THE INFLUENCES OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, MOTIVATOR FACTOR, AND HYGIENE FACTOR TO WARD JOB SATISFACTION OF BALAI BESAR LATIHAN KETRANSMIGRASIAN YOGYAKARTA'S EMPLOYEE

TI I E I NFLUENCES OF TRANSFORPI AT10NAL LEADERSHI P, P10TI VATOR
FACTOR, AND HYGI ENE FACTOR TOWARD J OB SATI SFACT10N OF BALAI
BESAR LATI Ⅱ AN KETRANSPI I GRASI AN YOGYAKARTA' S EMPLOYEE
Galuh Rahmi Pangesti
Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta

Heru Kurnianto Tjahjono
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

Tri Maryati
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

ABSTRACT
This research aims to know and analyze whether transformational leardership, motivator factor,

and hygiene factor influence job satisfaction to the employee of Balai Besar Latihan
Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta. It is also ob.fected to know variable and factors having an effect on
most dominant to employee's job satisfaction at Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmi$asian
Yogyakarta. The research method applied is descriptive analiytical method and multiple regiession
analytical method and using the SPSS version15.00 software as processing data. Priinary data
-e

acollected by distributing questionnairesin which variables are measured by Likert scale. The
result of this research indicates that independent variablese.g transformational leardership,
motivator factor. and hygiene factor are simultaneously and partially having significant influences
to variable dependent that isjob satisfaction. The result offlris research also indicates that hygiene
factor is the most dominant variable that inlluencestheir job satisfaction. Based on determinant
identification, it shows that adjusted W is 72,5o/o, meaning that ernployees' job satisfaction of
Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta is affected simultaneously and partially by
transformational leardership, motivator factor, and hygiene factor and 27,5yo effected by other
variables that have not been used in this research.

Keywords: transformational leadership, ntotivator factor, hygiene factor, and eruployee's job

,satisfaction.

BACKGROUND
Tal i ng pa■

i n nat i onal devel opment pr ogr ammes, t r ansmi gr at i On i s pa■

Of t he human

r esour ce devel opment et t r t s and nat ur al r esour ces whi ch pl ays an i mpor t ant r ol e i n r eal i zi ng
an i nt egr at ed human and conl Fnuni t y devel opment ent i r el y. Ther ef or e, t he devel opment i n t he
f l el d of t r ansI I ni gr at i On i s di r ect ed t o gi ve r eal and measur abl e cont r i but i On i n or der t o
gai nsuccess t r ansmi gr at i On whi ch i s car r i ed out t hrOugh a var i et y of pol i ci es. TO f aci l i t at e

devel opmё nt i n t he nel d of t r ansnl i gr at i on, t he st at e appar at us i s one Of t he mai n f act Or s t hat
war r ant s t he gr ant i ng Of t he cont r i but i on of human r esour ces devel opment , so t hat human
r esot r ccs woul d need t o be devel oped and ma, aged i n or der t o be i n l i ne wi t h t he Ot t ect 市 es
of t he Or gani zat i on f or achi evi ng f l ve year s devel opment goal s
Neal et al . ( 2000, p. 4) st at eS t hat f act or s af Fect j ob sat i sf act i on ar e di vi ded i nt o f our gr oups

namel y t he chanenges of wor k and aut onomy, st r ess and l ack of har mony, t he l eader shi p and
, uppOr t , as wen ast he c。 Oper at i On wi t hi n t he gr Oup, hOspi t al i t y and war mt h・ A l eader i n t he
1, Febr ua五 2013

orgar;ization should pay attention to the problem ofjob satisfaction, especially the factors that
influence the employee. Those are leadership styles, in spitd of recognizing the other aspects

of job satisfaction itself. Robbin (2001) reminded to each organization manager to really

observe the importance of understanding and fulfillment of job satisfaction that have an
impact on productivity, absences, and labor turnover.

A

research conducted by Byco et al (1985) shows that the style of tranformasional and
transactional leadership effect significantly to job satisfaction. Some ressarches even suggest

that tranformasional leadership style is more influential than transactional leadership style
toward job satisfaction.
Herzberg, job satisfaction is always associated with job content and
dissatisfaction at work is related to the work in relation with the aspects called job context.
Job satisfactions according to Herzberg named motivator factors, as for the dissatisfaction is
called the hygiene factors. Research data conducted by Herzberg demonstrates that the
opposite of satisfaction is not dissatisfaction but rather not satisfied, while opposed to
dissatisfaction is not dissatisfaction.

According

to

According to Herzberg, the factors that result job satisfaction are separated and distincted
from the factors that create dissatisfaction. Therefore an individual often feels uncomfortable
but not necessarily motivated when associated with hygiene factors including
supervisionquality, wage, corporate wisdom, physical conditions of work, relations with other
individuals, and job security (Robbins, 2008: 227).When the hygiene factors are adequate, a
person will not feel dissatisfied; but that does not mean they are satisfied. Herzberg stressed
that to motivate individuals in work, organization shouldtake precedence of the factors related
to the work itself or the results derived therefrom as promotional opportunities, personal
development opportunitigs, recognition, responsibility, and achievement.

In order to make the employees feel satisfied in their work, the organization must

ensure

that the employees are having adequate hygiene factors such as salaries/wages, organizational

1
)

,

)

,t

n
S

policies, security and working conditions, as well as the relationship of co-workers and
superiors. When hygiene factors are availablg this will only ensure that employees do not feel
discontent or zero point at the foundation of their motivation. Thus, there must be driving
motivators to the employees such as achievements, advancements, suipervision, the work
itself, and career growth. When simultaneously it is noticed by the organization, along with
the development of a style of leadership that is capable of defining, communicating and
articulating the vision of the organization, by a leader who are able to motivate the employeee
to do their responsibility more than they expect to do so.

Ｓ
ｄ

The influence of leadership and work motivation factors ofjob satisfaction employees are
encouraged the author to examine the scope of organizations Implementing Unit Technical
Center (IIPTP) of the Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration of the Republic of Indonesia
particularly in the Office of the Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian. In this study, the core
ol the discussion focused on th'e influence of transformasioanal leadership, motivator, and
hygiene factors job satisfaction of Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta's
employee.

ｅ  一

Galuh Rahmi P, dkk The Influences Of Transformational Leadership, Motivator Factor, .. . ..
I

PROBLEM FORMULATION

l. Do transformational leaderstrip" naotivator factoq and hygiene factor have positive and
significant influence to job satisfaotion of Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian
Yogyakarta' s employee?
2. What are factors that dominate their job satisfaction?

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
i

1.

This research aims to test and analyze.
The influence of transformational leadership, motivator factor, and hygiene factor to job
satisfaction of Balai Besar Latihan Ketransrnigrasian Yogyakarta's employee.
The influence of transformational leadership toward job satisfaction of Balai Besar l-atihan
Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta' s ernployee.

う０

The influence of motivator factor toward job satisfaction of Balai Besar Latihan
Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta's employee.

4

The influence

of

hygiene. factor toward

job

satisfactionof Balai Besar Latihan

Ketransmi grasi an Yogyakarta' s employee.

BENEF'ITS OF STUDY
This research result is expected to provide the benefits as follows:

l. Practical advantage
The result of this research are expected to givesome advices for Balai Besar Latihan
Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta in order to devise policies on human resources, especially in
an attempt to improve employee job satisfaction.
i

2. Teoretical advantage
The result of this result are expected to become one of the empirical references, especially
for other researchers who are interested in researching a problem related to employees job
satisfaction in government offrces

CONCEPTUA.L FRAMEWORI(
The use of variables in this study is the result of some previous researchers and directed to
find a research gap to be raised in this study, thus a model that has a unique and different
characteristics than any previous research model is obtained. This research aims to fill those
gaps. so as

to complement and refine the previous researchers.

The reserach is objected to fill the previous researches as well as complement and refine
them. Those gaps are as follows.
l. On previous researches, most of them show separately that motivator factors are giving
more dominant factor rather than hygiene factors in affeeting employee's job satisfaction.
However, this study examines whether the Herzberg theory is applied in affecting job
satisfaction to Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta's employee.

Vol . 4, No. 1, Fcbr t ar i 2013 1“

TI

2.

This study uses a scale of measurement of Transformational Leadership Questionnaire
(TLQ), and scale measurement of working motivation with two-factor theory Herzberg to
see whether motivator factors and hygiene factors affecting job satisfaction in of Balai
Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta' s employee.

Understanding that working motivation has influenced job satisfaction, faotors motivators
and hygiene fbctors will be analized. Motivator factors (satisfter) relate to the aspects
contained in the work itself or the job content, also known as intrinsic,,factor in the job.
While hygiene factors (dissatisfier) relate to the aspects around the execution of the job or job
context, also known as extrinsic aspects of the workers. In order to know the influence of
transfbrmational leadership, motivalor, and hygiene factors of job satisfaction then a
framework of thought is designed as follows.

TRANSFORMAT10NAL

LEADERSI I P( Xl )
I deal i zed i t t uencc

・
・ I nspl r at i onal i not i vadon
・ I ndi vi dl l al consi dcr at i on
・ I nt el ect ual st i l l l l l l at i On

,
.
.
.
.

MOTMTOR FACTOR (X'

KEPUASAN KEMA

Ac.hievement

Advancement

・ Super vl sl on
・ Co‐ l vor ker s
age
・ W

Work it self
Recognition
Grorvth

8 Pr Ol not i on
・

Wor k i t sel f

FAKTOR HYGTENE (X3)
. Company policy
. Relation to co-workers
. Working security
. Supervisor
. pay
. Working condition

ⅡI POTESI S
Based on t hё

f or mul at i on Of t he pr obl em, t he hypot hesi s ar e f or mul at ed as f ol l ows.

1. Ther e i s a posi t i ve si gni f l cance among t r ansf or masi onal l eader shi p, i not i vat or f act or , and
hygi ene f act oFt OWar dj ob sat i sf act i o五
.

2. Ther e i s a posi t i ve si gni i cance bet ween t r ansf or masi onal l eader shi p t Owar d j ob
sat i sf act i On.

3. Ther e i s a posi t 市 e si gni ncance bet ween mol 市 at Or f act or t owar dj ob sat i sf act i on,
4. Ther e i s a posi t 市 e si gni acance bet ween hygi ene f act or t owar dj ob sat i sf act i on.

Gal ul l R」 l 血 P, dkk 1 1l l e I 』

uences Of Tr ansf onut i onal Lё ader sl l i p, Mot 市 at or Fact ot

ー
Ｆ¨
Ｌにい●■Ｆｒ
トー
ート ﹂
● ■●〓
一
・
︱

RESEARCI METⅡ OD
Oper at i onal Li l l l i t at i on
oper at i onal l i mi t at i on t hat have been usё
d i n t hi s r esear ch ar e var i abl es whi ch Oan pr edi ct

as t o have i n3uence t Owar d i Ob sat i sf act i On Of Bal al Besar Lat i han Ket FanSmi gFaSi an
Yogyakar t a' s emp10yee. ThOse ar e t r ansf Or r nat i Onal l eader shi p var i abl % mot i vat oF f aCt OF
var i abl e, and hygi enO f act Or var i abl e.

Oper at i Onal Var i abl e Der l ni t i on
Tr ansf OFmaSi Onal Leader shi p( Xl )
Yukl ( 1998) st at eSt ht t a t r anSf Or masi onal l eader shoul d be abl e t O dei ne, cOmmuni cat e,
and ar t i cul at e t he Or gani zat i On vi si on, and t he emp10yee shoul d accept and admi t t he l eadeF' s

cr edi bi l i t y. pass dan Avol i O( 1994) 6n Yukl ( 1998) ar gu9d t hat t r ansf Or masi Ohal l eadeFShi p
has f our di l nensi ons as f ol 10ws:

1. 滋αl i zeグ l i 4/ 7J θ

72Cθ

t Thi s di mensi On i l l ust r at es a l eader whO can make t he emp10yee ador e,

r espect , and t nl st hi m/ her .

2. I nΨ ノ ″ ο″ ′ ″ ο″ v磁
I nt itcul
hi satdi
on,
t r ansf
or masi
OnaH
i s irlat
l ust
edher
as a
“ whO i s abl e t O".ar
per son
em
tensi
he em
plaoyee'
s achi
evem
enteader
, demonst
es rhiats/
commi t ment t owar d al l or gani sat i on goal s, and al so abl e t o ar ouse t eam spi r i t wi t hi n t he
ot t anレ 誠i On t hr ough et t abⅡ shed e■ husi asm and Opt i mi sm

3. I わた/ J acr ar aノ st i t t aJ J ar l i a4. A t r ansf or masi Onal l eader shOul d be abl e t o deve19p new i deas,
pr ovi de cr eat 市 e sOl ut i ons t O t he pr Obl ems f aced by subOr di nat es, and pr ovi de mOt 市
at i On
t o subor di nat es t o seek new appr oaches i n car r yi ng out t he t asks of t he or gani zat i on.

4. ル ′ι″ l pl i Far α l i zeグ c“

si der α t i O″ . I n t hi s di i nensi on, a t r ansf or mat i Onal l eader descr i bed as a

l eader whO wOul d l i st en at t ent 市 el y i nput s l bm subOr di nat es and speci f l cal l y want t o pay
at t ent i On t O t he needs of subor di nat es f Or t hei r car eer devel opment .

Moj vt t or Fador ( X2)
Mot 市at or f act or i s l r el at i On wi t h sever al t t ect s i n t he wor k i t sel t i nvol vi ng t he j ob
cont ent or i nt 五 nsi c aspect Of t he i ob. SOm
e Of t hem t t e: Achi evement , Advancement , WOr k
i t sel ム

Recogni t i on, and GFOWt h.

Hygi ene Fact or s cX3)
Hygl ene f act or s ar e sever al f act Or s Fel at ed t O, Ob cOnt ext Or ext 三 nsi c aspect s whi ch can be

di vi ded as f ol 10wsi COmpany p01i cy, super vi si on, Rel at i on t O cO_wOFker s, wage/ payment ,
Wor ki ng cOndi t i On, and Wor ki ng secur i t y.

J ob Sadsf acuOn( Var i abd Y)
sat i sf act i On at wOr k i s t he concl usi On based on COmpar at i ve St udy about what r 6al l y
act ual l y r ece市 ed by emp10yees f r om t h6i r j Ob cOmpar ed wi t h what t h9y expect . Empl oyees

wi l i be sat i si ed i f t hey Obt ai h equal or even mor ё

t han what t hey have hoped. The

1. 4, No. 1, Febmr nr i 2013 1J BTI

“

一マ■Ｉ
驚
ｌ〓 ．

i mpact sf r 6m j Ob sat i sf act i On can b6 t een on emp10yee per f Or mance( Robbi ns, 2006: 102) .
Accor di ng t o Mat hi s and J acksOn( 2006: 78) e■ p10yee per f Or mance i s a cont Hbut i on g市
en
by em口 Oyeest o a∞ mpany t ht t can be i dent i i ed f r om wOr ki t t r esul t s.
:

VaFi abl e Measur ement Scal e
Thi s r esear ch uses a Li ker t st al e t o measuFe t he at t i t udes, opi ni ons and per cept i Ons Of a
per sOn oF a gr Oup of peOpl e about soci al phenomena( Sugi yonoぅ

2905: 85) . Var i abl es t hat wi l l

be i neasur ed ar e el abor at ed i nt o some st at ement s. Each of st at ement i s gi ven t o f l ve scor e:
st r ongl y agr ee scoFe 5, agr ee was gi ven a scor e of 4, neut r al i s gi ven a sscor e of 3. E》

i sagr ee i s

」Ven t he scOr e of 2 and st FOngl y asagr ee was gi ven a scOFe Of l ,

PI ace and Ti l ne

′
Thi s r escar ch i s t aken at Bal ai BesI Lat i han Ket r ansr ni gr asi an Yogyakar t a, J al an

Par asamya 16 Ber an Sbman Yogyakat t a, 並 ar t ed f r omDesembeF 2912 unt i l J anuaFy 2013.
POpul asi dan Sampel
The pOpul at i on used i n t hi s r esear ch ar e 56 empl oyee of Bal ai Besar Lat i han
‐Ket r ansI I ni gr asi an Yogyakar t aand al l of t hem ar e t he sampl e f or t hi s r eser ach. The r esear cher
uses Cencus met hod t o wi t hdr aw sampl es. Al l member s of t he popul at i on ar e i nser t ed i nt o t he
sampl e due t o t he r el at 市 e smal l popul at i on number s( Sugi yon6, 2005: 78) .

Type and Sour ce of Dat a
The pr ocedur e uSed i n t hi s r esear ch f or el i ci t i ng dat a i nvol ves:

1. Pr i mar y Dat a. Dat a t hat have been di r ect l y el i ci t ed f r om t he r espondent s by quest i onai r e
and i nt er vi ew.

2. Secondar y Dat a. Dat a t hat have been el i ci t ed and document ed f r om t he or gani 2at i On dat a
bank, and al so■ om b00ks, j oumal s, and i nt emet sour ce based.

Dl t a Col l ect i on Techni que
l . QueSSi Onai r e
The col l ect i On of dat a by way of f l l i ng a st at ement ar r anged syst emat i cany t o be f 11l ed by

t he empl oyees Ot t eCt 市 el y

2. I nt er vi ew
Val i di t y and Rel i abi l i t y Test
Test val i di t y and r el i abi l i t y st udi es t t r e per f or I I ned on t he i nst r ument , i n whi ch case i s a

quest i Onnai r e, and ar e used t o t est whet her t he quest i onnai r e ar e wor t hy of bei ng used as an
i nst r ument of r esear ch or not . I t i s sai d t o be val i d i f t he i nst r ument can be used t o measur e

What i s supposed t o be mcasur ed. The t est val i di t y of t hi s r esear ch was conduct ed wi t h a
Pear sOn COr r el at i On wi t h t he pr ovi si Ons when t he cor r el at i on val uc>0, 3 whi ch shows t he
posi t i ve cor r el at i on bet ween t he t Ot al scor e and scor e poi nt s, t hen t he measur i ng i nst r ument s

ar O vdi o( Azwar , 1997) . When t he cOr r el 試 i on of r esul t number cal cul at i on i s gr et t er t han t he
number of gr ai ns of cr i t i ci ζ nl , t hei t he quest i on i s decl ar ed val i d and si gni f l cant , and al so vi ce

Ver sa. Whi l e r el i abl e meanS i nt t r ument used t o measur e sever al t i mes t he same。

可ect

Wi l l

gener at e t he same dat a( Sugi yono, 2005: 109)
Qu, St i on Or i t emswhi chi t s r el i abi l i t yar e t est ed, dei net el y ar e t hose t hat passed i n t he
Val i di t y t est i ng. Rel i abi l i t y t est l net hod uses Cr onba Al pha t est i ng. The gr eat er t he val ue of
t he r e, ul t i ng al pha of st at ement s i n t he quest i onnai r e, t he mor e Fel i abl e suppor t er . As f or t he
r el i abi l i t y, t hi s st udy uses Cr onbach Al pha t est wi t h t he pr ovi si o■

s i f t he val ue of Cr onbach
Galuh Rahrni P, dkk The Influences Of Transfonnational Leadership, Motivator Factor,
I

...

..

Alpha > 0.60 then measuring instruments are said to be reliable (Ghozalr, zaaz;ly.
Reliability
and validity testing of the questionnaire is given to 56 respondents as the
sample.
Data Analysis Method
1. Descriptive Analitical Method
This method aims to systematically describe facts or characteristics of a situation,
in this
case the data already collected and classified, interpreted, and then formulated,
so as to
provide a clear picture of the problems examined

2.

Quantitative Analysis Method
The researches uses statistical analysis method of regression on this research. Multiple
analysis methodis applied to predict the value of a dependent variable ofjob
satisfaction
with taking into account the values of free vaiabel which are transformational leadership,
motivator factor, hygiene factor, and work motivation, within SPSS software
application
15.00 for Windows, with the model equations that are used are as follows.
a

Y
a

br dan bz
Xr
X2
X3
e

一
一
 一
一
 一
一
 一
一
 一
一
 一
一
 〓

Notes:

f brXr +bzXz + brXl + e

Kepuasan kerja
konstanta
koefisien regresi
Kepemimpinan transformasional

Motivator factor
Hygiene factor
error

Hypothesis Test
Statistical calculation called statistically significant if the statistics test value is in the
critical region (the area where Ho was rejected), meanwhile it is called insignificant when
the
statistics values are in the area where the FIo is accepted. In regression analysis, there
are three
types of accuracy criteria, namely:
The coeffrcient of determination @)
Determination coeffisient is used to measure the extent of the capability model in the
variables. The value of R that is getting large (close to one) indicates the presence
of the
influence of independent variables (X) is bound to dependent variable (y). However,

if R
is getting smaller (close to.zero) it is assumed that the influence of the independent
variable (X) is small against the dependent variable (y).
2.

F-Test
F Test basically shows whether all independent variables entered into the models have
an
synchronously effect to dependeqt variable (9. Test is used to see whether dependent
variables, called motivators factors (X1) and hygiene factors (X2), are simultaneously
'significant
toward work motivation (y).

f

Hs;[l:[2=0,

meaning that simultaneously there is no positive significant influence from
transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (X3) toward job
satisfaction (Y).

Vol. 4, No. l, Februari 2013 IJBTI

Ho: bl*b210, meaning that simultaneously there are positive significant influences from
transformational leadership (X1), motivator faotor (X2), hygiene factor (X3) toward job
satisfaction (Y).

3.

Signifrcant Test (Uji Q
The t-test is a test using the following criteria decision as follows:

Ho: bl=b2:0, meaning that partially there are positive significant influences from
transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (X3) toward job
satisfaction (Y).

Ho: bl+b2*0, meaning that partially there are positive significant influences frorn
transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (Xr) toward job
satisfaction (Y).
Decision taken should fulfill criteria as follows:
[I4 accepted if t testing< t table,
He accepted if t testing> t table,

a:

5Yo

a=

5o/o

Descriptive Analysis
Quessionaires distributed to the respondents contains statements about the transformational
Ieadership, motivator, and hygiene factors as variables that affect job satisfaction of Balai
Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yogyakarta's employee. Here is shown the data
characteristics ofrespondents which can be seen from several aspects:

l.

The level of education
Based on research done, it can be known the respondent's level of education can be seen in
the table below.
.

Table

l.

Respondent Education Level

Education
Graduate
Under graduate

DIV
DIII

Frequent
2
27
2
5

SLTA

18

SLTP

2
56

Tot al

Percentage

3.57
48.21
3.57
8,93
32, 15
3,57
100

Based on the education level, it could be explained that the largest proportion of
respondents is in the level of undergraduate education (48,21%) and the smallest proportion
of respondents with graduated, diploma, and junior high schooll educational level (each
3,57yo).

2. Period of employment
From this research, it can be known the respondent employment period

as follows.

Galuh Rahmi P, dkk Tlrc Influences Of Transformational Leadership, Motivator Factor,
I

. . . ..

Table 2. Respondent Employment Period

Employment
0-5 years
6-15 years
l6-25,years
Above 25 vears
Total

Frequent
20

Percentage
35.7

5

9. 0

9
22
56

16,0

39.3
100

At the time, the largest proportion in a span is more than 25 years which amounted to 22
percent of the respondents people with39,3Yo and the smallest proportion is on the respondent
who work with a span of 6-15 years which amounted to 9 percent of the respondents people

with9.)Yo. The majority of employees work time is over 25 years.

3. Ages
Based on the research done,
follows.

it can be known that the age criteria of respondents is as

Table 3. Age of Respondents
Frequent

Percentage

20-35 years

24

42,8

36-45 years

7

12,5

46-55 years

23

4l,l

Above 55 years

2

3, 6

Total

56

100

Ages

The table above shows that the respondents that are groupped based on age can be
explained that the age of the respondents with a range of 20-35 years has the largest
proportion of 24 people $2.5%), while respondents with arange of age above 55 years is the
smallest proportion of which amounted to 2 people or amounted to 3.6Yo of the total
respondents. The majority of the respondents aged 20-35 years is about 42.8%.

4. Gender
Based on the research done, it can be known that the identity of respondents according to
gender can be seen in the table below.
Table 4. Gender Criteria of respondents
Frequent

Percentage

Male

30

53,6

Female

26

46,4

Total

56

100

In the table, it is seen that out of 56 respondents, 30 respondents (53,6%) are male, and the
rest26 respondents (46,4%) are female.

Vol. 4, No. l, Februari 2013 IJBTI

STATISTICAL ANAIIYSIS
Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis testing is intended to look at the influence of independent variable i.e
transformational leadership (X1), motivators factor (Xz), and hygiene factors (X:) with
dependent variable called job satisfaction (Y). In this study the testing done by the enter
method. Multiple regression equations can be known from the following table.
Coefficientf
Unstandardized
Coefficients

Model

B
(Constant)

St d. Er r or

Standardized
Coefficients
Bet a

,076

,188

2,353

,022

,124

,2',t3

,108

,602

2,029
6,074

,048
,000

6,500

Transformasional

,188

,080

Motivator Factors

,251
,654

Kepemimpinan

Hygiene Factors

Si g

-1,812

11,779

a. Dependent Variable: Kepuasan Kerja

From the table above, the multiply regresion can be formulated as follows.

Y

:

-11,779 + 0,188Xr + 0,251 X2 + 0,654

Xt+

e

Note:

Y
Xr

= Work motivation
= Trans rmational Leadership

Xz : motivstorfactors
X3 = hygiene fuctors
ｅ︲
ａ
“ ぶ ｈ
ｔ

e : error standard

Regression equations are outlined as follows:
11,779-Constant (negative value) states that if there is no variable transformational
leadership, motivator, and hygiene factors existed then job satisfaction will not be

a.

achieved.

b.

c.
d.

the coefficient 0,188 implied that every time the numbers is increased one unit in
transformational leadership, the job satisfaction will increase by 0,188.
the coefficient 0,251implied that every time the numbers is increased one unit
inmotivator factor, the job satisfaction will increase by 0,251.
the coeflicient 0,654 implied that every time the numbers is increased one unit
inhygiene factoE the job satisfaction will increase by 0,654.

The Result of Multiply Regression Testing

l.

Determinan G2)
It is essentially measuring the simultaneously proportion or percentage of dependent
variable of transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), and hygiene factors (X3)
toward job satisfaction (Y) asthe independent variable. It can be seen on the table below.

Galuh Rahrni P, dkk The Influences Of Transformational Leadership, Motivator Factor,
I

ModelSummary

Model

R Square

R
1860

Adi ust ed

St d. E「「o「 of

R Squar e

t he Est i mat e

, 740

, 725

' il',i$l#; l?iTlllhill35ffi .l:fi:fi

牛, 32115

ator Factors

On the table above, it can be seen that Adjusted R2: 0,725 meaning ,nur rr,r*of job
satisfaction (Y) of Balai Besar'Latihan Ketransmgrasian Yogyakarta's employees can be
explained by transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (Xz), and hygiene factors
(X:) Meanwhile the rest of 27,5Yo can be explained by other factors whibh are not
investigated in this research. It shows that the model is well-built enough.

2.

F Test basically shows whether all independent variables entered into the models have an
.synchronously effect to dependent variable (Y) F Test is used to see whether dependent
variables, called motivators factors (X1) and hygiene factors ()G), are simultaneously
significant toward job satisfaction (Y).
Testing result:

Ho: b1=b2:0, meaning that simultaneously there is no positive significant influence from
transformational leadership (Xl), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (X3) toward job
satisfaction (Y).
Ho: bl*bhl0, meaning that simultaneously there are positive significant influences from
transformational leadership (Xl), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (X3) toward job
satisfaction (Y).

a.

F table can be seen in u= 5Yo
Numerator degree : k - I 3 -

:

:

|

:2

Denominator degree : n - k 56 - 3
F table on significance 5Ys= 3,1'1

b,

:

53

Finding counted F by using Anova table as follows.
ANOVAb
Sum of
Sottares

Model
Regr essl on
Resi dua!
Tot a!

2764, 965
970, 963
3735, 929

Mean Square
3

921, 6bb

52
55

18, 672

F
49, 359

Si g
, 000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Hygiene Factors, Kepemimpinan Transformasional,
MotiVator Factors

b. Dependent Variable: Kepuasan Kerja
C.

d.

Decision taken criteria
Ho accepted if F count( F table, a:SYo
FIo unaccepted if F count> F table, a: 5Yo

It

can be seen from the table above that F-count is 49,359 with 0,000 significance
(below 0,05). When it is known that F count (49,359) > F table (3,17), it means that
Ho is unaccepted or in the other words, transformational leadership (X1), motivator
Vol. 4, No. l, Febnrari 2013 IJBTI

factor (X2), and hygiene factor (Xr) are simultaneously have positive significant
influence toward job satisfaction (Y).

3.

T Testing
T Test is used to see whether the dependent variables of transformational leadership (X1),
motivator factor (X2), and hygiene factors (X3) have positive and significant influence toward
work motivation (Y) partially,
The ttest resultis as follows:

Ho: bl:b2:0, meaning that partially

there

are positive significant influences from

transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (X:) toward job
satisfaction (Y).

Ha'.

bl*b2*0,

meaning that partially there are positive significant influences from
transformational leadership (X1), motivator factor (X2), hygiene factor (&) toward job
satisfaction (Y).
T table can be seen on a= 5%o
T table gathered from n-k
n = amount of samples 56
k : the number of indepgndent variables used is 4 then the t table for

5Yo is2,00665

the T count can be seen on the table below.
coef r i ci ent ♂

Unstandardized
Cnpfficienl<

Model

Si d Er r or

(Constanl)

。
０
５

1

St andar di zed
Beta

1

Si O

11,779

Molivalor Factors
Hygiene Faclors

,25'l

,0/.6
４
２
︲
８
０
︲

８
３
８ ︲ 崚

,188

。
８
０

Kepemimpinan
Transformasional

,654

2,353

,022

2,025
6,074

,000

a. Dependent Variable: Kepuasan Kerja

Decision taken criteria
Ho accepted if T count( T table, a:5Yo
Ho unaccepted if T count) T table, a:5Yo

:

On transformational leadership (X1) with its t countvalue 0,022 significance level with
?,353 (smaller than 0.05), then Ho is denied and Ha is accepted because t count (2,353) > t
table (2,006). Based on this, it can be concluded that transformational leadership variables

(X1) partially has positive significant effect on job satisfaction variable (Y). This means
transformational leadership which consists of the ability to provide leadership, influence an
inspiring motivation, intellectual stimulatioq and consideration of individual employees
(subordinates) have been pretty good for being able to improve employee job satisfaction
On variable factors motivators (X2) it is known that the value of Tcounti s 2,029 with a
level of significance of 0,048 (smaller than 0.05), so that Ho is denied and Ha was accepted
because

t count (2,029) > t table (2,006). Thus, it can be inferred that the motivator factors are
partially, positively, and significantly influence job satisfaction variable (9. This suggests
that factors motivators that consists of the achievements, opportunities to advance, the work
Gal ul l l bhl l l i P, dkk l ■ l e I F』 uCnCes Of Tr ansf or l l l at i onal Lcader shi p, Mot 市 at or Fact oち
……

︱ ■¨ト ー
ＬＩＩ 一
︲︰
ー 一   ・ ■︱  

itself recognition, and career growth in jobs is already pretty
good and was able to increase
employee job
satisfaction

 
・・
． ．

on hygiene factors (x3), it is noted that the value of Tcountin
the significarice level of
0'000' is 6'074 (smaller than 0.05), then Ho is
unaccepted and Ha is a"cepled because t count
(6'074) > t table (2,006) So it can be infemed
that the hygiene factor is partially, positively,
and significantly influences job satisfaction
variable (y). This indicates th;t the hygiene of
the
policy of the organization, connections with
co-workers, job security, relationship with

supervisor, wages, and working conditions in
the organization are already quite good because
they can increase job satisfaction so as to improve
the performance of employ..r,
From the T-test results, it is revealed that the
dominant factors influencing job satisfaction
is the variable on factor hygiene (this can be seen frsm
the value oi unstandardized
coeflicients factor hygiene (0,654).

CONCLUSION
1.

2.

3.

Transformational Leadership, motivator factor,
and hygiene factor contribute positive and
significantly to job satisfaction, which means ttre
hijner the transfor;;;; leadership,
the better motivator factors in work, and the better
the condition of hygiene factors
provided in the office, the higher job satisfaction
will be. It is based on the test results of
F test (simultaneous/together).

The most dominant factor

in

job satisfactionof Balai Besar Latihan
Ketransmigrasian Yoyakarta employees is hygiene
factor (this can be seen from the value
of factor hygiene unstandardized coeflicients (0,654).
influencing

Based on the analysis results, the coefficient
of Adjusted R2determination values is 0,725,
meaning that 72,5Yo variablesincluding transformational
leadership, motivator factor, and
hygiene factors are able to explain the employee job
satisfaction, while the rest of 27,5o/o
can be explained by other factors which are
not examined in this study.

RET'ERENCES
Azwar, s., 2003, Reliabititas dan vatidiras. yogyakarta:pustaka pelajar.

Bycco

cs'

1995' Further Assesment

ofBass

1985, conceptualization ofTransactional
vol g0, No 446g-47g.

and Transformational Leadership. Journal
of Applied psychology.

Ghozali, Imam' 2oo2- Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate
dengan program,sp,ss. semarang:
----:-'e
Badan Penerbit Universitas

Diponegoro.

・
勿
繁雷t l I 肥 . 歌犠. 黒 k. 1997. ?響ヵ
7bt t σ 燎
響 βθ劾れ ″ャ
' Sr r r J む

f

,

Neal , A. , west , M, & Pat t er sOn. 2000. “
An t t xami nat i On Of l nt er act i On bet ween
Or agni zat i Onal Cl i mt t e and Human Resour c, Manage. ent Pr act i ces i n ManuFact unng
Or gani zat i Ons", Manuf act ur i ng Or gani zat i Ons. Febr uar y 2000, pp. 1_17.
・

Vo1 4, No l , Febr uar i 2013 1J BTI

￨

ｆ ■ ｙ
ｅ
，騰 ｈ
Э
ｔ ｓ

Ong, BP. 1997. "Organizational Climate and Teachers' job Satisfaction in Residential and
Non Residential School", Master Thesis. Department of Extension Faculty of Educational
St udi es
Universiti
Putra
Malaysia.
Oktober

Pr abu, Anwar . 2005. ` ` Pengar uh MOt i vasi t eFhadap Kepuasan KeFJ a Pegawai Badan
Koor di nasi Kel uaFga Ber encana Nasi onal Kabupat en Muar a Eni m": J umal Manaemen&

Bi sni s SFi WJ aya V01. 3.
Ri vai , V. 2004. M翻 崎e″ θ″

Sar r abθ

,

r Dt t α AZa″

2r sl i a

π′ 滅

J セ rl ι

路施

Pl , dar ノ

ルθFノ 滋 Pr t t e力 「

Edi si I . Hal aman 463.
ｎ ｄ
Ｏ   ｅ

Robbi ns, St ephen P, , 1996. 0甲 ル
′ : 劉Fi ο ″ α′ β θ′ ″

71i γ

. 7t h edi t i on. New J er say: A Si mon&

SChut eF COmpany.
Robbi n Sp&COul t er M, 1999; Mana7gement , Si xt h Ed. Pr ent i ce Hal l l nt . I nc, New J er sey.

St dngel , Rober t . 2002. Zede■ 立 ″ α″ ″

Or 脚′ zα ″ ο″ α′ Cr l i maた 。New J er Sey: Pr ent i ce

Hal l .

ｆ
ｓ
ｒ ｏ
ｍ ・
撃 ｏ

Sugl yono. 2005。 Met ode Penel i t i an Bi sni s. Bandung: Al f abet a

Yukl , G. A. 1998. 隆pe″ i 叩

あ た″ θ t t μ ″ asNl i . Edi , i ket i ga. Al i h Bahasa: J usuf Udaya.
l i s・

=観
.

J akar t a: Pr enhal l i ndo.

ｅ   ５，ｄ
ｎ
ｎ“
ｕ
ａ
２ ａ
ｌｌ

Korespondensi:

Goluh Rahmi Pangesti, Staf Balai Besar Latihan Ketransmigrasian Yognparta.
Heru Kurnianto fiahiono, StafPengajar Fahtltas Ekonomi Universitas Muhammadiyah
Yognlcarta. Emai I : heruuti li tas@nhoo. com
Tri Maryati, Staf Pengajar Fahtltas Ekonomi (Jniversitas Muhammadiyah yogtakarta.
i I : t ry _maryati (@nhoo. com

Ema

︲ ．嘔
ａ
ｎ
７
ン８
Galuh Rahrni p,
dkk I The Influence, Of

fr*rfo