The Influence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward

Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance

Pribadi Widyatmojo and Winarno

Universitas Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Yogyakarta

Keyword: Work Environment, Job Satisfaction, Individual Professional Performance

Abstract: This research aims to figure out the influence of the work environment variable on the influence of job

satisfaction variable toward individual professional performance variables in comparison with non-

professional performance. Theoretically, the work environment is one of the job satisfaction variable

antecedents, but it is possible that the work environment serves as a moderator variable of job satisfaction

and the individual performance variable relationship. This research use doctors and nurses as research

respondents. The analysis result discussed

1 INTRODUCTION

Innovation is bringing business advancement.

Advancement is a viable method to react to the

disturbance business atmosphere since the

development is fit for proposing a better approach to

experience a new risk of the choppiness business

atmosphere (Widyatmojo P, 2009). In this way, the

organization needs to construct its management to be

a management that equipped for upholding

advancement improvement. Sadly, this innovation

improvement is not simple management practice,

because innovation is intellectual and brain science

perspectives came about of organization member

fulfillment as an individual, who works in the

organization (Burgenon, 1998; Tiwana, 1999).

In the previous industrialization time, the board

perspective spotlights on looking for profitability

extension technique. The logical management

hypothesis proposed by Frederic Taylor has

upgraded significant commitment toward efficiency

improvement through optimization organization

member's exhibition in the working place. This

organization member's exhibition optimization in

management science is come about because of work

specialization. This specialization thought originates

from a moderate movement study. The moderate

movement study upgraded the board partitions a

vocation into a few words, that expansion the

profitability. They divided work called work

specialization; consequently, every organization

member is capable of his or her very own work by

any stretch of the imagination.

Typically, scientific management hypothesis

stresses performance through work specialization to

expand organization goal or benefit, since there are

numerous researches to upgrade organization

performance. Organization member's performance

optimization practice by the work specialization is

delivering organization member 's weariness,

boredom, and weights in the working place, because

the tedium work specialization stresses each

organization member 's work amount and fills in as

though a machine or as an instrument of production.

The practice of organization member's exhibition

optimization through the work specialization is

delivering organization member's weariness,

boredom, and weights in the workplace because the

repetitiveness work specialization accentuates each

organization member's work amount and fills in as

though a machine or as an instrument of product

generation.

This organization member's boredom in the

workplace debilitates profitability, lessens the

organization member's soul to complete his or her

work, innovativeness debilitating, and confines the

organization member's' pride to finish his or her

work well. Accordingly, this organization member's

performance optimization practice through

specialization is not adequate for innovativeness

improvement, advancement, and high innovation

businesses, let alone organization faces choppiness

business atmosphere.

534

Widyatmojo, P. and Winarno, .

The Inﬂuence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance.

DOI: 10.5220/0009963005340542

In Proceedings of the International Conference of Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management (ICBEEM 2019), pages 534-542

ISBN: 978-989-758-471-8

Since Chester Barnard school of perspective, the

management hypothesis is considering

psychological viewpoints into management

discretion, in light of new worldview that satisfied

organization member performs superior to

unsatisfied one. Consequently, management

thoughts take into account workplace environment.

This new management worldview is a fortuitous

event with the Hawthorne effect found by Elton

Mayo's research. Although the environment of the

workplace has not evident direct impact on the

individual performance, this environment of the

workplace contributes roundabout impact toward

individual performance achievement.

In reality, job satisfaction antecedents are

including variables that produce job satisfaction, for

example, wage and incentive payment, teamwork

cooperation and cohesiveness, great shot of

advancement, opportunity reasonableness,

significant authority, excellent performance

appraisal on the workplace (Luthans, 1995). The

environment in the workplace puts asides from the

management thought since it does not have a direct

impact on job satisfaction and individual

performance. There is an uncertainty of the work

environment that influence the association between

job satisfaction toward performance. This misty

impact it ought to be affirmed or demonstrated.

Consequently, this research is genuinely expected to

answer the uncertainty above.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Performance

The earliest management consideration focuses on

the performance of an organization because this

scientific management is developed from economics

attention, primarily based on microeconomic theory,

which focuses on production efficiency aggregate or

comprehensive nationally. The microeconomics

theory attention focuses on production efficiency,

which is indicated by an equation that the marginal

cost of production should have to be the same with

marginal revenue. Consequently, the scientific

management theory pays attention to production

efficiency, either, that indicated by its performance.

An organization has to pay attention to production

efficiency. At the same time, the organization has to

pay attention to performance development either, to

attain the organization's production efficiency in

turbulence economics. This production efficiency is

indicated by the ratio of input needed in the

production divided by the output of production. This

input-output ratio shows resources use capability to

produce an amount of output. The higher the ratio,

the more production efficiency. The ratio of

production efficiency is indicating the organization's

production efficiency at all, but it is not capable of

indicating how the organization's production

efficiency should be attained. Thereby, there is a

difference in attention between scientific

management and macroeconomics.

The difference between microeconomics and

scientific management is located on their attention.

The management science pays attention not only to

the production efficiency of an organization but also

on the way to accomplish the production efficiency

at all. Thereby, the management science attention

not only focuses on production efficiency but also

on the way to attain the production efficiency. An

organization consists of human resources or

members of the organization, financial resources,

capital, natural resources, and technology. The

organizations have various techniques to produce the

same output, thereby the organization focus on how

to accomplish the production efficiency.

Organization production efficiency consists of all

its member efficiency. Every organization member

contributes the organization's production efficiency

according to his or her specialization, and thereby

every organization member supports the entire

organization's performance. Logically, the

performance improvement endeavor ought to need

to take into account every member organization's

performance improvement, to improve the whole

organization performance. In this way, the higher

member organization performance contribution to

the organization the higher organization

performance thoroughly. In other words, the

organization's performance determines the entire

organization's performance.

2.2 Professional Individual

Performance

Every organization has professional members and

non-professional members to conduct organization

activities. The classification of professional and non-

professional members is concurring with the supply

chain concept of the production process in the

organization. Doctors, for examples, are professional

members in the hospital.

A professional member of an organization is a

member of an organization who accomplishes his or

her works professionally in the organization. This

professional has professional responsible for his or

The Inﬂuence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance

535

her work. Most professional has an amount of

dominant contribution toward the organization

performance accomplishment, because of his or her

professional capabilities. On the other hand, a non-

professional member of an organization is a member

responsible for his or her work received from the

organization. Every organization has a professional

member and non-professional members.

The supply chain concept clarifies that

production supply chains in the organization

comprise of primary activities and supporting

activities to create the organization's services or

products. The primary activities consist of the

leading job to create organization services or

products. These primary or main jobs are an

essential process of production in the organization; if

these primary or main jobs are disturbed, the

services or product creation stopped. These primary

or mains activities have to be operated and

controlled by professionals. For example, pilots

responsible for their flights. The pilots are creating

flight services offered by the air flight company. It

means the professional organization member plays a

vital role in creating the organization's services or

products.

On the other hand, the supporting activities

consist of supporting a job that eases the

organization's production process. These supporting

activities do not create any service or product, but

these supporting activities ease the primary activities

of creating services or products. Even though these

organization supporting activities do not create any

organization services or products, these activities

enhance the primary activities grows continually —

for example, accountants who work in the flight

company.

The professional member has to be a specific

professional performance appraisal because of his or

her contribution to professional capabilities.

Professional member performance has to be

evaluated based on his or her professional

responsibilities in the workplace. The performance

appraisal implementation has to be done fairly.

Thereby, non-professional performance assessment

has to be based on his or her responsibilities, either.

Following the performance evaluation base, this

professional performance needs to be assessed based

on professional performance responsibilities

(AzisImrana, et al, 2015). Consequently, this

professional performance is indicated by the

organization member's professional responsibilities,

such as; received workload, work authority, work

accomplishment, and work targeted.

2.3 Job Satisfaction

Management practice appreciates business climate

changes resulted from the economics turbulence

because the economics turbulence makes

organization failure. Management practice to

improve the organization's competitiveness in the

changing business climate is improving organization

efficiency through performance improvement

practice. Performance improvement management

practice in the organization that emphasizes on

quantity at all produce organization member stress,

because of monotony or repetitiveness work.

This monotony work is a harmful abundance of

specialization techniques to improve organization

productivity. This specialization way of productivity

improvement is capable of easing the manager to

count every organization member' monotony work

(Azis et al., 2015). Thereby, this specialization

technique emphasizes each organization member's

productivity improvement. However, it results in

organization member boredom.

Theoretically, this monotony work technique

ables to improve the organization's productivity

through organization member productivity

improvement individually, which enhances

organizational performance improvement in the

short run, but this monotony work technique results

in diminishing job satisfaction. Due to the

diminishing job satisfaction, the manager should

have to be cautious in leading the process of

dividing the organization's work to prevent

diminishing job satisfaction. Diminishing job

satisfaction influences the working spirit negatively

in the workplace.

As mentioned above, earlier scientific

management does not take into account job

satisfaction. Job satisfaction is a psychological

aspect of a human being in the workplace.

Consequently, job satisfaction demonstrates the

extent to which the organization member feels happy

to accomplish his or her job. The happiness of job

accomplishment increases organization member’s

readiness to work.

Job satisfaction is an organization member's

evaluation or reviews toward his or her actual

workload following his or her job accomplishment

to the organization. This evaluation results in

positive or negative feels; thereby, this job

satisfaction is an aspect of human attitude toward

work (Azis et al., 2015).

Job satisfaction is an organization member’s

review toward his or her workload psychologically

to complete his or her job in the workplace. This

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

536

organization member’s review process is the

organization member’s psychological process of

comparing his or her actual workload with his or her

expectations of the workload. Job satisfaction seems

to be related to organization member’s happiness

toward his or her job in his or her workplace (Theo

JM, 2004; Rane D B, 2011; MbogoGerishon, 2015;

Embuldeniya, 2017).

Sometimes, organization management needs to

enrich the professional organization member's job to

prevent the professional organization member from

boredom in the workplace. This decision to enrich

the organization member's job is called job

enrichment. This job enrichment decision is a

management practice of doing the job to be more

motivational and satisfying to the organization

member through enriching job variety, responsibility

and decision-making contribution (Pelled, and Hill,

1997) because job enrichment is challenging and

satisfying to the organization member.

Mentioned earlier that job satisfaction is the

psychological aspect of an organization member that

indicates the extent to which the organization feels

happy to complete his or her job. This happy

organization member tends to repeat finishing his or

her job well again, to get happy again. Thereby, the

satisfied human being has higher readiness to work

well than the unsatisfied one. This organization

member's job satisfaction is a psychological aspect

of accomplishing the job in the workplace that

produces desires, preparedness, or willingness to

work hard (Pelled and Hill, 1997; Rane D B, 2011).

Due to the job satisfaction is preparedness to

work hard, that indicates the organization member’s

pleasure to accomplish his or her job in the

workplace, the assessment of this job satisfaction

has to be based on the organization member’s

pleasure to accomplish his or her job in the

workplace (Theo JM, 2004; MbogoGerishon, 2015).

Thereby, this job satisfaction is indicated by an

organization member’s preparedness, desires,

behavior to accomplish his or her job in the

workplace.

2.4 Performance and Job Satisfaction

Relationship

The first conclusion is that the organization

member's psychological aspect of his or her job

produces job satisfaction enlargement. Thereby, job

satisfaction variable proxy is according to the extent

to which organization member's satisfaction in the

workplace.

The higher member's job satisfied in the

workplace, the more member's outcome dedicated,

the more efficient, the more committed to work

hard, to get work happiness again (Azis, et al.,

2015). The second conclusion is that the more

satisfied a job, the happier toward a job, the higher

the performance of his or her job. Thereby, the first

hypothesis is formulated as follows.

Hypothesis 1: The higher job satisfaction, the

higher the professional performance.

Even though a non-professional organization

member does not create any organization services or

product offered in the market, the non-professional

organization member serves primary organization

activities, in creating the organization services or

products go well. Thereby, the non-professional

organization member performance appraisal should

be conducted fairly to support the organization's

main activities (Theo JM, 2004). If the non-

professional member gets comfortable in the

workplace, so that his or her job satisfaction in the

workplace increases, results in his or her working

spirits grows up and influences his or her

performance. Thereby, the second hypothesis is

formulated as follows.

Hypothesis 2: The higher the job satisfaction,

the higher the non-professional performance.

2.5 Work Environment

Work environment some times called by the job

environment because work circumstances build up

the job environment. The work environment is

workplace circumstances that an organization

member accomplish his or her job in the workplace.

There is an insight that this work environment does

not have any influence on the organization work

accomplishment so that the organization manager

puts this work environment aside. Let alone this

insight is supported by empirical data; for an instant,

many organizations conduct e-learning, e-training,

and re-working program successfully for their

organization members.

Theoretically, this work environment is not an

antecedent of the organization's production process.

Consequently, this work environment does not

determine the organization's production process.

This insight of the work environment is not

obviously against the wright theory. Although this

work environment does not influence the

performance directly, this work environment

enhances the organization member to accomplish his

or her work, comfortable (Albaqami, 2015; Azis et

al., 2015; MbogoGerishon, 2015). Thereby, the work

The Inﬂuence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance

537

environment does not create any organization

services or products, but this work environment is

capable of enhancing the primary organization

activities grows well.

The conclusion is that the work environment

refers to the workplace circumstance; thereby, this

work environment proxy has to be related to the

workplace environment where the organization

member completes his or her job.

2.6 Work Environment, Performance

and Job Satisfaction Relationship

Mentioned above, that work environment is

workplace circumstances; thereby this work

environment is not an antecedent of performance.

This work environment does not have a direct

impact on the organization production process, but

this work environment enhances the productivity

improvement process (Jain and Kaur, 2014).

This work environment consists of workplace

circumstances that do not influence organizational

performance directly, but this work environment is

capable of enhancing the continuity of the

organization's production process (Albaqami, 2015;

Duru and Shimawua, 2017). In case an organization

does not pay any attention to its work environment,

resulting in a bad work environment, this bad work

environment probably enhances organization

production process continuity grows down (Donald

Ian, et al. (2005).

The effect of work specialization is that an

organization member job consists of an amount of

job-related works. Consequently, the work

environment called the job environment. The work

environment is unique, and it does not have a direct

effect on job performance, because every job has its

antecedent of job success in accordance to the

specialization work (Theo JM, 2004; Duru and

Shimawua, 2017). Thereby, this work environment

serves as a moderator variable of the organization's

production process, which means this work

environment was sometimes supporting or reducing

the organization's production process (Albaqami,

2015; MbogoGerishon, 2015).

The conclusion is that the higher the work

environment, the higher the causal relationship

between job satisfaction and professional

performance. On the other hand, the lower the work

environment, the lower the causal relationship

between job satisfaction and professional

performance. Therefore, the third hypothesis

formulated as follows.

Hypothesis 3: The work environment

moderates the causal relationship between job

satisfaction and professional performance.

An organization needs non-professional

members to facilitate the primary organization

activities of creating the organization's services or

products. Hence the organization's performance

improved thoroughly (Jain and Kaur, 2014). Non-

professional organization member does not create

any organization services or product offered in the

market but serves primary organization activities of

creating the organization services or products. Non-

professional member comfort in the workplace

increases his or her job satisfaction and his or her

working spirit and improves his or her support

toward the organization's primary activities. Hence

organization performance grows up. Thereby, a non-

professional organization member's work

environment serves as an organization's primary

activities support (Donald Ian et al., 2005; Owusu,

2014). This discussion implies, the work

environment improvement of non-professional

organization member influences the primary

organization activities, enhance organization

performance improvement positively (Albaqami,

2015; MbogoGerishon, 2015; Duru and Shimawua,

2017). Thereby, the higher the work environment,

the higher the non-professional comfortability in the

workplace, the higher the organization's

performance.

The conclusion is that the higher the work

environment, the higher the causal relationship

between job satisfaction and professional

performance. On the other hand the lower the work

environment, the lower the causal relationship

between job satisfaction and professional

performance. Thereby, the fourth hypothesis is

formulated as follows.

Hypothesis 4: The work environment

moderates, the causal relationship between job

satisfaction and professional performance.

3 RESEARCH METHODS

This research collects data through distributed

questionnaires to doctors and nurses working in the

hospitals surround Yogyakarta. Doctors and nurses

are so very busy that this research has only 36

doctors and 62 nurses respondents. Mentioned

above, this research aim is to figure out the effect of

the work environment on the causal relationship

between job satisfaction and individual professional

performance in comparison with non-professional

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

538

individual performance. Following the research aim,

the analysis technique of this research is the

regression analysis technique. The regression

technique is conducted by ordinary least square with

the stepwise method. The ordinary least square is a

technique of identifying the causal relationship

among variables through the minimum square

variance of the variables (Gujarati, 2003). This

research examines the professional data, then

examines the non-professional data group.

4 RESULTS ANALYSIS AND

DISCUSSION

The summaries of the analysis result shown in the

following tables. The first step regression is

analyzing the influence of job satisfaction toward

professional performance, and the second step

regression is analyzing the job satisfaction and work

environment toward professional performance

variables. Following the research aim, the first

analysis is analyzing professional performance data,

that consists of doctors' performance.

Table 1: Model Summary

Model

sqr

Adj

R sqr

Std

Error of

Estim

Change

Doct-

Nurse

Selected

Doct-Nurse

unselected

R sqr

change

Df1

Df2

F Sig

Change

0,712 a

,508

0,493

0,1921

0,507

0,00

0,807 b

0,291

,652

631

0,1679

0,114

0,01

The summary of the first analysis above shows

that job satisfaction and work environment variables

are significant predictors toward professional

performance variables. The table above shows that

the professional performance prediction model has

the goodness of fit. The goodness of fit of the model

is indicated by the increases of correlation

coefficient from 0,712 to 0,807 along with the

stepwise analysis method, with a significance F test.

Even though the F test decreases, the F significance

remain s below 0.05. It is indicating that the

prediction model is good.

The table 2 below is reporting the significance of

the work environment as a moderating variable

toward the influence of job satisfaction toward

professional performance. This analysis process is

conducting by the stepwise regression technique.

The stepwise regression is analyzing the influence

significance of job satisfaction and work

environment variables toward professional

performance variables. The analysis of variance

summary shows the model's significance as follows.

Table 2: Anova

Model

Sum

Square

Mean

Square

F test

Sign

Regression

1,292

35,026

0,000*

Residual

1,255

0,037

Total

2,547

Regresion

1,660

0,830

30,895

0,000*

Residual

0,887

0,027

Total

2,547

The result of the analysis above shows that first

step of the analysis which predicts professional

performance variable by job satisfaction variable

only, and the second step of the analysis which

predicts professional performance variable by job

satisfaction variable and work environment variable.

The second step of analysis shows the predictors'

variables are predicting the professional

performance better than the first step of the analysis.

The significant F test supports the second step of the

analysis. This means that job satisfaction variables

and work environment variables are predictors of the

professional performance variable.

The analysis also analyzes the extent to which

the professional performance model breaks the

traditional assumption, such as autocorrelation, etc.

The Inﬂuence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance

539

Table 3 below shows that the Durbin Watson is

1,629, located between 1,6 and 2,4. This means the

equation of the professional performance model

does not break the autocorrelation assumption. The

result table printed as follows.

Table 3: Durbin Watson

Model

Durbin watson Statistics

Doctor-

Nurse =

(selected)

Doctor-

Nurse = 2

(unselected)

1,629

0,654

The fourth analysis is analyzing the significant

influence of each predictor of professional

performance. This analysis is examining the

influence significance of job satisfaction and work

environment toward professional performance. The

analysis of variance summary shows the model

significance in table 4.

Table 4 below shows that the professional

performance model is significant. The significance is

indicated by job satisfaction and work environment

variables t-test are less than 0,05, that, implies the

two predictors of professional performance variables

are significant, as following table 4.

Table 4: Analysis of Variance

Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Std

err

Beta

Sign

Lower

Upper

Constant

1,778

,396

4,512

,000

,983

2,594

rt satisf

,576

,097

,712

5,918

,000

,378

,774

Constant

,866

,420

2,060

,047

.011

1,721

rt satisf

,465

,088

,575

5,266

,000

,285

,644

rt envir

,327

,088

,404

3,700

,001

,147

,507

This analysis result also implies that the work

environment variable is a predictor of professional

performance, neither a moderator nor a mediator

variable onto the influence of job satisfaction

variable toward professional performance.

Table 5: Analysis of Coefficients significance continued

Model

Correlations

Colinear Statistic

Zero

order

Partial

Part

Tolerance

VIF

Constant

rt satisf

,712

Constant

rt satisf

,712

,676

,541

,885

1,131

rt envir

,599

,541

,380

,885

1,131

The fourth analysis result that consists of table 4

and table 5 show that the professional performance

model does not against the classic assumption. To

summaries, the analysis indicates that empirical data

support hypothesis 1, but empirical data do not

support hypothesis 2. The conclusion is that job

satisfaction and work environment variables are

significant predictors of professional performance

variables, but the work environment variable is

neither a moderating nor mediating variable toward

professional performance variables.

Non-professional performance data analysis

The following analysis examines the influence of

job satisfaction and works environment toward non-

professional performance variables. As mentioned

above, the first step regression is analyzing the

influence of job satisfaction toward non-professional

performance only. The second step regression is

analyzing the job satisfaction and work environment

toward non-professional performance variables. The

table of analysis results printed as the following

tables.

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

540

Table 6: Model Summary of the non-professional model 1

R sqr

Adj

R sqr

Std

Error of

Estim

Change

Doct-

Nurse

Selected

Doct-Nurse

unselected

R sqr

change

Df1

Df2

F Sig

Change

0,223

0,712

0,053

0,042

0,2194

0,053

4,91

The analysis of variance summary shows the

non-professional performance model is significant as

follows.

Table 7: Anova

The analysis result table above shows that job

satisfaction defines non-performance professional

significantly. The goodness of the model is indicated

by the F significance of 0,03. This analysis does not

explain the work environment variable in the model,

thus the work environment does not determine the

non-professional performance.

The following analysis examines the extent to

which the non-professional performance model

breaks the classic assumption, especially toward

autocorrelation. The result table shows that the

equation of statistic prediction of non-professional

performance is autocorrelation because Durbin

Watson ratio is 0,674 far below 2 as the following

table.

Table 8: Durbin Watson

Model

Durbin watson Statistics

Doctor-Nurse

= 2 (selected)

Doctor-Nurse = 0

(unselected)

0,674

0,627

The autocorrelation above probably is caused by

the little number of research data. Thereby, if this

research has enough number of data, the

autocorrelation can be solved.

The analysis of variance summary shows each

predictors significance in the model. Following the

t-test, job satisfaction is significant predictor toward

non-professional variable, but the work environment

is not significant. The predictor significance is

printed in the following table.

Table 9: Analysis of Coefficients significance

Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Std err

Beta

Sign

Lower

Uper

Constant

3,150

,440

7,157

0,00

2,271

4,025

rt satisf

0,223

,102

0,230

2,103

0,031

0,021

0, 025

Table 10: Analysis of Coefficients significance continued

Model

Correlations

Colinear Statistic

Zero order

Partial

Part

Tolerance

VIF

Constant

rt satisf

0,230

Table 9 and Table 10 above show that the model

of non-professional performance does not contain

multicollinearity, it means the model does not

against the classic assumption. The second analysis

indicates that the hypothesis is 3 supported by

empirical data, but hypothesis 4 is not supported by

empirical data. The conclusion is that job

satisfaction is significant predictors of non-

professional performance variable, but the work

environment is not a predictor of non-professional

performance. This research shows the work

environment variable is not a moderating nor

mediating variable.

5 DISCUSSION

To sum up, the supported hypothesizes of this

research are hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. Job

satisfaction variable is significant, but the work

environment variable is not significant. This

research gives clue that works environment is not

Model

Sum of

Square

Mean

Square

test

Sign

Regresion

0,231

4,91

0,03

Residual

4,139

0,048

Total

4,370

The Inﬂuence of Work Environment on Job Satisfaction toward Professional Performance and Non-professional Performance

541

moderating nor mediating variable of the

professional performance model. This research gives

clue that variable job satisfaction predictors of non-

professional performance, but this research does not

explain the work environment toward the non-

professional model.

6 CONCLUSION

Though this research fails to explain the role of the

work environment as a moderating variable, the

analysis result of this research indicates that the

work environment is a significant predictor of

professional performance in the organization. It

means that variable job satisfaction and work

environment predictors of professional performance.

Job satisfaction and work environment improvement

capable of improving the organization professional

performance comprehensively.

This research aim does not accomplish fully,

since only hypothesis 1 that variable job satisfaction

is a predictor of professional performance, is

supported. It concludes that variable job satisfaction

and work environment are significant predictors of

professional performance. Though this research

indicates that job satisfaction is a predictor of non-

professional performance, the work environment is

not a predictor of non-professional performance.

Since this research is talking about organization

member's perception of his or her job in the

workplace, thereby in the future readers need

research that explores individual work environment

in the workplace.

REFERENCES

AlbaqamiTalal (2015) “Working Environment and

Productivity”, International Journal of Scientific &

Engineering Research, Vol. 6, Issues 12, December.

AzisImrana, et all (2015), “Working environment and Job

Satisfaction among Health Professional Working at A

Tertiary Care Hospital of Pakistan”, J Ayubmed, 27

(1), Abbottabad

Bergenon Bryan (1999), Essential Knowledge

Managment, John Wiley and Sons,

BockermanPatri and IlmakunnasPekka (2012) “The Job

Satisfaction Productivity Nexus: A Study Using

Matched Survey and Register Data”, Industrial and

Labour Relation Review, vol 65, no: 2.

Donald Ian, et all (2005), “Working environment, Stress,

and Productivity: An Examination Using Asset”,

International Journal of Stress Management, vol 12,

No. 4, pp 409-422.

Duru Chika Ebenezer and Shimawua Dominic (2017),

“The Effect of Work Environment on Employee

Productivity: A Case Study of Edo City Transport

Services Benin City, Edo State Nigeria”, European

Journal of Business and Innovation Research, Vol. 5,

No. 5, pp 23-39, October.

EmbuldeniyaApekhsa (2017), "The Impact of Employee

Job Satisfaction on Employee Productivity in Apparel

Industry of Sri Langka", International Journal of

Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR), vol. 31, issues 12,

December.

Fahzani A, (2019) “Job Satisfaction”, unpublished report.

Hair J. (1995) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings,

Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ.

Gujarati Damodar N (2003) Basic Econometrics, United

State Military Academy, 4th edition, Mc Graw Hill,

New York.

Jain Ruchi and Kaur Surinder (2014), “Impaact of work

environment on Job satisfaction”, International

Journal of Scientific and Research Publication, Vol. 4,

Issue 1, January.

Luthans F (1995), Organizational Behavior, 7 (1) McGraw

Hill.

MbogoGerishon (2015) “The Influence of Work

Environment on Job Satisfaction among Teachers in

Publict Primary Schools Programmes in Membuke

Division, Embu West District Kenya”, Master of Art

and Planning Management Thesis, University of

Nairobi.

Owusu Benjamin (2014), “An Assesment of Job

Satisfaction and Its Effect on Employees Performance

: A Case of Mining Company in the

BiblianiAhnwiasoBekwai District”, Managerial

science Dissertation of Kwame Nkrumah, University

of Science and Technology.

Pelled. Lisa Hope., and Hill. Kenneth. D., (1997)

“Participative Management in Northern Mexico; a

study of maquiladoras”, The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, Vol. 8, No.3, April.

Widyatmojo P (2009) “ DampakPerilakuAtasan,

KomitmenOrganisasional,

MelaluiPerubahanStrategisterhadapKinerjaInstansidal

am Tim Manajemen,

StudiEmpirikPengelolaanDokterRumahSakit di

Daerah Istimewa danJawa Tengah”, Dissertation,

UniversitasDiponegoro, Semarang.

Rane D B (2011), “Employee Job Satisfaction: An essence

of Organization”, HRM Review, vol 11, no. 7.

Robbins Steven Paul (1993) Organizational Behavior, 6 th

edition, Prentice Hall International.

Theo JM vand der Voort (2004), “Productivity and

Employee Satisfaction in Flexible Workplaces”,

Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Vol 6, No. 2, pp

133-148, Herry Stuart Publication, April,

TiwanaAmrit (1999), The Knowledge Management

Toolkit, 1st edition, Prentice Hall PTR, December.

Zikmund. William C., (1994) Business Research Methods,

International Edition, Forth edition, Harcourt Brace

College Publishers, The Dryden Press, Philadelphia.

ICBEEM 2019 - International Conference on Business, Economy, Entrepreneurship and Management

542