THE EFFECT OF WORK MOTIVATION AND WORK LIFE BALANCE ON EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY IN STARTUPS IN WEST JAVA
Keywords:
Work Motivation, Work Life Balance, Employee Productivity, Startups, Human Resources ManagementAbstract
Startups in West Java operate in high velocity environments characterized by tight deadlines, rapid change, and flexible working arrangements, which may shape employee productivity. This study examines the effects of work motivation and work life balance on employee productivity among startup employees in West Java, Indonesia. Using a quantitative cross-sectional design, data were collected through a structured questionnaire from 42 startup employees and analyzed using PLS-SEM. The measurement model demonstrated adequate convergent validity with AVE values exceeding 0.50 for all constructs (Employee Productivity is 0.744; Work Life Balance is 0.681; Work Motivation is 0.712, and discriminant validity was supported by HTMT values below 0.85. The structural model explained 17.2% of the variance in employee productivity (R² = 0.172), with acceptable model fit 0.086. The results show that work life balance significantly influences employee productivity (β = −0.421, p = 0.002), while work motivation does not have a significant effect (β = 0.016, p = 0.950). The novelty of this study lies in providing empirical evidence from Indonesian startups showing that productivity is more strongly associated with work life conditions than with general motivation levels in the observed sample. Practically, the findings suggest that startups should implement structured flexibility, strengthen boundary management, and provide supportive leadership to sustain productivity.
References
Ammirato, S., Felicetti, A. M., Troise, C., Santoro, G., & Rozsa, Z. (2024). Human resources well-being in innovative start-ups: Insights from a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100580. doi:10.1016/j.jik.2024.100580
Brough, P., Timms, C., O’Driscoll, M. P., Kalliath, T. J., Siu, O.-L., Sit, C., & Lo, D. (2014). Work–life balance: A longitudinal evaluation of a new measure across Australia and New Zealand workers. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(19), 2724–2744. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.899262
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., … Westbye, C. (2015). The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 178–196. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
Gragnano, A., Simbula, S., & Miglioretti, M. (2020). Work–life balance: Weighing the importance of work–family and work–health balance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), 907. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030907
Hair, J. F., Astrachan, C. B., Moisescu, O. I., Radomir, L., Sarstedt, M., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(3), 100392. doi:10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., van Buuren, S., van der Beek, A. J., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2014). Measuring individual work performance: Identifying and selecting indicators. Work, 48(2), 229–238.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Soga, L. R., Bolade-Ogunfodun, Y., Mariani, M., Nasr, R., & Laker, B. (2022). Unmasking the other face of flexible working practices: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 142, 648–662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.01.024
Van den Broeck, A., Howard, J. L., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Leroy, H., & Gagné, M. (2021). Beyond intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis on self-determination theory’s multidimensional conceptualization of work motivation. Organizational Psychology Review, 11(3), 240–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866211006173
Widyastuti, T., Ramdani, Z., Alim, S., & Harlianty, R. A. (2024). The Indonesian version of Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ): Structure factor and criterion validity. Psychological Research and Intervention, 7(1), 1–16. doi:10.21831/pri.v7i1.76457
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
