The Influence of Organizational Culture and Motivation on Employee

Performance with Organizational Commitment as Intervening Variable

(Study on The Employee of Dinas Pengairan Provinsi Aceh)
Winardi
Email: wins_mb01@yahoo.co.id
Master of Management Program, Syiah Kuala University
Abstrak The purpose of this research was to analyze the employee performance of Dinas Pengairan Provinsi
Aceh. This research uses the variables of organizational culture and motivation to analyze the influence of
employee performance. This study also used organizational commitment as the intervening variables to analyze
the influence of the level of employee commitment to the organization. The population of this research are all the
employees Dinas Pengairan Provinsi Aceh, amounting to 472. While the sample taken in this research were as
many as 100 people drawn from the population. The collected data used questionnaire method is to provide a list
of questions or questionnaires directly to respondents. The Analysis data techniques in this study use SEM
(Structural Equation Modeling) analysis which is operate by AMOS 20 program. The results of the show that the
organizational culture variables have a positive influence of 0.83 on the performance of employees with a good
level of significant (P = 0.015), the variable of organizational commitment have a positive influence of 0.33 on
the performance of employees with significant levels of good (P = 0.012), but the motivation variable has a
negative influence of -0.51 and no significant influence on employee performance (P = 0.239). Motivational
variables have a positive influence of 0.34 for organizational commitment to the values that are not significant (P
= 0.428), but organizational cultural variables have a negative influence of -0.32 and no significant influence on
organizational commitment (P = 0.321).
Keywords : employee performance, organizational commitment, organizational culture, motivation, structural
equation modelling.

organizational
commitment
as
intervening
variables.
This research intended to answer the following
questions: (1) how the influence of organizational
culture on employee performance of Dinas
Pengairan Provinsi Aceh, (2) how the influence of
motivation on employee performance of Dinas
Pengairan Provinsi Aceh, (3) how the influence of
organizational
culture
on
organizational
commitment of employees of Dinas Pengairan
Provinsi Aceh, (4) how the influence of motivation
on organizational commitment of employees of
Dinas Pengairan Provinsi Aceh, and (5) how to
influence organizational commitment to employee
of Dinas Pengairan Provinsi Aceh.
Results are expected in this research are:
a. Expected to provide empirical evidence that
shows the influence of organizational culture
and motivation on performance through
organizational commitment as intervening
variable, which can provide input on the
importanceof understanding the organization's
management
to
the
management
of
organizational culture on organizational
commitment and motivation of all employees
owned. Thus, the employee performance who
initially declined to be increased again to
increase the organization to increase.
b. Expected to provide benefits in general can be
obtained for an organization that is providing

I. INTRODUCTION
The high employee absent, late into the office,
get home and are often absent indicates low
performance of the staff of the Department of
Irrigation Aceh. When an employee is paid at the
time did not work then it is indeed a negative
influence on performance. This time off or do not
get too much work not onlycostly, but also
negatively affect productivity if people are not
trained to replacethem with experience, wait times
are too long can cause the need for additional staff
time to clear up the problem and supervision must
also be increased.
Each organization will always strive to improve
the performance of employees in the hope of what
the corporate objectives will be achieved.
Employee performance is a result achieved by the
employee at work according to specific criteria that
apply to a particular job. Performance is an
organizational behavior that are directly related to
the production of goods or service delivery.
To improve organizational performance through
the employee performance factors to consider
seriously is the organizational culture, employee
motivation and organizational commitment of
employees.
In this research the authors wanted to see how
the influence of organizational culture and
motivation on employee performance through

2
input extent to which organizational culture,
motivation and organizational commitment to
provide a positive contribution in improving the
employee performance.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Employee Performance
Performance is an organizational behavior that
are directly related to the production of goods or
service delivery. Performance is often thought as
achievement of tasks, where the term its elf is
derived from the task of thinking activities required
by the workers (Gibson, et al. 2006:149).
Miner (1990) in Sutrisno (2010:170), the
performance is how someone is expected to
function and behave in accordance with the tasks
that have been imposed on him. Any expectations
of how one should behave in performing the tasks,
indicating a role in the organization.
Tsui, Pearce, and Tripoli (1997) for the
performance of the components selected to
differentiate the tasks. Given the special nature of
employees vary greatly with their work, the
organization developed a generic for a job. Six
items focused on quality, quantity, and efficiency
of employees was developed to measure the
performance of basic tasks. On this item, rater
shows the extent to which they agreed that the
employee's performance on core work is higher
than other employees in similar jobs. Tsui, et al.
(1997) added five items adapted from Greenhaus,
Parasuraman and Wormley (1990) to measure the
performance ofcore tasks, which focuses on the
overall ability of individuals, assessment, accuracy,
knowledge and creativity in performing job duties.
Of research Tsui, et al. (1997) the authors
conclude that in assessing the performance of
human resources based on specific behaviors
(judgment performance evaluation) using eleven
criteria: quantity of employment, quality of
employment,
employee
efficiency,
quality
standards of employees, employees of business,
professional standards of employees, ability of the
employee, the employee's ability to use common
sense, the precision of employees, employee
knowledge and creativity of employees (Tsui, et al.
1997).
B. Organizational Commitment
Robbins
and
Judge
(2008:100-101)
organizational commitment is the degree to which
an impartial employee of an organization and the
goals and the desire to maintain membership in the
organization. Thus, high involvement work in favor
of a particular job means an individual, while a
high organizational commitment means impartial
organizations that recruit these individuals.
Luthans (2006:249) define organizational
commitment in other words, an attitude that reflects

the loyalty of employees in the organization and

ongoing process in which organizational members
express concern for the organization and the
success and continuous progress.
Mowday,
Steers
and
Porter
(1979)
Organizational commitment refers to identification
with organizational goals, ability to direct all the
power for the benefit of the organization, and the
interest to remain a part of the organization.
By using this definition, organizational
commitment
is
generally
measured
by
thequestionnaire of organizational commitment,
amounting to fifteen questions. This questionnaire
is called the Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire (OCQ). Fifteenth question is likely
to present a statement of individual feelings toward
the company or organization they work for
(Mowday, et al. 1979).
Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed three models
of organizational commitment and is reflected in
three main points are:
1. Affective commitment is an emotional feeling
for the organization and the belief in its values.
2. Continuance commitment is the perceived
economicvalue of stay in an organization when
compared with leaving the organization.
3. Normative commitment is an obligation to stay
in the organization for reasons of moral or
ethical.
C. Organizational culture
Culture basically contain explicit or implicit
patterns of behavior and to the required and
achieved results in different human groups,
including the objects of human creation, the main
core of culture consists of traditional ideas in the
sense of hereditary and selected, embedded in an
accompanying value (Gibson , et al. 2006:30-31).
There are some restrictions concerning the
management culture of ethics, namely: 1) coping
with multidimentionality, 2) limits on cultur's
constraints, 3) culture and institutions. Appropriate
practices in a cultural setting may violate the terms
that have been raised about the organizational and
social life in the context of other cultures, resulting
in loss of power for the company, and hostility by
arefusal of management practices are thought to
harmonize and improve theorganizational life
(Weaver, 2001).
According Luthan (2006:47) culture can be
defined as the knowledge gained to interpret
experience and generate social behavior.
Organizational culture is the norms and values that
guide the behavior of members of the organization.
Eachmember will behave in a culture that has
prevailed in order to be accepted by the
environment.
Robbins and Judge (2008:256) organizational
culture as a system of shared meaning held by
members that distinguishes the organization with

3
another organization. Furthermore, Robbins and
Judge (2008:256) states that a system of shared
meaning shaped by its people as well as a
differentiator with other organizations.
Innovation and risk taking, is theextent to which
employees are encouraged to be innovative and
take risks, (2) Attention to details, is the extent to
which employees are expected to run precision,
analytical and attention to detail, (3) Outcome
orientation, is the extent to which management
focuses more on results than on the techniques and
processes used to achieve these outcomes: (4)
People orientation, is the extent to which
management decisions consider the effect of these
results upon the person in the organization, (5)
Team orientation, is the extent to which work
activities are organized in teams rather than
individuals, (6) Aggressiveness, is the extent to
which the person being aggressive and competitive
rather than relaxed, (7) Stability, is theextent to
which organizational activities emphasize the status
quo in comparisonwith growth.
D. Motivation
Luthans (2006:270) defines motivation is a
process that starts with a physiological or
psychological deficiency that drives the behavior
orencouragement or incentives for the purpose
intended. In the context of the system, motivation
includes three elements that interact and are
dependent on the needs, encouragement and
incentives.
According to Gibson, et al. (2006:132)
motivation is a force that encourages an employee
who raises and directs behavior. So it can further
be concluded that the motivation is an activity of
giving a boost circuit, which is not only to others
but also to your self.
Robbins and Judge (2008:222-223) motivation
is a process that describes the intensity, direction,
and diligent efforts to achieve a goal. The three
main elements in the motivation is the intensity,
direction, and persistence. Intensity related to how
actively a try. High intensity will not produce a
satisfactory job performance unless the effort is
associated with a favorable direction of the
organization. Persistence is a measure of how long
a person can maintain his business.
Armstrong (2009:317) motivation is concerned
with the strength and direction of behavior al and
relationship factors people to act in a certain way.
The term motivation can be pointed in many
different ways to the goals of individuals, the
procedure in which individuals choose their goals
and procedures where other people are trying to
change their behavior.
Abraham Maslow in Robbins and Judge
(2008:223) identifies five levels in needs hierarchy.
The hierarchy needs of five is physiological needs,
safety needs, social needs, esteem needs and self-

actualisation needs that exist inessentially every

need has been met, the needs of the next become
dominant. These needs are:
a. Physiological needs. Include hunger, thirst,
shelter, sexual andother physical needs.
b. Safety needs. Include a sense of want to be
protected from physical and emotional harm.
c. Social needs. Include compassion, ownership,
acceptance and friendship.
d. Esteem needs. Includes internal factors such as
respect of selfrespect, autonomy and
achievement, and factors external rewards such
as status, recognition and attention.
e. Self-actualisation needs. The urge to be
someone appropriate skill; includes growth,
achieving one's potential and self-fulfillment.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs can be illustrated
in Figure 1.

Selftactualisation

Esteem

Social

Safety

Physiological

Figure 1 : Maslows hierarchy of needs

Source : Robbins and Judge (2008:225)
E. The influence Between of Variable
1. Influence of Organizational Culture on
Employee Performance
Denison and Mishra in the research (1995)
concluded that organizational culture was an
important strategy for iterative effective in boosting
the employee performance. Tjahjono and Gunarsih
research (2008) concluded the independent
variables of individual organizational culture
significantly influence the employee performance.
Kartiningsih research (2007) hypothesis testing
done to prove that there is adirect influence of
organizational culture in employee performance.
Koesmono Research (2005) shows the influence of
organizational culture on employee performance.
2. Influence of Motivation on Employee
Performance
Tjahjono and Gunarsih research (2008)
concluded the independent variables of individual
motivation significantly influence employee
performance.

4
Koesmono Research (2005) shows the
influence of motivation on the employee
performances by 0.387. Where the research is
motivation of the dominant influence on the
performance of employees.
According to Armstrong (2009:317) the
relationship between motivation and performance
is positive because the employees are highly
motivated will produce peak performance.
3. Influence of Organizational Culture on
Organizational Commitment
Lok and Crawford research (2004), said the
influence of organizational culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. This means separate organizational
culture can directly affect organizational
commitment.
Kartiningsih research (2007) hypothesis testing
done to prove that there is a direct effect of
organizational
culture
with
organizational
commitment. Retnaningsih research (2011)
separate the organizational culture provide a
positive influence on organizational commitment.
Renyowijoyo Research (2003) show that there
is a relationship between organizational culture
supportive, innovative organizational culture, and
bureaucratic
organizational
culture
with
organizational commitment.
4. Influence of Motivation on Organizational
Commitment
Burton, et al research (2002) states that the
motivation of employees have a significant positive
influence on commitment as measured by three
dimensions of commitment, namely affectif
commitment,
normative
commitment
and
continuance commitment.
Buraidah research (2011) suggests that this
form of motivation that gives the most impact on
the commitment is a responsibility, advancement,
work it
self,
achievements, recognition,
administration and policy schools, salaries, and
personal relationships. Devi research (2009)
showed that there was a positive influence between
motivation with organizational commitment.
5. Influence of Organizational Commitment on
Employee performance
The results of Suliman research (2002)
suggested that organizational commitment have a
significant positive correlation with employee
performance. The results Devi (2009) states that
organizational commitment positively although not
significantly influence the employees performance.
The results of Suparman research (2007) states
that organizational commitment has positive and
significant influence on employee performance.
Kartiningsih research (2007) concluded that there

is a direct influence of organizational commitment

to employee performance.
F. Framework of Mind
Based on a conceptual description of the
influence of each variable, then the research
framework of graphically illustrated in Figure 2.

H1
H3
H5

H4
H2

Figure 2 : Theoretical Framework of The Mind

Source : Developed for the research
From the description above hypothesis can be
drawn as follows:
H1 : Organizational culture positive influence on
employee performance
H2 : Motivation positive influence on employee
performance
H3 : Organizational culture positive influence on
organizational commitment
H4 : Motivation
positive
influence
on
organizational commitment
H5 : Organizational commitment positive influence
on employee performance
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Population and Sample
a. The population in this research were all
employees of the office environment of Dinas
Pengairan Provinsi Aceh, amounting to 472
people.
Table 1. Details of Populations
Gender
Total
Male
Female (People)
(People) (People)
IV
22
1
23
III
175
39
214
II
113
29
142
I
4
0
4
Honor/Contract
72
17
89
Total
386
86
472
Source : Data Staffing of Dinas Pengairan
Provinsi Aceh Per-31 December 2011
Space Class

b. This research used a sample of 100 samples by

the method of Maximumlikelihood Estimation.

5
B. Data Collection Techniques
Data
collection
techniques
using
a
questionnaire method is to provide a list of
questions or questionnaires directly to respondents
were made using a scale of 1-7 to obtain the data
that is interval and given a value or score, for the
category of statements with answers strongly
disagree with the value 1 (one) or strongly agreed
with the value of 7 (seven).
C.
Operationalization of Variables and
Indicators
Determination of attributes and indicators as
well as the operational definition of variables used
in this research Likert scale of 1 s / d 7, which is an
opinion Strongly Disagree (STS) up to Strongly
Agree (SS) of the respondents as in Table 2.
Table 2. Operationalization of Variables and
Indicators
Variables

Indicators

X28 Employees quantity of work

X29 Employees quality of work
X30 Employees efficiency of work
X31 Employees standards of work quality
X32 Employees strives for higher quality
work
X33 Employees professional stadards
X34 Employees ability to perform
X35 Employees judgment when performing
X36 Employees accuracy when
performing
X37 Employees job knowledge with
reference
X38 Employees creativity when performing
(Tsui, Pearce dan Porter, 1997)
Intervening:
X13 Willing todo attempt
Organizational X14 Recognition to the organization
Commitment X15 Loyalty to the organization
X16 Receive all the work
X17 Feeling of being part of organization
X18 Pride in the organization
X19 Great willingness to work
X20 Inspired by the organization
X21 Allegiance to the organization
X22 Good feeling toward the organization
X23 Survive withing the organization
X24 Understanding of organization policies
X25 Concern for the organization
X26 Praise for the organization
X27 The right decision to work in the
organization
(Mowday, Steers dan Porter 1979)
Independen:
X1 Inovation and risk taking
Organizational X2 Attention to detail
Culture
X3 Outcome orientation
X4 People orientation
X5 Team orientation
X6 Aggressiveness
X7 Stability
(Robbins dan Judge, 2008)
Independen:
X8 Physiological needs
Motivation
X9 Safety needs
X10 Social needs
X11 Esteem needs
X12 Self-actualisation needs
(Maslow dalam Robbins and Judge, 2008)
Dependent:
Employee
Performance

D. Data Analysis Techniques

The method chosen to analyze the data must
match the pattern of research and the variables to
be research. Research model to be used in this
study is a tiered structure model and to test the
hypothesis used analysis techniques SEM
(Structural Equation Modelling) that is operated
through a AMOS program (Analysis of Moment
Structure).
SEM is a multivariate technique combining
aspects of factor analysis and multiple regression
that enables the resear her to simultaneously
examine a series of interrelated dependence
relationships among the measured variables and
latent constructs (variates) and as well as betwen
several latent construct (Hair, et al. 2009:608).
Amos (Analysis of Moment Structure)
implements the general approach to data analysis
known as structural equation modelling (SEM),
also known as analysis of covariance structure, or
causal modelling. This approach includes, as
special cases, many well-known conventional
techniques, including general linear models and
common factor analysis (Arbuckle, 2011: 2).
Indices that can be used to test the feasibility of
a model is presented in Table 3:
Table 3. Criteria for Goodness of Fit
Size Criteria Index
Chi-Square (2)
p-value
CMIN/df
RMSEA
GFI
AGFI
TLI
CFI

Reference Value
0.05
0.05
2.00
0.08
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90

Source : Hair, et al. (2009)

IV. RESEARCH RESULTS
A. Composition of Respondents
Composition of respondents by gender, age, last
education and years of service.
Table 4. Composition of Respondents
Composition of
Total
Percentage
Respondents
(People)
Gender
Male
62
62.00 %
Female
38
38.00 %
Age
21 25
2
2.00 %
26 30
27
27.00 %
31 35
24
24.00 %
36 40
18
18.00 %

6
41 45
13
13.00 %
46 50
6
6.00 %
51 55
10
10.00 %
Last Education
SMU/SMK Equel
45
45.00 %
Diploma I, II, III, IV
6
6.00 %
Bachelor (S1)
46
46.00 %
Graduate (S2/S3
3
3.00 %
Years of Service
<5
24
24.00 %
6 10
47
47.00 %
11 15
10
10.00 %
16 20
8
8.00 %
21 25
5
5.00 %
> 25
6
6.00 %
Source : Adapted from the primary data
B. Description of Research Variables
Descriptive data is showing an overview of
respondents' answers to questions or statements
contained in the questionnaires.
Table 5. Description of Research Variables
Variable
Indeks Value Category
Organization
73.41 %
High
Culture
Motivation
68.80 %
Medium
Organization
76.13 %
High
Commitment
Employee
78.81 %
High
Performance
Source : Adapted from the primary data
C. Data Analysis Research
Analysis of the data used in this research is the
Structural Equation Model (SEM).
1. Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis of a phase
measurement of indicators that make up the latent
variables in the model reseach. Analysis were
performed on all study variables.
a. Confirmatory
Factor
Analysis
of
Organizational Culture Variables

Figure 3 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis of

Organizational Culture Variables
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)

Table 6. Criteria for Goodness of Fit

Organizational Culture Variables
Size
Analisis
Reference
Evaluation
Criteria
of
Value
Model
Index
Result
Chi-Square
0.05
13.202
Good
(2)
p-value
0.05
0.511
Good
CMIN/df
2.00
0.943
Good
RMSEA
0.08
0.000
Good
GFI
0.90
0.965
Good
AGFI
0.90
0.931
Good
TLI
0.90
1.015
Good
CFI
0.90
1.000
Good
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)
b. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Motivation
Variables
Having conducted a factor analysis of variables
motivation, there is a significant indicator that is
not an indicator X9 with a probability value of
0.863 is well above 0.05, so the indicator X9
should be dropped. The results of the revision of
the model output shown in Figure 3.

Figure 4 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis of

Motivation Variables
Source : Primary data is processed (with
AMOS 20)
Table 7. Criteria for Goodness of Fit
Motivation Variables
Size
Analisis
Reference
Evaluation
Criteria
of
Value
Model
Index
Result
Chi-Square
0.05
Good
2.432
(2)
p-value
0.05
Good
0.296
CMIN/df
2.00
Good
1.216
RMSEA
0.08
Good
0.047
GFI
0.90
Good
0.988
AGFI
0.90
Good
0.938
TLI
0.90
Good
0.973
CFI
0.90
Good
0.991
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)

7
c. Confirmatory
Factor
Analysis
of
Organizational Commitment Variables
Having conducted a factor analysis of
organizational commitment variables, there are
nine indicators are not significant indicators of
X13, X15, X16, X18, X19, X20, X24, X25 and
X26 should be dropped. Results in the revision of
the model output shown in Figure 5.
Figure 6 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis of
Employee Performance Variables
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)

Figure 5 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis of

Organizational
Commitment
Variables
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)
Table 8. Criteria for Goodness of Fit
Organizational Commitment Variables
Size
Analisis
Reference
Evaluation
Criteria
of
Value
Model
Index
Result
Chi-Square
0.05
9.545
Good
(2)
p-value
0.05
0.389
Good
CMIN/df
2.00
1.061
Good
RMSEA
0.08
0.025
Good
GFI
0.90
0.969
Good
AGFI
0.90
0.928
Good
TLI
0.90
0.994
Good
CFI
0.90
0.996
Good
Source : Primary data is processed (with the
software AMOS 20)
d. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee
Performance Variables
Having conducted a factor analysis of employee
performance variables, there are six indicators that
are significant indicators of x28, X29, X30, X31,
x32 and X35 must be dropped. Revision of the
model output results are shown in Figure 6.

Table 9. Criteria for Goodness of Fit

Employee Performance Variables
Size
Analisis
Reference
Evaluation
Criteria
of
Value
Model
Index
Result
Chi-Square
0.05
Good
8.128
(2)
p-value
0.05
Good
0.149
CMIN/df
2.00
Good
1.626
RMSEA
0.08
Good
0.079
GFI
0.90
Good
0.968
AGFI
0.90
Good
0.905
TLI
0.90
Good
0.954
CFI
0.90
Good
0.977
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS
20)
2. Full Model Analysis of Structural Equation
Modelling (SEM)
Once the model is analyzed through
confirmatory factor analysis then each indicator in
the model fit can be used to define the latent
construct, so the full SEM models can be analyzed.
The result of preliminary analysis shows SEM
analysis not fit and do not meet the criteria of
goodness of fit has been determined. To improve
the model fit, then the first one seen is the
significance of parameter estimates and the
standardized loading models indiches then
modified following the modification. Modification
ofthe model can only be done as many as seven
times to get the model fit.
Modification of the treatment until it can be
seen in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Full Model Analysis of Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) Revisi and Modification
Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS 20)
Summary of test for the feasibility of full SEM
models showed that this model fits the data or the
fit of the data used in this study are shown in Table
10.
Table 10. Criteria for Goodness of Fit
Full Model Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM)
Size
Analisis
Reference
Evaluation
Criteria
of
Value
Model
Index
Result
Chi-Square
0.05
92.056
Good
(2)
p-value
0.05
0.449
Good
CMIN/df
2.00
1.012
Good
RMSEA
0.08
0.011
Good
GFI
0.90
0.905
Good
AGFI
0.90
0.858
Marginal
TLI
0.90
0.997
Good
CFI
0.90
0.997
Good
Source : Primary data is processed (with the
software AMOS 20)

Of Table 10 shows that in the process of

structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis has
met the criteria for goodness of fit has been
determined. Critical Ratio values in this analysis
indicates a value above the limit of significance
that is equal to 0.449 (p > 0.05), this value indicates
no difference between the sample covariance
matrix of the covariance matrix of the estimated
population.
So is the value of Chi Square (2) at 92.056;
CMIN/df of 1.012; RMSEA of 0.011; GFI of
0.905; TLI of 0.997 and CFI of 0.997 for which all
meet the criteria of goodness of fit that has been
established and the only value of 0.858 AGFI is
marginal to the goodness of fit kiteria set.

9
3. Assumption of a Structural
Modelling (SEM) Analysis

The results of data processing to test the value

of the maximum Z-score of 1.832. Distribution
of observed data for each indicator variable
indicating the absence of outliers. This is
indicated by the Z-score of the research data
whose value is in the range of 3.0.

Equation

a. Evaluation of Data Normality

Table 11. Assessement of Normality
Variable

Min

max

Skew

c.r.

Kurtosis

c.r.

X7

3,000

7,000

-,573

-2,340

,233

,475

X38

2,000

7,000

-,875

-3,572

,913

1,863

X33

2,000

7,000

-1,227

-5,009

1,792

3,658

X6

1,000

7,000

-,228

-,930

-1,028

-2,098

Observation number

Mahalanobis d-squared

p1

p2

X12

1,000

7,000

-,203

-,829

-1,117

-2,280

50,864

,000

,002

X27

1,000

7,000

-1,237

-5,052

,467

,954

45,966

,000

,000

X23

1,000

7,000

-1,945

-7,939

5,430

11,084

21

43,664

,000

,000

X22

2,000

7,000

-1,591

-6,495

3,236

6,606

15

40,792

,001

,000

X21

2,000

7,000

-1,748

-7,137

2,896

5,911

89

38,949

,001

,000

X11

1,000

7,000

-,109

-,444

-1,209

-2,467

X10

2,000

7,000

-,462

-1,886

-,921

-1,879

65

37,121

,002

,000

X37

2,000

7,000

-,659

-2,689

,673

1,373

53

34,703

,004

,000

31,587

,011

,000

Multivariate Outliers
Table 13. Outliers Univariate

X36

3,000

7,000

-,726

-2,965

1,112

2,270

X34

1,000

7,000

-2,176

-8,882

8,423

17,192

16

31,562

,011

,000

X3

3,000

7,000

-1,228

-5,014

4,357

8,895

82

31,452

,012

,000

,058

,118

68,201

14,209

X2

3,000

7,000

-,392

-1,601

Multivariate

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS

20)

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS

20)

From the results of processing the data

displayed there is no value of CR for skewnees that
are outside the range 2.58, then the data can still
be found distributed at 0.01 significant level. Thus,
the research data used in compliance with the
requirements of normality of data, or it can be said
that the research data was normally distributed.

Mahalonobis largest distance value (d- square

biggest) when compared with chi-square value
of the free degrees for 16 (the number of
dimensions or indicators) at the level of p <
0.001 was 2 (16,0.002\1) = 39.252 (based on the 2
distribution table). From the results of data
processing can be seen that the maximum
mahalanobis distance of 50.864 so that it can be
conclude that there is a multivariate outliers
(only four respondents out of 100 respondents).
Nevertheless, the data is not removed because it
describes the actual situation at the time of
research respondent.

b. Evaluation of Outliers
- Univariate Outliers
Univariate outliers testing is performed per
construct variables with SPSS 17 software
program.
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics
N
X2
X3
X6
X7
X10
X11
X12
X21
X22
X23
X27
X33
X34
X36
X37
X38
Valid N (listwise)

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
3
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
2
2

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

5.67
6.19
4.31
5.82
4.95
3.97
4.17
5.85
5.79
5.85
5.21
5.89
5.79
5.59
5.34
5.23

.853
.677
1.489
.869
1.459
1.672
1.832
1.274
1.028
1.077
1.754
1.043
.880
.793
.997
1.062

Source : Primary data is processed (with SPSS 17)

c. Evaluation
of
Multicollinearity
and
Singulatiry
From the results of data processing determinant
value of covariance matrix (determinant of sample
covariance matrix) sample is 0.155 which means
that the determinant of the sample covariance
matrix is far from zero. Thus it can be said that the
research data that is used there is no
multicollinearity and singularity.

10
Table 14. Multicollinearity and Singularity
Sampel Covariances
X7
X38
X33
X6
X12
X27
X23
X22
X21
X11
X10
X37
X36
X34
X3
X2

X7
0,748
0,071
-0,2
0,416
0,301
0,088
-0,127
-0,048
-0,067
0,245
0,261
0,061
0,116
0,022
0,174
0,231

X38

X33

X6

X12

X27

X23

X22

X21

X11

X10

X37

X36

X34

X3

X2

1,117
0,375
0,239
0,271
0,002
0,024
-0,132
0,174
0,337
0,631
0,522
0,314
0,298
0,156
0,226

1,078
-0,076
-0,131
0,243
0,274
0,067
0,264
-0,333
0,265
0,517
0,315
0,437
0,031
0,194

2,194
0,527
-0,045
-0,014
-0,005
-0,044
0,699
0,895
-0,045
0,167
-0,095
0,241
0,262

3,321
-0,036
-0,134
0,066
-0,095
1,565
0,808
0,292
0,17
0,076
0,218
0,636

3,046
0,661
0,724
0,911
0,156
0,031
0,159
0,316
0,164
-0,13
0,089

1,147
0,488
0,557
0,045
-0,058
0,111
0,139
-0,002
-0,112
-0,109

1,046
0,929
-0,026
-0,111
0,131
0,144
-0,014
-0,1
-0,029

1,607
-0,155
0,102
0,271
0,198
0,038
-0,192
-0,13

2,769
0,769
0,01
0,088
-0,026
0,116
0,36

2,108
0,247
0,299
0,15
0,249
0,494

0,984
0,409
0,411
0,105
0,262

0,622
0,384
0,078
0,235

0,766
0,06
0,121

0,454
0,183

0,721

Condition number = 30,548

Eigenvalues
5,930 4,443 2,769 2,259 1,598 1,434 1,111 ,902 ,674 ,628 ,499 ,372 ,353 ,334 ,227 ,194
Determinant of sample covariance matrix = ,155

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS 20)

The analysis in this study did not indicate any
standardized residual covariance values that exceed
2.58. Largest standardized covariance residual
value is 1.589 (in column X6 and line X11) is
smaller than 2.58. So the conclusion that the data
used in this study significantly because accep table
residual values 2.58.

d. Evaluation of Residual Value

Interpretations and modifications are intended
to see whether the model developed in this study,
need to be modified or changed so that a better
model. A research model said to be good if it has a
value of Standardized Residual Covarian the
standards set forth in ( 2.58).

Table 15. Standardized Residual Covarian

X7
X38
X33
X6
X12
X27
X23
X22
X21
X11
X10
X37
X36
X34
X3
X2

X7
0
-0,365
-0,317
0
-0,146
0,816
-1,112
0,154
-0,186
-0,311
-0,052
-0,824
0,229
-1,006
1,162
0,023

X38

X33

X6

X12

X27

X23

X22

X21

X11

X10

X37

X36

X34

X3

X2

0,013
-0,054
0,655
0,542
-0,79
-0,634
-0,27
-0,125
0,341
0,326
0,602
-0,299
-0,401
0,896
0,284

0,152
-0,469
-1,059
0,294
1,345
-0,398
0,139
-0,37
0,518
0,304
-0,552
0,784
-0,516
0,539

0
0,401
0,005
0,105
0,49
0,086
1,589
0,395
-1,457
0,321
-1,702
1,046
-0,248

0
-0,187
-0,766
0,423
-0,541
0,457
-0,066
0,45
0,079
-0,503
-0,514
0,121

0
0,991
0,068
-0,071
0,681
-0,117
-0,168
1,254
0,154
-0,833
1,058

0
0,209
-0,322
0,404
-0,628
-0,107
0,54
-0,982
-1,254
-0,709

0,091
0,07
0,467
-0,271
0,402
0,936
-0,911
-0,674
0,999

0
-0,493
0,139
0,222
0,153
-1,261
-1,756
-0,38

0,192
0,409
0,015
0,629
-0,222
-0,636
-0,329

0,244
-0,459
0,544
-0,664
0,809
0,966

0
-0,253
-0,169
-0,156
0,107

0
0,801
-0,177
0,631

0
-0,446
-0,882

0
-0,277

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS 20)

e. Reliability Test
Reliability is a measure of internal consistency
of the indicators of a variables hape that shows the
degree to which each indicator indicates the
formation of acommon variable. Methods used by
selected composite (construct) reliability interms of
cut-off value minimum 0.70 and used the following
formula:
=

( )2
( )2 +

Testing the reliability of each latent variable are

presented in Table 16.

Table 16. Reliability Test Result

Construct
Variable
Description
Reability
Organization
0.558
Marginal
Culture
Motivation
0.604
Marginal
Organization
0.788
Reliabel
Commitment
Employee
0.965
Reliabel
Performance
Source : Primary data is processed

11
4. Hypothesis Test
Test five hypotheses of research conducted by
the Critical Ratio (CR) of a causal relationship of

structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis

processing were as follows:

Table 17. Hypothesis Test

Estimate
Organizational_Commitment

<---

Organizational_Culture

Organizational_Commitment

<---

Employee_Performance

S.E.

C.R.

-,317

,319

-,993

,321

Motivation

,343

,434

,792

,428

<---

Organizational_Culture

,829

,341

2,429

,015

Employee_Performance

<---

Motivation

,429 -1,178

,239

Employee_Performance

<---

Organizational_Commitment

,130

,012

-,506
,328

2,520

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS 20)

a. Hypothesis Test 1
Parameter estimation of the relationship
between organizational culture on employee
performance is obtained at 0.829. Testing the
relationship between the two variables show the
value CR = 2.429 with a probability = 0.015 (p
<0.05). So it can be concluded that organizational
culture
positive
influence
on
employee
performance, so the higher culture of the
organization that employees have the employee
performance's will be higher as well. Thus the first
hypothesis which states that organizational culture
positive influence on employee performance is
received because there is a positive correlation
between organizational culture and employee
performance.
b. Hypothesis Test 2
Parameter estimation of the relationship
between motivation to employee performance is
obtained at -0.506. Testing the relationship
between the two variables show the value CR = 1.178 with a probability = 0.239 (p > 0.05). Thus, it
can be concluded about the second hypothesis
which states that motivation a positive influence on
employee performance is rejected and not
significant.
c. Hypothesis Test 3
Parameter estimation of the relationship
between organizational culture on organizational
commitment is obtained at -0.317. Testing the
relationship between the two variables showed the
value of CR = -0.993 with a probability = 0.321 (p
> 0.05). Thus, it can be concluded about the third
hypothesis which statesthat organizational culture a
positive influence on organizational commitment is
rejected and not significant.
d. Hypothesis Test 4
Parameter estimation of the relationship
between motivation to organizational commitment
is obtained for 0.343. Testing the relationship

between the two variables showed the value of CR

= 0.792 with a probability = 0.428 (p > 0.05). Thus,
it can be concluded about the hypothesis 4 which
states that motivation a positive influence on
organizational commitment is received, although
not significantly.
e. Hypothesis Test 5
Parameter estimation of the relationship
between organizational commitment to employee
performance is obtained at 0.328. Testing the
relationship between the two variables show the
value CR = 2.530 with a probability = 0.012 (p <
0.05). So it can be concluded that organizational
commitment a positive influence on employee
performance, so the higher the organizational
commitment that employees have the employees
performance will be higher as well. Thus
hypothesis 5, which states that organizational
commitment a positive influence on employee
performance is received because there is a positive
correlation between organizational culture and
employee performance.
5. Direct and Indirect Effect
Table 18. Standardized Total Effect
Organizational_
Commitmen
Employee_
Performance

Motivation

Organizational_
Culture

Organizational_
Commitmen

Employee_
Performance

,185

-,246

,000

,000

-,254

,676

,394

,000

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS

20)
The influence of each exogenous variable on
endogenous variables of the overall total
standardized effect analysis showed the overall
effect of motivational variables on employee
performance at -0.254, the influence of
organizational culture variables on employee
performance by 0.676, and the influence of
organizational
commitment
on
employee

12
performance of 0.394. Thus, conclusions can be
drawn is the organizational culture variables
provide the greatest influence on employee
performance, while providing motivation variables
had little influence even have a negative influence
on employee performance. In addition, the
influence
of
motivational
variables
on
organizational commitment is equal to 0.185 and
the influence of organizational culture variables on
organizational commitment is equal to -0.246.
Table 19. Standardized Direct Effect
Organizational_
Commitmen
Employee_
Performance

Motivation

Organizational_
Culture

Organizational_
Commitmen

Employee_
Performance

,185

-,246

,000

,000

-,326

,773

,394

,000

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS

20)
Direct influence of exogenous variables on
endogenous variables from the analysis of
standardized direct effect indicates that there is a
direct effect of motivational variables on the
employee performances and organizational culture
variables on employee performance. Influence of
motivational variables on employee performances
of direct is valued at -0.326. Influence of
organizational culture variables on the performance
of employees directly is worth 0.767. Thus, it can
be taken a conclusion that the organizational
culture variables directly influence the larger of the
employee's performance when compared with the
influence of motivational variables.
Table 20. Standardized Indirect Effect
Organizational_
Commitmen
Employee_
Performance

Motivation

Organizational_
Culture

Organizational_
Commitmen

Employee_
Performance

,000

,000

,000

,000

,073

-,097

,000

,000

Source : Primary data is processed (with AMOS

20)
Indirect relationship between the exogenous
variables
with
endogenous
variables
of
standardized indirect effect analysis showed that
the influence of motivation on employee
performance indirectly amounted to 0.073. While
the influence organizational culture on employees
performance indirectly amounts to -0.097. Thus, it
can be concluded that the variables of motivation to
give more influence to the employee performance
compared with the organizational culture variables.
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
1. Organizational culture has a positive influence
of 0.83 on employee performance with a good
level of significant (P = 0.015).

2. Motivation has a negative influence of -0.51 on

employee performance and not significant (P =
0.239).
3. Organizational culture has a negative influence
on organizational commitment of -0.32 and not
significant (P = 0.321).
4. Motivation has a positive influence on
organizational commitment of 0.34 and not
significant (P = 0.428).
5. Organizational commitment has a positive
influence of 0.33 on employee performance
with a good level of significant (P = 0.012).
B. Suggestion
Based on these results, this research basically
helps the head/leader or head of each unique work
in Aceh Provincial Irrigation Office in the
understanding of organizational culture, motivation
and organizational commitment to improving the
employee performance. Then the researchers put
forward the following suggestions:
1. Head/leader of each organizational unit to
create a better organizational culture to sustain
and improve employee performance in the
future.
2. Head/leader of each organizational unit can
create a better environment so that employees
are motivated by it self.
3. Organizations must continue to maintain and
provide more opportunities for employees to
continue their education to higher education in
the future.
4. Head/leader can focus on organizational culture
and organizational commitment if you want to
improve employee performance as it would be
very
difficult
to
increase
employee
commitment.
5. For research to be carried forward, it can be
done by adding the independent variables that
affect organizational commitment to improving
employee performance or replace the
intervening variable. Besides the indicators
used in research studies can be combined with
other indicators outside of the study arerelevant
to research to be conducted. And can be done
by increasing the numberof respondents to
increase the value of AGFI to show good results
(not marginal).
REFERENCES
Allen, N.J. dan J. P. Meyer (1990), The
Measurement and Antecedents of Aaffective,
Continuance and Normative Commitment to
The
Organization.
Journal
of
Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63: 1-18.
Amstrong, Michael, (2009), Handbook of
Personal Management Practise, 11th
Edition. London: Kopan Page Ltd.

13
Arbuckle, J. L. (2011), IBM SPSS AmosTM
20.0 Users Guide, United States of
America: Amos Development Corporation.
Brahmasari, I. A. dan A. Suprayetno (2008),
Pengaruh Motivasi Kerja, Kepemimpinan
dan Budaya Organisasi Terhadap Kepuasan
Kerja Karyawan serta Dampaknya pada
Kinerja Perusahaan (Studi kasus pada PT.
Pei
Hai
International
Wiratama
Indonesia) Jurnal Manajemen dan
Kewirausahaan. Vol. 10, No. 2: 124-135.
Buraidah (2011) Pengaruh Kompensasi dan
Motivasi Terhadap Komitmen Organisasi di
Organisasi Pendidikan Islam X. Pasca
Sarjana Psikologi, Universitas Gunadarma.
Burton, J.P., T.W. Lee dan B.C. Holtom (2002)
The Influence of Motivation to Attend,
Ability to Attend and Organizational
Commitment on Different Types of Absence
Behavior. Jurnal of Managerial Issues,
Summer: 181-197, .
Denison D. R dan A. K. Mishra (1995), Toward
Of
Organizational
Culture
and
Effectiveness. Organization Science,
Vol.6, No.2: 204-223.
Dessler, Gary (2011), Manajemen Sumber Daya
Manusia, Edisi 10, Jilid 1 dan 2,
Terjemahan. Jakarta Barat: Penerbit Indeks.
Devi, E. K. D. (2007), Analisis Pengaruh
Kepuasan Kerja dan Motivasi Terhadap
Kinerja Karyawan dengan Komitmen
Organisasional
Sebagai
Variabel
Intervening (Studi pada Karyawan
Outsourcing PT. Semeru Karya Buana
Semarang).
Tesis,
Universitas
Diponegoro.
Ghozali, Iman (2011), Model Persamaan
Struktural Konsep dan Aplikasi Dengan
Program Amos 19.0. Semarang: Badan
Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Gibson, J. L., J. M. Ivancevich, J. H. Donnelly, Jr.
dan R. Konopaske (2006), Organizations:
Behavior, Structure, Processes, Twelfth
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin Inc.
Grant, K., D. W. Cravens, G. S. Low dan W. C.
Moncrief (2001), The Role of Satisfaction
With Territory Design on The Motivation,
Attitudes, and Work Outcomes of
Salespeople, Journal of The Academy of
Marketing Sciences. Vol. 23, No. 2: 165
178.

Hair, J. F. JR., W. C. Black, B. R. Babin dan R. E.

Anderson (2009), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Seventh Edition, Uper Sadle
River, New Jersey, PrenticeHall.
Handoko, T. Hani (2011), Manajemen, Edisi 2.
Yogyakarta: Penerbit BPFE.
Hasibuan, Malayu S. P. (2009), Manajemen
Sumber Daya Manusia, Edisi Revisi.
Jakarta: Penerbit Bumi Aksara.
Kartiningsih (2007), Analisa Pengaruh Budaya
Organisasi dan Keterlibatan Kerja
Terhadap Komitmen Organisasi Dalam
Meningkatkan
Kinerja
Karyawan.
Tesis, Universitas Diponegoro.
Koesmono, H. Teman (2005), Pengaruh Budaya
Organisasi Terhadap Motivasi Dan
Kepuasan Kerja Serta Kinerja Karyawan
Pada Sub Sektor Industri Pengolahan Kayu
Skala Menengah di Jawa Timur. Jurnal
Manajemen & Kewirausahaan, Vol.7, No.
2: 171-188.
Lok, P. dan J. Crawford (2004), The Effect of
Organisational Culture and Leadership
Style on Job Satisfaction and Ornaisational
Commitment,
The
Journal
of
Management
Development.
Vol.23,
No.3/4: 321.
Luthan, Fred (2006), Perilaku Organisasi, Edisi
10, Jilid 1 dan 2, Terjemahan. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Andi.
Meyer, J. P. dan N. J. Allen (1991), A ThereeComponent
Conceptualization
of
Organizational Commitment. Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 1:
61-89.
Meyer, J. P., N. J. Allen dan C. A. Smith (1993),
Commitment to Organizations and
Occupations: Extention and Test of a Three
Component Conceptualization, Journal
of Applied Psychology. Vol. 78, No. 4:
538-351.
Mowday, R. T., R. M. Steers dan L. W. Porter
(1979),
The
Measurement
of
Organizational Commitment. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol.14: 224-247.
Priyatno, Duwi (2010), Teknik Mudah dan Cepat
Melakukan Analisis Data Penelitian
Dengan SPSS dan Tanya Jawab
Pendadaran, Edisi Pertama. Yogyakarta:
Penerbit Gava Media.

14
Renjowijoyo, Murindro (2003), Hubungan
Antara Budaya Organisasi, Komitmen
Organisasi, Kepuasan Kerja dan Prestasi
Kerja: Studi Empiris Karyawan Sektor
Manufaktur
di
Indonesia.
Tesis,
Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Retnaningsih, Winarni, (2011), Pengaruh Budaya
Organisasi dan Kepuasan Kerja Terhadap
Komitmen Organisasional di P.T. Inti Karya
Persada Teknik. Bogor.
Robbins, S. P dan T. A. Judge (2008), Perilaku
Organisasi, Edisi 12, Jilid 1 dan 2,
Terjemahan. Jakarta: Penerbit Salemba
Empat.
Sugiyono (2010), Metode Penelitian Bisnis.
Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta.
Suliman, Abubakar MT (2002), Is it Really a
Mediating
Construct?,
Jurnal
of
Management Development, Vol. 21, No.3:
170-183.
Suparman
(2007),
Analisa
Pengaruh
Kepemimpinan, Motivasi dan Komitmen
Organisasi Terhadap Kepuasan Kerja
Dalam Meningkatkan Kinerja Pegawai
(Studi pada Pegawai di Lingkungan
Pemerintah
Daerah
Kabupaten
Sukamara di Propinsi Kalimantan
Tengah). Tesis, Universitas Diponegoro.
Sutrisno, Edy (2011), Budaya Organisasi, Edisi
Pertama. Jakarta: Penerbit Kencana Prenada
Media Group.
Tjahjono, B. N. dan T. Gunarsih (2008) Pengaruh
Motivasi Kerja dan Budaya Organisasi
Terhadap Kinerja Pegawai di Lingkungan
Dinas Bina Marga Propinsi Jawa Tengah.
Jurnal Daya Saing, Vol.8, No.2.
Tsui, A. S., J. L. Pearce dan A. M. Tripoli (1997),
Alternative Approaches to The EmployeOrganization Relationship: Does Investment
in Employees Pay Off?. Akademy of
Management Journal, Vol.40, No.5: 10891121.
Universitas Syiah Kuala, Program Magister
Manajemen (2008), Buku Panduan
Penulisan Karya Tulis Ilmiah. Banda
Aceh.
Weaver, G. R. (2001), Ethics Programs in Global
Business: Cultures Role in Managing
Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol.30: 3-15.

Wijaya, Toni (2009), Analisis Struktural

Equation Model Menggunakan Amos.
Yogyakarta: Penerbit Universitas Atma
Jaya.