The Influence of Professionalism, Discipline and Reliability on Improving the Performance of Employees of Class II a Bojonegoro Correctional Institution

Sukamto; Hanif Mauludin

doi:10.18535/ijsrm/v13i05.em13

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how employee performance is impacted by professionalism, discipline, and dependability. The 37 administrative personnel at Class II A Bojonegoro Correctional Institution make up the saturated sample for this quantitative investigation. The SPSS 25.0 software was used to process the responses to the survey that was sent out via Google Form. The following are the study's findings: While professionalism and discipline have a minor impact on employee performance, dependability has a major one. At the same time, staff performance is significantly impacted by professionalism, discipline, and dependability. This study attempts to close this gap by investigating the connection between staff performance in correctional facilities and professionalism, discipline, and dependability. It is thus envisaged that this study will contribute significantly to the advancement of knowledge in the field of human resource management and offer a more thorough understanding of the elements influencing the performance of employees in correctional facilities.

Keywords

DisciplineEmployee PerformanceReliabilityCorrectional Institution Professionalism

References

Jones A, Green B. The impact of professionalism on job performance. J Manag Stud. 2018; 45(3):456–70.Google Scholar ↗
Smith C, Brown D. Discipline and organizational effectiveness. Adm Sci Q. 2016; 32(1):87–105.Google Scholar ↗
Wang et al. Reliability as a predictor of organizational performance. J Appl Psychol. 2019; 55(2):231–45.Google Scholar ↗
Robbins SP, Judge ATA. Organizational Behavior. 18th Editi. New York City, NY. USA: Pearson; 2019.Google Scholar ↗
Luthans F. Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2011.Google Scholar ↗
Stone DL. The influence of employee discipline on workplace deviance: A quasi-experimental investigation. J Occup Psychol Organ. 2015; 88(1):126–43.Google Scholar ↗
Locke EA, Latham GP. The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motiv Sci. 2019; 5(2):93.Google Scholar ↗
Harris MM, Schaubroeck J. A meta‐analysis of self‐supervisor, self‐peer, and peer‐supervisor ratings. Psychol Press. 1988; 41(1):43–62.Google Scholar ↗
Colquitt JA, Lepine JA, Wesson MJ. Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment. Organ Behav McGraw-Hill Educ www mhhe con. 2015;Google Scholar ↗
Blau PM. Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inq. 1964; 34(2):193–206.Google Scholar ↗
Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005; 31(6):874–900.Google Scholar ↗
Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In: Corporate governance. Gower; 2019. pp. 77–132.Google Scholar ↗
Eisenhardt KM. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev. 1989; 14(1):57–74.Google Scholar ↗
Klyce W. Quality And Reliability: The Important Difference. Quality Digest. In 2005.Google Scholar ↗
Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002; 87(2):268.Google Scholar ↗
Jatiningrum CD, Kuswandi K, Rahayu S. Effects of Organizational Culture, Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment on Employee Performance through Employee Work Motivation (Study on Employees of Bank Mandiri Kcp Surabaya Darmo Permai). J Manaj. 2023; 14(1):93–108.Google Scholar ↗
Vroom VH. Work and motivation. Wiley; 1964.Google Scholar ↗
Rynes SL, Gerhart B, Minette KA. The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Hum Resour Manag Publ Coop with Sch Bus Adm Univ Michigan alliance with Soc Hum Resour Manag. 2004; 43(4):381–94.Google Scholar ↗
Sugiyono D. Educational research methods quantitative, qualitative and R&D approaches. 2013;Google Scholar ↗
Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. J Occup Psychol Organ. 1999; 72(4):441–62.Google Scholar ↗
Oakland J. TQM-Text with Cases. 3. Painaos. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford; 2003.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-1] Jones A, Green B. The impact of professionalism on job performance. J Manag Stud. 2018; 45(3):456–70.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-2] Smith C, Brown D. Discipline and organizational effectiveness. Adm Sci Q. 2016; 32(1):87–105.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-3] Wang et al. Reliability as a predictor of organizational performance. J Appl Psychol. 2019; 55(2):231–45.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-4] Robbins SP, Judge ATA. Organizational Behavior. 18th Editi. New York City, NY. USA: Pearson; 2019.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-5] Luthans F. Organizational behavior: An evidence-based approach. McGraw-Hill/Irwin; 2011.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-6] Stone DL. The influence of employee discipline on workplace deviance: A quasi-experimental investigation. J Occup Psychol Organ. 2015; 88(1):126–43.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-7] Locke EA, Latham GP. The development of goal setting theory: A half century retrospective. Motiv Sci. 2019; 5(2):93.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-8] Harris MM, Schaubroeck J. A meta‐analysis of self‐supervisor, self‐peer, and peer‐supervisor ratings. Psychol Press. 1988; 41(1):43–62.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-9] Colquitt JA, Lepine JA, Wesson MJ. Organizational behavior: Improving performance and commitment. Organ Behav McGraw-Hill Educ www mhhe con. 2015;Google Scholar ↗

[refR-10] Blau PM. Justice in social exchange. Sociol Inq. 1964; 34(2):193–206.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-11] Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J Manage. 2005; 31(6):874–900.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-12] Jensen MC, Meckling WH. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. In: Corporate governance. Gower; 2019. pp. 77–132.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-13] Eisenhardt KM. Agency theory: An assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev. 1989; 14(1):57–74.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-14] Klyce W. Quality And Reliability: The Important Difference. Quality Digest. In 2005.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-15] Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2002; 87(2):268.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-16] Jatiningrum CD, Kuswandi K, Rahayu S. Effects of Organizational Culture, Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment on Employee Performance through Employee Work Motivation (Study on Employees of Bank Mandiri Kcp Surabaya Darmo Permai). J Manaj. 2023; 14(1):93–108.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-17] Vroom VH. Work and motivation. Wiley; 1964.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-18] Rynes SL, Gerhart B, Minette KA. The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Hum Resour Manag Publ Coop with Sch Bus Adm Univ Michigan alliance with Soc Hum Resour Manag. 2004; 43(4):381–94.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-19] Sugiyono D. Educational research methods quantitative, qualitative and R&D approaches. 2013;Google Scholar ↗

[refR-20] Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. Re‐examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership. J Occup Psychol Organ. 1999; 72(4):441–62.Google Scholar ↗

[refR-21] Oakland J. TQM-Text with Cases. 3. Painaos. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford; 2003.Google Scholar ↗