The Influence of Job Satisfaction, Work Environment, Individual Characteristics and Compensation toward Job Stress and Employee Performance

This study aims to reveal and to analyze the influence of job satisfaction, work environment, individual characteristics and compensation toward job stress and employee performance of minerals and metals manufacturing sector in East Kalimantan. The sample is drawn from members of 120 minerals and metals manufacturing sector companies which represented by 1 employee whose position as a manager. Data processing uses structural equation modeling which obtained 7 acceptable hypotheses and 2 rejected hypotheses.7 accepted hypotheses are: (1) Job satisfaction significantly and negatively relates to job stress. (2) Work environment significantly and negatively relates to job stress. (3) Individual characteristic significantly and negatively relates to job stress. (4) Compensation significantly and negatively relates to job stress. (5) Job satisfaction significantly and positively influences employee performance. (6) Compensation positively and significantly influences the employee performance. (7) Job stress negatively and significantly influences the employee performance. Furthermore, the two rejected hypotheses are: (1) The work environment is not a significant influence on employee performance. (2) Individual characteristics do not significantly affect the employee performance.


INTRODUCTION
Current business competition shows increasingly tight competition, this is marked by the emergence of various companies and products that are relatively similar. However, they display various advantages of the products. Under these conditions, every company requires providing a better quality of goods or services for consumers. The quality of human resource influences its ability to face such fierce competition. Thus, the employees are demanded to have better and higher capabilities as well as responsibilities due to company's goal. The improvement of certain company or institution depends on its human resource.
Logically, the perfect company's work plans, supervision, employee performance improvement standard will not run well if the workers cannot perform their duties with high interest and effort. Some of the harmful and destructive symptoms of organizational goals include sluggishness, boredom, decreased work efficiency, decreased morale, decreased performance, and decreased work productivity. Performance of employees in a company can be influenced by various factors, both internal and internal factors. One of them is job satisfaction and work environment.
Nowadays, job satisfaction and work environment increasingly becoming the demands of the employees to support their duties implementation. Job satisfaction can be interpreted as a positive or pleasant emotional state resulting from an assessment of a work experience (Locke, 1976in Luthans, 2006. A satisfied employee will generally have a positive feel for the work he or she is living in. As matter of fact, conducive workplace strongly supports employee performance. A good co-worker and adequate work infrastructure could support their good performance. The less conducive organizational environment also affects the level of stress that decreases the employee performance. One of the instruments to maintain and to improve employee performance is through policy formulation to compensate according to the local life index and to touch the sense of justice; the compensation issue is the main thing to be considered by every leader. This is in line with Handoko's view (1992) who states "… a way that can be done by the organization to improve employee performance is through the provision of compensation." Compensation is defined as everything employees receive as a reward for their work. Similar to Breson and Stainer (1995) imply that every person must have agoal to earn a reward.
Besides job satisfaction, work environment and performance compensation are also affected by job stress. Stress is generated from the increasing number of challenges encountered such as work environment, characteristics competition, time management, uncontrolled factors, and insufficient space for work, continuous information technology development, and excessive demands.
Job satisfaction as a positive feedback concern with a person's work is the result of an evaluation of its characteristics. A person with a high level of job satisfaction has positive feelings about the job, while an unsatisfied person has negative feelings about the job (Robbins, 2008). In addition, Kreitner and Angelo (2003) set forth that job satisfaction is an emotional response to various aspects of work. This means that job satisfaction is not a single concept. A person can be relatively satisfied with an aspect of his job and not satisfied with one other aspect. Furthermore, Kreitner and Angelo (2003) also explained five models of job satisfaction that can be obtained as follows: 1. Needs fulfillment 2. Mismatch 3. Values achievement 4. Equations 5. Components of character/genetic. Furthermore, Luthans (2006) suggests factors that affect job satisfaction, as follows: 1. Job factors: Work elements those lead to job satisfaction are job challenges, comfortable jobs and promising career path jobs. 2. Promotion: Promotional opportunities bear out varying influences on job satisfaction. Individuals promoted to higher positions will experience job satisfaction. Promotion at the executive level will experience higher job satisfaction rather than lower level organizations. 3. Supervision: Supervision is also an important source of job satisfaction. There are two types of supervision, workeroriented supervision andparticipation-oriented supervision.
Concern with the work environment, Robbins (2008) argues that the work environment is part of the organizational environment designed related to some works within the organization that create a conducive atmosphere for the workers. In another word, Mardiana (2005) describes that work environment is an environment where employees do their daily work.
According Moenir (1992)  Whereas the individual characteristics, Echolas explain it as the capable characteristics of improving the quality of life (Echolas in Sirat, 2002). It shows a person's differences concerning motivation, initiative, and ability. A person is strongly influenced by the characteristics of the individual as well as a manager or subordinate who contributed in decision determination. Gibson et al. (2006) suggests a model of behavior factor that contributes individual behavior by understanding differences, such as: a. Observing and recognizing the differences b. Learning any signs those affect individual behavior c. Finding relationships among things.
Compensation is closely related to the added value of a system built into an organizational environment. A good compensation system will be successfully implemented if it meets the sense of fairness for employees working under such a system (Kempton, 1995).
Compensation can be defined as a fair and reasonable remuneration given to workers for services in achieving organizational goals (Flippo, 2004). Employee's compensation refers to all forms of applicable wages or remuneration such as salary or reward regarding their work.
In fact, there are two main ways to market direct payments to employees -additional time and performance-based. Most employees are still paid primarily based on the time they spend in the workplace.
Stress is defined as an adaptive response, linked by individual psychological characteristics and consequence processes of any external action, situation or event Matteson, 1980 in Kreitner andKinicki, 2005). Another definition of stress is the dynamic state of the opportunities, constraints, or demands (Schuler, Kahnand Byosiere in Robbins, 2008).
Symptoms of stress are divided into several aspects, as followed: 1. Anxiety and tension 2. Confusion, anger and sensitiveness 3. Delay 4. Achievement and productivity decreases 5. Increased frequency of attendance 6. Increased aggressiveness 7. The decline in the quality of interpersonal relationship.
Performance is someone's achievement of organizational goals. The factors that affect employee performance (Simamora, 1997)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The sample on this study is taken from 120 Minerals and Metals manufacture companies registered at Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KADIN) East Borneo. There will be one middle-level person taken as a respondent from each company. The following considerations are the reasons why the middle level is chosen in this study, are: a. It has superiors and subordinates structure b. It has high work pressure c. It has complex work environment d. It demands the employee to have a high responsibility for the job.
This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) technique with "second-order factor analysis" applying Amos version 20.0.0 software. It enables the researcher to test some dependent variable (Endogen) as well as some independent variables (exogenous).

FINDING
Data processing in this study starts by testing the validity test and reliability test questionnaire. Validity test is the test of the statement items that arrange each research variable. Correlation product moment Pearson is used to measure the questionnaires validity. If the correlation value of product moment Pearson between each item statement with the total score of the variable yields a significance value smaller than 5%, then the item of statement is valid. The reliability test is used to determine the consistency of the instrument in the form of questionnaires. This reliability test is performed using the Cronbach's Alpha technique. This means, a questionnaire is reliable whether it has a Cronbach's alpha value of ≥0.60 (Malhotra in Solimun, 2005).
Based on the results of data process, known that the correlation of product moment Pearson for each item statement of each variable has a significance value of <5%. The value of Cronbach's alpha for all research variables has a value >0.60. Thus, it can be concluded the preparation of questionnaire on work skill variables, work motivation, work behavior, individual commitment, and nurse performance is valid, reliable and trustworthy as a measuring tool that produces consistent answers. The result of "goodness of fit" index value is obtained from modification model as displayed in Table 1.
The table above shows the goodness of fit Cmin/df, RMSEA, GFI, CFI, and TLI criteria have provided good index (fit or marginal).
On the other words, its value is much better than the previous model, using the principle of parsimony.
The result of SEM test with SEM or standardized coefficient value in each variable is presented in below Table 2: Table 2 shows that: 1. Job satisfaction is the most influential item toward job stress since it has the largest coefficient value (0.427), followed In contrast, individual characteristic and work environment have no direct significant influence. 3. Job satisfaction and compensation directly influences job stress and employee performance. It means that job stress brings partial mediation between the influence of job satisfaction and compensation on employee performance. 4. The coefficient calculation of work satisfaction influences employee performance through job stress can be calculated by multiplying the value of coefficient job satisfaction influence to job stress with coefficient of job stress influence on employee performance, that is: −0.427 x −0.436 = 0.186. 5. The coefficient calculation of compensation influences employee performance through job stress could be found by multiplying the value of coefficient of influence of compensation to job stress with coefficient of job stress influence on employee performance that is: 0.235 x −0.436 = − 0.133.

The individual characteristics and work environment can
only influence the employee performance indirectly through job stress which means that job stress mediates fully as intervening variable between in the influence of individual characteristics and work environment to the performance employees. 7. The calculation of coefficient value of the influence of individual characteristics on employee performance through job stress can be calculated by multiplying the coefficientvalue of individual character influence to job stress with coefficient of job stress influence on employee performance that is: −0.339 x −0.436 = 0.148.
Calculation of coefficient value of work environment influence on employee performance through job stress can be calculated by multiplying the coefficient-value of work environment influence to job stress with coefficient of job stress influence on employee performance that is: −0.378 x −0.436 = 0.165.

HYPOTHESES TESTING
Due to coefficient values from each variable have been revealed, the next phase is to test the hypothesis by using CR value and its probability (P-value).
1. The first parameter is if the value of CR arithmetic >1.96 or -CR count <−1.96, then the exogenous variable influence endogenous variable to endogenous variables, 2. It is also seen from the level of significant α = 0.05 (5%). If the significance value is 0.05 then exogenous variables influence endogenous variables and vice versa. Table 3 below is regression weight and standardized regression weight modified structural equation model: Based on Table 3, it can be described the relationship between each variable by using the coefficient value of the path. Path coefficient in each relationship between variables is shown in Figure 1. Table 3 and Figure 1 above, the explanation is as follow:

Hypothesis 1: The Influence of Job Satisfaction on Job Stress
The result of causality test shows that job satisfaction hasa negative and significant influence on job stress with P-value = 0.000 ≤ 0.05. The amount of job satisfaction influence on job stress is equal to −0.427. It shows that the increase of job satisfaction will cause the decrease of work stress level. By this result, the hypothesis 1 is acceptable.
The result of this hypothesis testing is the same as Zehlen (2009) who explains that job satisfaction can reduce work stress. The biggest source of job stress comes from structural conditions.

Hypothesis 2: Environmental Influence on Job Stress
The result of causality test showed that the work environment has a significant influence on job stress with P-value = 0.000 ≤ 0.05. The amount of job satisfaction influence on job stress is equal to −0.378. It means that supportive work environment will reduce job stress. Thus, the hypothesis 2 is acceptable.
The result of this hypothesis testing is in line with research Septianto (2010) who explains that a supportive work environment can reduce work stress.

Hypothesis 3: The Influence of Individual Characteristics of Job Stress
The result of causality test shows that individual character has a negative and significant influence of job stress with P-value = 0.002 ≤ 0.05. The magnitude of the influence of individual characteristics on job stress is −0.339. This indicates that the improvement of individual characteristics of employees can reduce the level of job stress. Hence, the hypothesis 3 is acceptable.

Hypothesis 4: The Influence of Compensation to Job Stress
The result of causality test shows that compensation has a negative and significant influence on job stress with P-value = 0.007 ≤ 0.05. The magnitude of the influence of compensation on job stress is −0.305.This indicates that the increase in compensation received by employees will reduce the level of job stress. Therefore, the research hypothesis 4 is acceptable.

Hypothesis 5: The Influence of Job Satisfaction on Employee Performance
The result of causality test showed that job satisfaction has a positive and significant influence on employee performance with P-value = 0.036 ≤ 0.05. The influence of job satisfaction on employee performance is equal to 0.253. It shows that the increase in job satisfaction will improve employee performance. So, the research hypothesis 4 is acceptable. It is similar to Stepina's (1995) study;Mulyanto (2000); Charles O 'Reilly (2001); Widagdo (2006); and Koesmono (2006) who concluded that satisfied employees tend to have better performance.

Hypothesis 6: The Influence of Work Environment on Employee Performance
The result of causality test showed that the work environment has no significant influence on employee performance with P-value = 0.816 > 0.05. The amount of work environment influence on employee performance is only equal to 0.027. It means that the improvement of work environment does not have a significant impact on the improvement of employee performance. Thus, the research hypothesis 6 is not proven.
The reason for this rejection may be due to: 1. Indicators that have the biggest loading factor in the work environment is the work facility, while in the description of the respondents showed that the largest sex in men is 72%. It shows that men take less attention to the work facility. 2. The working period of respondents is mostly located in the range of working period for 1-5 years is as many as 65 people/ managers or by 54% of the total respondents of 120. This indicates that there is a tendency of working for 1-5 years is the period of his zeal to work so less attention to the existing work environment.

Hypothesis 7: The Influence of Individual Characteristics on Employee Performance
The result of causality test showed that the individual characteristics has no significant influence on employee performance with P-value = 0.177> 0.05. The magnitude of the individual characteristics influence on employee performance is only 0.153, this indicates that the improvement of individual characteristics does not have a significant impact on the improvement of employee performance. Hence, the research hypothesis 7 is not proven.
The reason for this rejection may be due to: 1. Indicators that have the biggest loading factor in individual characteristics is the work period and education level, while in the description of the respondent shows that the period of work of respondents is mostly located in the range of working period for 1-5 years of 65 people/% of the total respondents totaling 120. 2. Individual characteristics are inseparable from the inherent personalities of their respective managers as well as the environment in which they reside. This includes the region or region in which they live. In general, there are cultural trends that exist in relative environments within a culture that is fully equipped for their needs.
The result of this hypothesis testing is different from Baron and Kenny's research (1986); Charles O 'Reilly (2001); Widagdo (2006); Djamaludin (2008); and Nugroho (2008) who explains that the individual characteristics of employees have a major impact on their performance.

Hypothesis 8: The Influence of Compensation on Employee Performance
The result of causality test shows that compensation has a positive and significant influence on employee performance with P-value = 0.036 ≤ 0.05. The magnitude of the compensation influence on employee performance is 0.235, this indicates that the increase in compensation received by employees will improve its performance. Therefore, the research hypothesis 8 is acceptable. Hypothesis 9: The Influence of job stress employee performance.
The result of causality test showed that job stress had a negative and significant influence on employee performance with P-value = 0.013 ≤ 0.05. The amount of job stress impact on employee performance is equal to −0.436. It shows that the increase job stress experienced by employees will reduce its performance. Thus, the last hypothesis of this study is acceptable.
The result of this hypothesis testing is alike Zehlen (2009); Rohmansyah (2009); and Septianto (2010) who explained that job stress has a negative influence on performance.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of analysis and testing of hypotheses, this study is summarized as follows: 1. Job satisfaction has a significant influence toward job stress on the employees of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 2. Working environment has significant influence to toward job stress on the employees of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 3. Individual characteristics have a negative and significant influence on toward job stress on the employees of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 4. Compensation has a significant influence on toward job stress on the employees of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 5. Job satisfaction has a significant influence on the employees performance of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 6. The working environment has no significant influence on the employees performance of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 7. Individual characteristics have an insignificant influence on the employees performance of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 8. Compensation has a significant influence on the employees performance of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan. 9. Job stress has a significant influence on the employees performance of minerals and metals manufacturing companies in East Kalimantan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I give a million thanks to my beloved family who always supports me, especially in writing this paper. Also, a bunch of thanks never been forgotten for my supervisor so that this paper can be well written. I hope this paper will give new knowledge for all readers.