in carrying out work because someone feels bound to work if he has a strong sense

of duty or obligation from his work, and places the intrinsic value of his work as a "central life

interest". Furthermore, based on the results of the hypothesis test, it was known that employee

commitment affected performance by 10.9% which is in line with Lincoln's opinion in Wijaya [9]

that employee commitment is the desire of employees to continue to maintain membership in the

organization and are willing to make efforts for achieving organization goals. Employees who

are committed to the company will be responsible for their duties and have the possibility to leave

the company are smaller than employees whose commitment levels are lower.

Based on descriptive tests, it is known that on the statements about the Career

Development variable, the majority of respondents answered "good" (54.74%) and "very good"

(33.93%). This illustrated that the employees of Bank DKI were allowed to work in different

positions within a certain time, in preparing career development programs and preparing for a



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3308

higher level. This is in line with Rivai’s theory [11] stating that career development is a process of

increasing individual work skills achieved to achieve the desired career. Then based on the results

of the hypothesis test, it was discovered that career development had a significant influence on

performance with a value of 17.26%. This result is reinforced by Werther and Davis that career

development is an important tool for organizations in increasing productivity, increasing

employee positive attitudes at work, and developing better employee quality, whose main

purpose is to help employees analyze their abilities and talents in meeting their individual needs

in line with the development interests and needs of the organization.

Then based on the results of the simultaneous test, it was found that Self-Efficacy,

Employee Commitment, and Career Development had a significant influence on performance

with an effective value of 89.8%. This means that the management of Bank DKI paid attention to

these three variables, namely Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development

[21]. Employees’ involvement in making policies increased self-confidence in every decision

making in the form of company policies, solid employee commitment, and open career

development, and encouraged the employees to develop and produce the best employee

performance.

5. Conclusions

Based on the results of the analysis and discussion, the following conclusions can be drawn:

a. Self-Efficacy influenced the Performance of employees of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta at

27.33%, the rest could be explained by other variables and other factors.

b. Employee Commitment influenced the Performance of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta by

10.9%, the rest could be explained by other variables and other factors.

c. Career Development influenced the Performance of Bank DKI. The remaining 17.26%

could be explained by other variables and other factors.

d. Self-Efficacy, Employee Commitment, and Career Development had a simultaneous

influence on the Performance of the employees of Bank DKI, Central Jakarta at 89.8%, the

rest could be explained by other variables in this research and of the factor that had the

most influence on Performance was Self-Efficacy.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3309

References

[1] W. Werther and K. Davis, Human Resources and Personnel Management, 5 ed., McGraw-Hill,

1996.

[2] Laporan Tahunan (Annual Report), PT. Bank DKI, 2013.

[3] I. K. Ardana, N. W. Mujiati and I. W. M. Utama, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, Yogyakarta:

Graha Ilmu, 2012.

[4] S. H. Appelbau and A. Hare, "Self-efficacy as a mediator of goal setting and performance: Some

human resource applications," Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 33-47, 1996.

[5] E. A. Kuncoro and Riduwan, Cara Menggunakan dan Memaknai Analisis Jalur (Path Analysis),

Bandung: Alfabeta, 2008.

[6] M. S. P. Hasibuan, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, 18 ed., Jakarta: Bumi Aksara, 2013.

[7] R. A. Noe, J. Hollenbeck, B. Gerhart and P. Wright, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia, 8 ed.,

Jakarta: Salemba Empat, 2010.

[8] Alwisol, Psikologi Kepribadian, Malang: UMM Press, 2008.

[9] C. Wijaya, Pendidikan Remidial, Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya, 2010.

[10] A. Mangkunegara, Manajemen Sumber Daya Perusahaan, 7 ed., Bandung: PT Remaja Rosdakarya,

2007.

[11] V. Rivai, Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia untuk Perusahaan: dari Teori ke Praktek, Jakarta: Raja

Press, 2005.

[12] F. C. Lunenburg, "Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for Motivation and Performance,"

International Journal of Management, Business, And Administration, vol. 14, no. 1, 2011.

[13] U. M. Fadli, D. A. Fadili and Y. Kartawijaya, "Pengaruh Kompetensi Pegawai Terhadap Komitmen

Kerja Pada PT PLN (Persero) Rayon Rengas dengklok," Jurnal Manajemen, vol. 9, no. 2, 2012.

[14] G. Dessler, Human Resource Management., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2005.

[15] Ribhan, "Hubungan Karakteristik Individu dengan Kinerja Pegawai melalui Komitmen Organisasi

Sebagai Variabel Mediasi," Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, vol. 4, no. 2, 2008.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3310

[16] Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Bisnis, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2010.

[17] H. Umar, Riset Sumber Daya Manusia, Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama, 2008.

[18] L. Greenhalgh and Z. Rosenblatt, "Job insecurity: Toward conceptual clarity," The Academy of

Management Review, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 438-448, 1984.

[19] A. Bandura, Self-efficacy mechanism in psychobiologic functioning. Self-efficacy: Thought control

of action, Washington: DC: Hemisphere, 1992, pp. 355-394.

[20] V. Srimulyani , "Tripologi dan Anteseden Komitmen Organisasi," Jurnal Ilmiah Widya Wana , vol.

33, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2009.

[21] S. Robbins and M. Coulter, Manajemen, 10 ed., Jakarta: Erlangga, 2010.



Issn No : 1006-7930

Page No: 3311

Documents

ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF SELF EFFICACY, EMPLOYEE ...count for the variable Self-Efficacy of 22.77 and the Commitment of Employees of a count of 5.71 and Career Development of a count