RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

DOI 10.18551/rjoas.2019-02.36

THE MEDIATION EFFECT OF WORK STRESS ON WORKLOAD, WORK CONDITION,

AND LOAN COLLECTION PERFORMANCE

Sulistiyono Adincha Ayuvisda*, Narsa I Made

Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Airlangga,
Surabaya, Indonesia
*E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
This study aims to prove ability the mediation effect of work stress on workload, work
condition, and loan collection performance. This is a descriptive quantitative with an
explanatory approach type of study. Samples are collected from Bank Mandiri CCR
Surabaya and consist of 121 people from a total of 157. Data analysis technique used was
path analysis technique. Results indicate that hypothesis are accepted and can mediate.
This means that high workload caused increased work stress and impacted on loan
collection performance decrease. Meanwhile good work environment condition caused
decreased work stress and impacted on increasing loan collection performance.

KEY WORDS
Work stress, workload, work condition, loan collection, performance.

Bank is financial business institution having duty to collect and distribute funds into
society by providing financial-related services and support society in improving living
standard. Many societies borrow bank fund from KPR, collateral free loan and credit card.
Credit allocation to consumer might involve risk including troubled credit, no obligation
settlement according to agreement either in terms of amount and time. In terms of banking
NPL ratio or troubled credit is credit risk measure serves as bank health level. If bank could
suppress Non Performing Loan ratio below 5% then it shall provide higher profit potential as
bank could reduce receivable reserve fund or write off. Lower receivable reserve impact on
higher bank profit and create better banking performance. The high NPL inseparable from
loan collection performance that has not been optimal, which resulted in the company must
be able to improve the performance of its employees.
Employee performance is work result or output, either in terms of quantity and quality
that employee attain in completing their work with full responsibility (Mangkunegara, 2014).
Employee role in company are crucial matter and required to develop. High employee
performance shall lead to impact from company and employee themselves. For employee
having excellent performance could provide reward for them amongst them increased salary,
opportunity to promotion into higher level and making such employee more expert and
experienced on their field. Low performance represents that such employee actually
incompetent for their field, causing such employee hard to promote into higher level, and
might cause such employee to resign or called employment termination. According to Griffin,
Hogan et al. (2010), employment termination is dangerous negative response for employee
and organization. Performance could be affected by several factors amongst them workload
and Work condition (Adityawarman, Sanim et al, 2016; Putra, 2013).
The higher consumer have receivable will increase the load of the collection division
employee who will have an impact on the high goal setting, limited working completion time
and less supporting environment. Almost entire employee feel stressed with such issues that
it could lead into stress due to workload and inability to complete work maximally could affect
performance and company achievement as well. Research carried out by Carayon and
Gurses (2005) stated that high workload could increase bad communication, collaboration
failure, work dissatisfaction, reduced employee performance and employee resignation from
company. It is similar with Astianto (2015) research mentioning that workload influence
toward employee performance. It suggests that workload have positive and negative

288
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

meaning for employee. Employee perceiving duty as challenge to complete though it is a

hard assignment would remain comfortable with their work. Meanwhile for employee
perceiving duty as hard assignment and burden then such employee would gradually suffer
from exhaustion either physically and mentally that could lower performance.
It is also supported by research result of Shah, Jaffariet al. (2011) stating that workload
positively influence toward performance in which high workload is extremely crucial
assessment for supervisor to conduct, as it impacts on performance and bonus allocated for
company. This research result different with research conducted by Murali, Basitet al.
(2017). Such result found empirical evidence that workload do not have significant influence
toward employee performance. Good work environment condition would grow employee
comfort at work. Comfort feeling on work space could reduce boring situation at work. Good
condition shall impact on employee performance improvement. In contrary, work space
discomfort could lead into reduced employee performance. Research conducted by Kahya
(2007) and Ali (2013) demonstrated that work environment influence toward performance
which means the better work environment the better employee performance. This research
result was in contrary with research conducted by Arianto (2013) stating that work
environment do not influence toward performance.
Research result inconsistency in connection with workload and Work condition
influences toward performance inspired researcher to enter a variable to bridge such
inconsistency. Variable made as mediation in this research was work stress. In performing
duty employee demanded to remain professional and deliver quality collection toward
delinquent consumer. In addition to workload, other factor influencing work stress is work
environment condition. Work condition is one factor encouraging employee to work
optimally. Poor Work condition shall cause employee easily ill, difficult to think and
increasing stress. This research is supported by Andrew and Kishokumar (2014) that
provided empirical evidence that work environment and workload have influence on bank
employee work stress.
Excessive stress would have adverse impact on employee amongst them inability to
think clearly, finding it hard to make correct decision and the most concerned impact would
be reduced performance. Therefore work stress control within company is crucial that stress
could be maintained in correct level and increase employee performance. Workplace stress
at critical level could cause physical effect that harm employee performance, their physical
health, and also impact on organization as well (Giorgi, Arcangeliet al., 2017). This research
was supported by Ahmed and Rezan by showing that high work stress could lower
performance.
Subject in this research were PT. Bank Mandiri CCR Surabaya staff. Researcher
considered PT. Bank Mandiri CCR Surabaya staff as research subject as it is the solely PT
Bank Mandiri collection office in East Java, in terms of Home Loan (KPR), Collateral Free
Loan (KTA), Credit Card (KK) and NPL which also called as non performing loan for 2017
financial statement that was categorized high (3.45%) compared to Bank BNI with NPL of
2.3%, BRI with 2.1% NPL and Bank BRI with 2.66% NPL.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Role Stress or also called pressure at work refers to company employee role in facing
situation that represents three forms, role ambiguity, role conflict and pressure size at work
(role overload) (Wolfe & Snoek, 1962). It could be concluded that role stress is situation
where employee experiences emotional tension that would affect thinking process that duty
being performed would be perceived hard and result in less maximal result.
Work size is work measure certain organizational position/unit should shoulder and
multiplication between work volume and time norm according to Minister of Domestic Affair
Regulation Number 12 year 2008. It could be interpreted that workload is a number of
process or activity an employee must complete in certain period of time. When such
employee able to complete such work and could adapt against duty provided, than it shall
not be an workload and vice versa.

289
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

Work condition or frequently referred to as work environment condition is any work

physical, psychological aspect and work regulation that could affect work satisfaction and
productivity attainment (Mangkunegara, 2010: 105). According to Sedarmayati (2011: 26),
work environment is any condition at around workplace that would affect employee either
directly or indirectly. Work environment is crucial part within company as it has direct effect
toward employee in performing their work.
According to Robbins (2017: 429), stress is dynamic condition where individual faced
into opportunity, obstacle, and desire, and the obtained result is crucial but could not be
curtained. Company primary objective could not be separated from each employee role as
company drive. Company leader are appropriate to understand each employee condition.
When employee experience issue that could obstruct company performance then leader are
expected to reduce and solve such issue, especially concerning work stress that should be
sustainably managed for not obstructing company performance operation.
Performance is individual employee performance in managerial activities such as
planning, investigation, coordination, evaluation, supervision, staff arrangement, negotiation,
and representative (Mahoney, 1963). Performance appraisal is key factor in to develop
employee effectively and efficiently, due to better policy or program for human resources
within company. Individual performance appraisal is crucial for company growth, as it could
reveal actual condition concerning employee performance.
Workload is an individual extrinsic factor which is one source of the emergence of
pressure, because excessive workload. This condition demands employee to provide more
energy than usual to complete work in terms of target attainment that company desire, but it
depends on each individual, which means such duties shall only be well completed or not,
depend on how individual perform workload being performed. Workload discussed in this
research originated from work duration and weight as well as quantity either externally or
internally in terms of loan collection. Astianto (2015) highlighted that workload
simultaneously have significant influence toward employee performance.
In addition to workload, company also need to focus on Work condition. Employee
would generally perceive work satisfaction as they are supported by well or sufficient Work
condition or work environment. In contrary worse Work condition or work environment
causing reduced employee performance, such Work condition factor indirectly influence
employee performance itself and output toward company. Work condition discussed in this
research refers to work environment condition at office, either physical environment and
inter-team member work relationship that supporting one and another. Khan et al. (2011)
also demonstrated that safe, prosper and satisfying Work condition also contribute in
improving employee motivation toward work.

Workload

Loan Collection
Work Performance
Stress

Work
Condition

Figure 1 – Conceptual Framework

Workload and Work condition mediated by one mediating variable of work stress. Work
stress could emerge when discrepancy occur between individual ability and work demands,
and discrepancy between individual need with environmental fulfillment itself. Work stress
must be handled properly because employee tendency would feel frustrated, emotional and

290
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

uncomfortable at work, then it could trigger failure within organization because it can
interfere with each other in doing the task. According to Sasono (2004) Work stress could be
perceived as condition where individual experience duty or work that they could not
accomplish or beyond their capability. Work stress lead into work implementation and
employee performance.
Work stress Mediation toward Workload and Loan Collection Performance. Workload
is process or activity employee must complete in company within certain period of time.
Certain work that already becomes employee load must be completed to fulfill determined
target. Not entire employee could perform their work well as they differ on capability level, it
could cause stress and make employee not productive and lead into loan collection
performance decrease. One of stress source according to Doelhadi (1995) is hard and
urgent demanding situation. Research carried out by Saefullah (2017) provided empirical
evidence that workload and work stress simultaneously have significant influence toward
employee productivity.
H1: Work stress mediates influence workload toward loan collection performance.
Work stress Mediation toward Work condition and Loan collection performance. Work
environment condition is crucial matter for employee as it is directly related to their activity.
Company must consider work environment in order to create excellent work environment
and work condition that could provide comfort for employee to improve their performance.
Work environment condition is workplace condition both physical or inter-employee
relationship that could provide comfort and pleasure perception that could provide joy for
employee to work. Sedarmayanti (2011: 26) defined work environment condition as any
condition at around workplace that would affect employee either directly or indirectly.
Supported with suitable work condition, it expected to improve employee performance with
optimal result. Research conducted by Taiwo (2010) provided empirical evidence that
conducive and better work environment are factors causing employee productivity
improvement.
H2: Work stress mediates influence Work condition toward loan collection
performance.

METHODS OF RESEARCH

This research a descriptive quantitative with explanatory approach based on the

available formulation. According to quantitative approach, this research also called as
confirmatory analysis as it also focus on theoretical confirmation for the effectuation of
certain research object, either for explanation as well as prediction (Sugiyono, 2017: 36).
There were three variables in this research namely independent variable, dependent
variable and mediating variable. Independent variable in this research was workload and
work condition. Loan collection performance served as dependent variable. Work stress
served as mediating variable. Workload measure by indicators according to Hart and
Stavelan (1988), among others: physical need, mental need, time need, work performance,
effort, frustration level.
Work condition use indicators according to Sutanto (2015), among others: air
temperature at workplace, layout at workplace, circulation at workplace, exposure level at
workplace, inter-employee relationship at workplace, employee relationship with company
leader at workplace.
Work stress use Indicators according to Lovibond (1995), among others: difficult to
relax, raising nervous, easily angry/restless, disturbing/more reactive, impatient. Loan
collection performance use indicators according to Mahoney et al. (1963), among others:
planning, investigation, coordination, evaluation, supervision, staff selection, negotiation,
representative.
Population in this research were entire collection staff of PT. Bank Mandiri, CCR
Surabaya amounted to 157 employees per September 10th, 2018. Sample selection carried
out using purposive sampling, sample determination technique through certain
considerations (Sugiyono, 2017: 67). Total sample in this research were 121 respondents.

291
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

Data collected through survey using questionnaire adopted from previous research.
Upon data collected through questionnaire, editing performed to examine data quality.
Followed by process using coding and tabulation, or grouping of sub variable being
examined through scoring and rating to support submitted hypothesis. Path analysis
technique used in this research as data analysis technique.
This research used data analysis technique using 5.0 PLS (Partial Least Square)
version of WarpPLS software. It is a structural equation analysis or Structural Equation
Model (SEM). In the first step, outer model (measurement model) test conducted to measure
reflective (manifest) and formative (causal) indicators. Reflective or manifest indicator is
based on loading factor. Loading factor > 0.70 is highly recommended, but 0.50 – 0.60
loading factor value still considered enough (Solimun, 2007: 15). Upon outer model test and
measurement completed, inner model measurement carried out. Inner model measurement
used to test relationship between variables in research using adjusted R2value (Sholihin,
2013: 72). Based on adjusted R2, a model could be classified as strong (≤ 0,70), moderate (≤
0.45) and weak (≤ 0.25).
Causal steps were used to test mediating variable analysis. It was developed by Baron
& Kenny (1986). Product of Coefficient method were also used for this analysis that was
developed by Sobel (1982). Sobel test carried out by testing indirect influence power of
independent variable (X) into dependent variable (Y) through mediating variable (Z). indirect
influence of X into Y through Z calculated by multiplying X-Z path (a) with Z-Y path (b) or ab.
Therefor ab coefficient = (c – c’) where c is X influence toward Y without controlling Y
through Z, meanwhile c’ is coefficient of X influence toward Y after controlling Z. standard
error of a and b coefficient written with Sa and Sb, that represents indirect effect standard
error calculated through the following formula (Ghozali, 2013).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Outer Model Measurement Estimation. Table 1 describes reflective value from

indicator for each variable; workload variable, work condition, work stress and loan collection
performance.

Table 1 – Final Iteration Outer Loading Factor Estimation Result

Variable Indicator Outer Loading Value Conclusion
WL2 0,801 Significant
WL3 0,821 Significant
Workload
WL5 0,712 Significant
WL6 0,742 Significant
WC7 0,532 Significant
WC8 0,631 Significant
WC10 0,813 Significant
Work Condition WC11 0,728 Significant
WC12 0,865 Significant
WC13 0,752 Significant
WC14 0,807 Significant
WS1 0,547 Significant
WS2 0,620 Significant
WS3 0,647 Significant
WS4 0,632 Significant
WS5 0,770 Significant
WS6 0,879 Significant
WS7 0,837 Significant
Work Stress
WS8 0,877 Significant
WS9 0,825 Significant
WS10 0,828 Significant
WS11 0,838 Significant
WS12 0,709 Significant
WS13 0,801 Significant
WS14 0,721 Significant
LCP4 0,763 Significant
LCP5 0,577 Significant
Loan Collection Performance LCP7 0,775 Significant
LCP8 0,797 Significant
LCP10 0,851 Significant

292
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

Based on result from Table 1, entire proxy had outer loading factor value greater 0.5
from new iteration result. Therefore, it could be concluded that entire proxy were feasible to
be made as indicator that could reflect each related variables. From Table 1 result could also
be concluded that second iteration was iteration to determine indicators used as reflective
indicator for each variable.
Variables Validity and Reliability Test. Discriminant validity measurement result, AVE
value must be greater than 0.30 or having p-value lower than significance level (0.05). The
following Table 2 presents discriminant value of this research.

Table 2 – Discriminant Validity Measurement Result

Variable Original Sample (O)
Workload 0,593
Work condition 0,548
Work stress 0,576
Loan collection performance 0,575
Source: Data processing, 2018.

According to Table 2, entire variable had discriminant validity value greater than 0.50.
Therefore it could be concluded that entire variables were valid.
Upon variables declared valid, reliability testing carried out using composite reliability
technique. Reliability coefficient must be greater than 0.70. Composite reliability
measurement result is presented on Table 3.

Table 3 – Composite Reliability Measurement Result

Variable Original Sample (O)
Workload 0,853
Work condition 0,893
Work stress 0,949
Loan collection performance 0,870
Source: Data processing, 2018.

According to Table 3, entire variables had composite reliability value greater than 0.70.
According to this result, it could be concluded that entire variables were valid and could be
relied to use in further analysis test.
Descriptive Analysis. Descriptive analysis is used to provide information about the
variables used in the study, among others: workload, work condition, work stress and loan
collection performance.

Table 4 – Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Workload 121 15 30 23.26 3.140
Work condition 121 29 70 50.97 6.899
Work stress 121 19 70 44.65 10.097
Loan collection performance 121 24 50 39.16 4.710
Valid N (listwise) 121
Source: Data processing, 2018.

According to result on table 4, the average value in the overall workload variable (6
item questions) is 3.88 with a high category, this indicates that PT Bank Mandiri CCR
Surabaya has a relatively high workload. The average value in the overall work condition
variable (14 item questions) is 3.64 with the high category. That is, the billing department
employees owned by PT Bank Mandiri CCR Surabaya can be said that work conditions are
in a high classification. This means that work facilities and infrastructure meet the standards.
The average overall work stress variable (14 item questions) is 3.19 with the disagree
category. Showing that employees owned by PT Bank Mandiri CCR Surabaya can be said to

293
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

have moderate stress levels. The average variable of overall loan collection performance (10
item questions) is 3.92 with the high category; this indicates that PT Bank Mandiri CCR
Surabaya has a high loan collection performance.
Inner Model Test Result. Work stress mediating influence level on workload influence,
Work condition toward loan collection performance, measured using inner model test. Inner
model measurement serves to test work stress mediation on workload influence, Work
condition toward loan collection performance within research Q 2 value was used. Inner
model test result is presented on the following table 5.
2
Table 5 – R-square Adjusted Value (Adjusted R )
2
Endogenous Variable R-square Adjusted Value (Adjusted R )
Work stress 0,123
Loan collection performance 0,496
Source: Data processing, 2018.

According to data presented on table 5, the following predictive-relevance (Q 2 )

calculation could be carried out.
2 2
Q2 = 1 – (1 - R of work stress)(1 – R of loan collection performance) = 0,557912

The above predictive-relevance (Q 2 ) value calculation yielded Q 2 value of 0.557912.

it suggests that the constructed model could account work stress mediation on workload and
Work condition influences toward loan collection performance as of 55.79%, meanwhile the
remaining 44.21 accounted by other variables outside this research.
Work stress Mediation Influence on Workload and Loan collection performance. Work
stress mechanism used as mediating variable in workload influence toward loan collection
performance calculated using Sobel test.

Table 6 – Sobel Test Result of Work stress as Workload Mediation Toward Loan collection
performance
Standard Standard Standard Error
Inter-Variable Path Sobel Test P-
Error Error of Sobel Test Conclusion
Influence Coefficients Result (t-Sobel) value
(Sa) (Sb) (Sab)
WL  WS 0,194 0,014 - - -
WS  LCP -0,146 - 0,049 - - 0,0035 Evidenced
WL WS  LCP -0,0283 - - 0,0097 -2,913

Source: Data processing, 2018.

According to result on table 6, it could be concluded that work stress could mediate
workload influence toward loan collection performance. It was based on p value < 0.01,
which means that work stress could mediate workload influence toward loan collection
performance at 1% significance level.
Work stress Mediation Influence on Work condition and Loan collection performance.
Work stress mechanism used as mediating variable in Work condition influence toward loan
collection performance calculated using Sobel test.

Table 7 - Sobel Test Result of Work stress as Work condition Mediation toward Loan collection
performance
Standard Standard Standard Error
Inter-Variable Path Sobel Test P-
Error Error of Sobel Test Conclusion
Influence Coefficients Result (t-Sobel) value
(Sa) (Sb) (Sab)
WC  WS -0,376 -0,001 - - -
WS  LCP -0,146 - 0,049 - 0,0029 Evidenced
WC WS  LCP 0,0548 - - 0,0184 2,979

Source: Data processing, 2018.

294
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

According to result on table 7, it could be concluded that work stress could mediate
Work condition influence toward loan collection performance. It was based on p value
< 0.01, which means that work stress could mediate workload influence toward loan
collection performance at 1% significance level.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Work stress as Workload Mediation toward Loan collection performance. This research
result suggested that work stress could mediate workload influence toward loan collection
performance. It means that high workload lead to increasing work stress and eventually
impact on loan collection performance decrease. Performance decrease at banking
institution especially on collection division could impact on high company NPL (Non
Performing Loan. Increasing workload caused by enormous work to complete and strongly
consume time to complete such work. High workload could drive employee stress work
stress caused by several factors specifically employee difficulty to rest. Difficulty to rest and
spend many energy to complete certain work. Increased employee work stress shall provide
impact on loan collection performance decrease. This research result was in line with
research carried out by Saefullah (2017) that provided evidence that workload and work
stress have significant influence toward employee productivity.
Work stress as Work condition Mediation toward Loan collection performance. This research
result stated that work stress could mediate work condition influence toward loan collection
performance. It means that good work environment condition causing decreasing work
stress and impact on increasing loan collection performance. Good environment condition
could be achieved from work facilities and infrastructures that meet standard from air
circulation, exposure level and without exception colleague relationship. Facilities and
infrastructures fulfillment could provide impact on decreasing employee work stress level.
Decreased work stress could simplify employee to complete work and shall provide good
result, that it could increase loan collection performance. This research result was in line with
research conducted by Taiwo (2010) that provided empirical evidence that conducive and
better work environment are factors causing employee productivity enhancement.

CONCLUSION

This research examined work stress mediating effect on workload, Work condition and
loan collection performance. The following are conclusion of this research: (1) research
result showed that stress could mediate workload influence toward loan collection
performance. It suggests that high workload causing increased work stress and eventually
impact on loan collection performance decrease. (2) Research also showed that work stress
could mediate Work condition influence toward loan collection performance. It suggests that
good Work condition causing reduced work stress and impact on increasing loan collection
performance.

REFERENCES

1. Adityawarman, Y., (2016). Pengaruh Beban Kerja terhadap Kinerja Karyawan PT. Bank
Rakyat Indonesia Tbk Cabang Krekot. Jurnal Manajemen and Organisasi 6(1): 34-44.
2. Ahmed, A. (2013). Effects of Job Stress on Employees Job Performance A Study on
Banking Sector of Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management. 61-68.
3. Ali (2013). Working Conditions and Employees Productivity in Manufacturing Companies
in Sub-Saharan African Context. Educational Research International 2(2): 67-78.
4. Andrew, A. and R. Kishokumar (2014). Influence of Working Environment and Workload
on Occupational Stress Among Staff in The Financial Services Industry. International
Journal on Global Business Management & Research 3(1): 70.
5. Arianto, D. A. N. (2013). Pengaruh Kedisiplinan, Lingkungan Kerja and Budaya Kerja
Terhadap Kinerja Tenaga Pengajar. Jurnal Economia 9(2): 191-200.

295
 RJOAS, 2(86), February 2019

6. Astianto, A. (2015). Pengaruh Stres Kerja and Beban Kerja Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan
PDAM Surabaya. Jurnal Ilmu & Riset Manajemen 3(7).
7. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986). The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.
Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173.
8. Carayon, P. and A. P. Gürses (2005). A Human Factors Engineering Conceptual
Framework of Nursing Workload And Patient Safety in Intensive Care Units. Intensive
and Critical Care Nursing 21(5): 284-301.
9. Doelhadi, A. S. S., M. (1995). Keterkaitan Pengalaman Coping dengan Dampak Negatif
Stres. Jurnal Anima 10(38): 258-282.
10. Ghozali, I. (2013). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariat dengan Program IBM SPSS 21.
Semarang, Universitas Diponegoro.
11. Giorgi, G., (2017). Work-Related Stress in the Banking Sector: A Review of Incidence,
Correlated Factors, and Major Consequences. Frontiers in psychology 8: 2166.
12. Griffin, M. L., N. L. Hogan, et al. (2010). Job Involvement, Job Stress, Job Satisfaction,
and Organizational Commitment and The Burnout of Correctional Staff." Criminal Justice
and behavior 37(2): 239-255.
13. Hart, S. G. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical
and theoretical research. Advances in psychology, Elsevier. 52: 139-183.
14. Kahya, E. (2007). The Effects of Job Characteristics and Working Conditions on Job
Performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 37(6): 515-523.
15. Khan, N. S., A. Riaz, et al. (2011). The impact of work content, working conditions,
career growth on employee motivation. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research in Business 3(3): 1428-1434.
16. Lovibond, P. F. and S. H. Lovibond (1995). The Structure of Negative Emotional States:
Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) With the Beck Depression
And Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy 33(3): 335-343.
17. Mahoney, T. A. (1963). Development of managerial performance: A research approach,
South-western Publishing Company.
18. Mangkunegara, A. A. P. (2010). Perilaku and Budaya Organisasi. PT. Refika Aditama.
19. Mangkunegara, A. A. P. (2014). Evaluasi Kinerja SDM. Bandung, PT. Refika Aditama.
20. Murali, S., A. Basit, et al. (2017). Impact of Job Stress on Employee Performance.
International Journal of Accounting & Business Management 5(2).
21. Putra, F. R. (2013). Pengaruh Lingkungan Kerja Terhadap Kinerja (Studi Pada
Karyawan PT. Naraya Telematika Malang). Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis 6(1).
22. Robbins, S. (2017). Perilaku Organisasi. Jakarta, Salemba Empat.
23. Saefullah, E. and A. N. Amalia (2017). Pengaruh Beban Kerja and Stres Kerja Terhadap
Produktivitas Kerja Karyawan. Jurnal Akademika 15(2): 117-121.
24. Sasono, E. (2004). Mengelola Stres kerja. Semarang, Universitas Pandanaran.
25. Sedarmayanti (2011). Tata Kerja and Produktifitas Kerja. Bandung, CV. Mandar Maju.
26. Shah, S. S. H., A. Jaffari, et al. (2011). Workload and Performance of Employees.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3(5): 256-267.
27. Sholihin, M., Dwi Ratmono (2013). Analisis SEM-PLS dengan WarpPLS 3.0 untuk
Hubungan Nonlinier dalam Penelitian Sosial and Bisnis. Yogyakarta, CV. Andi Offset.
28. Solimun, A. A. R. F., Nurjannah (2017). Metode Statistika Multivariat Permodelan
Persamaan Struktural (SEM) Pendekatan WarpPLS. Malang, UB Press.
29. Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung, Alfabeta.
30. Sugiyono. (2017). Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung, Alfabeta.
31. Sutanto, E. M. (2015). Hubungan lingkungan kerja, disiplin kerja, and kinerja karyawan.
Jurnal manajemen and kewirausahaan 17(2): 135-144.
32. Taiwo, A. S. (2010). The influence of work environment on workers’ productivity: A case
of selected oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria. African Journal of Business
Management 4(3): 299-307.
33. Wolfe, D. M. and J. D. Snoek (1962). A Study of Tensions and Adjustment under Role
Conflict. Journal of Social Issues 18(3): 102-121

296