Volume 1 No 1 (2021)

Received : February 01, 2021 Conference on Management, Business,

Accepted : February 05, 2021 Innovation, Education and Social Science
Published : February 24, 2021 https://journal.uib.ac.id/index.php/combines

The Influence of Leadership Style, Employee Training, Intrinsic

Reward, and Extrinsic Reward on Employee Motivation

Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2,

1
oda@uib.ac.id 21746009.haverina@uib.edu

1Economy, Universitas Internasional Batam, Batam, Indonesia

2 Economy, Universitas Internasional Batam, Batam, Indonesia

Abstract
This research aimed to know if leadership style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and
extrinsic reward had a significant relationship toward employee motivation. Data collected from
221 respondents who were employees of Tour & Travel Agents in Batam. The sampling method
used was purposive sampling which took sample with some consideration. The result shows
that all of them have positive significance to employee motivation. Besides, employee training
has the greatest amount of significance on employee motivation.

Keywords: Employee Motivation, Leadership Style, Employee Training, Intrinsic Reward,

Extrinsic Reward.

Introduction
Human asset is the most important asset of any organization. Employees are considered
to be valuable assets that determine the success of a business. Employee motivation is needed
to get an efficient and effective result of human resources (Hafiza et al., 2011). Without the
right and qualified human resources, a company will be difficult to achieve its goals (Wahyuni
et al., 2019). ‘Happy’ employees will be motivated to work as well as they could and be more
productive. Decreasing motivation is a common thing to happen among employees
(Kompas.com, 2017). But, motivation is the ‘petrol’ of employee success. Without motivation,
there is no desire to work well and durability to face the challenges.
Providing the right motivation is very important because employees are able to carry out
as much as they could to finish those tasks and objectives given to them (Wahyuni et al., 2019).
Therefore, many kinds of research are done to prove the factors that influence employee
motivation. Factors that may influence employee motivation in this research are leadership
style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and extrinsic reward. However, much literature found
is not about these factors effect on employee motivation in the tourism sector, especially in
Tour & Travel Agents. Though tourism is the most effective sector to increase foreign exchange
(Kompas.com, 2019). Not only the foreign exchange, but the number of foreign tourist visits
also increased. It makes the existence of tour & travel agents are needed to fulfill the needs of
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 124
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
tourist and tourism services. Therefore, this study is going to find the effects of leadership
style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and extrinsic reward on employee motivation in tour
& travel agents.
Leadership is the ability to increase a group to get the vision or set of goals (Chaudry &
Javed, 2012). Leadership is a very big toll or the weapon of an organization to accomplish its
goals and its necessary objectives. Without leadership, the implementation of tasks and their
achievements are impossible (Chaudry & Javed, 2012).
Training has a distinct role in the achievement of an organizational goal by incorporating
the interests of the organization and the workforce. The training process was more job oriented
that could change employee attitudes and behaviors that motivate them to increase their
knowledge and understanding of the job according to the dynamic corporate environment
(Afroz, 2018).
Reward systems seek to attract people to join the organization to keep them coming to
work and motivate them to perform at high levels (Pratheepkanth, 2011). The employee will
give their maximum when they have a trust that their efforts will be rewarded by the
management (Husain & Batagoda, 2017). But managers must consider that various incentive
plans can affect employees in different ways and at different positions and times (Haryono et
al., 2020).

Literature Review
Employee Motivation Definition
Research about employee motivation has been done a long time ago. Many researchers
believe this motive is the reason why someone working hard to achieve the organization’s goal.
The word ‘motivation’ comes from Latin “movere” which means to push or move. Motivation is
a process that explains the intensity, direction, and perseverance of a person to achieve victory
(Wahyuni et al., 2019).
Pranitasari (2020) explains motivation as a process that causes intensity, direction, and
continuous effort of individuals towards the achievement of goals. Intensity shows how hard
someone trying. But high intensity may not lead to good performance, except the effort is made
in the direction that benefits the organization. Motivation is a measure of how long someone
can maintain their effort. A motivated individual will perform its task for a long time until the
goal is achieved.
Mahardiana & Thahir (2019) argue motivation is the effort or effort of a person in
achieving their targets of working to gain the needs of life in the long term consisting of three
important elements: effort, the direction of long-term goals, and fulfilling desires, which are
affected by motives, hopes, and incentives. Based on definitions presented by previous
researchers, motivation can be concluded as a pusher or power that makes someone trying
diligently to achieve the goal. In other words, motivation is the reason that influence employee
working continuously to attain the company or organization's goal.

The Relationship between Leadership Style and Employee Motivation

A leader can motivate employees in various ways, such as allow the employees to make
decisions in a chance, create a harmonious atmosphere, and build trusting and respectful
working relationships. Different leadership styles will color the behavior and type of leadership,
producing a task-oriented leadership style and an employee-oriented leadership style (Wahyuni
et al., 2019).
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 125
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
This research is dividing leadership style into transactional leadership, transformational
leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. Nadeak et al. (2019) define transactional leadership as
the ability to influence others' behavior and mind to achieve the organization's goal in a
particular situation. Aunjum et al. (2017) state that transformational leadership is the quality
of a leader that influences his or her subordinate's beliefs and way of work to finish the
organization's goal. Chaudry & Javed (2012) describe laissez-faire leadership as "abdicates
responsibilities avoid making decisions." So, it is difficult to maintain this leadership style unless
the subordinates are specialist employees who an expert and well-motivated. Even Mondy &
Premeaux (1995) interpreting laissez-faire as "a leader who lets the group member make all
decisions" (Chaudry & Javed, 2012). The leader does not interfere in decision making because
the leader let the subordinates have the power to make their own decision for their work.
The result of research by Chaudry & Javed (2012) mentions that transactional leadership
and laissez-faire leadership has a significant and positive relationship with motivation. Aunjum
et al. (2017) estimated that transformational leadership has a positive and significant impact
on employee motivation. Transformational leaders attempt to develop the full potential of the
employee, by influencing and engaging them (Zareen et al., 2014). So, the employee feels
more transformed and developed. The main foundation of transformational leadership is the
leader’s ability to motivate the employee to accomplish more than what the employee planned
to accomplish (Zareen et al., 2014).

The Relationship between Employee Training and Employee Motivation

Afroz (2018) defines training as "learning activity directed to get knowledge and specific
skill for an occupation or task. Dorcas et al. (2020) state that employee training has a positive
effect on employee motivation and organizational performance. This state is supported by Afroz
(2018), which mentions between training and employee motivation there is a positive
relationship that makes the employee more involved in work. After that, produce better
performance and productivity for the employee itself or the organization.

The Relationship between Intrinsic Reward and Employee Motivation

Hafiza et al. (2011) mention that there must be an effective reward to maintain high
performance in an organization and that reward must be related to employee productivity.
Intrinsic reward is an intangible reward. The reward can not be touched but only felt like an
appreciation and caring attitude (Zafar et al., 2014). Intrinsic reward is the reward in the job
itself, such as satisfaction after successfully finishing the task, achievements, appreciation from
boss or senior, and more (Hafiza et al., 2011; Husain & Batagoda, 2017). Based on Safiullah
(2014), his conclusion is when an employee's income increased, then money is not a motivator
anymore. However, when the employee's age is growing, an attractive job will be a good
motivator. The employee who gets an intrinsic reward feel valued and needed by the
organization. This pride increases the spirit and desire to work voluntarily. Thus employees
have a strong motive to work better.

The Relationship between Extrinsic Reward and Employee Motivation

Extrinsic reward is a tangible reward, out of work such as salary, bonuses, allowances,
promotion, job security, private room, and indirect payment as compensation for an off day
(Husain & Batagoda, 2017). Extrinsic reward is used to show that organization is serious about
rating the team's contribution to quality. The existence of tangible rewards makes the
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 126
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
employees realize that their efforts are not going to waste. Every hard work will be a benefit
for themself. In realistic, that real reward is the one that can fulfill every need in his or her life.
Zafar et al. (2014) argue that salary has an important role in motivating the employee. Besides,
if the organization gives a bonus and incentive to an employee, the employee will be satisfied
and be motivated to work hard to achieve the organization's goal. Also, Husain & Batagoda
(2017) mention that employees will be committed as long as they receive an external reward
for the work they have done.

Leadership Style

Employee Training
Employee Motivation
Intrinsic Reward

Extrinsic Reward

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Based on the conceptual framework showed before, the hypothesis that formulated in
this research are:
H1: Leadership style has a significant relationship with employee motivation
H2: Employee training has a significant relationship with employee motivation
H3: Intrinsic reward has a significant relationship with employee motivation
H4: Extrinsic reward has a significant relationship with employee motivation

Research Methods
This research design was conducted without focusing on problem-solving. Basic research
was related to academics and had one goal, to expand a theory (Indriantoro N & Supomo B,
2013). This study used a survey method to gather data from respondents.
The population refered to all groups of people, events, or interesting things that a
researcher wanted to investigate (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). So, the population in this research
were employees who worked at tour & travel agent in Batam. The sample was a sub-collection
from the population, taken some from the population but not all of them. The exact number of
how many employees worked in tour & travel agents was unknown. So, the number of samples
would be determined by referring to a journal by Nunkoo et al. (2013). Research to 209 articles
published in 9 tourism journals between the year 2000 until 2011, showed the majority of
studies used sample between 151 until 400 respondents (99 articles, 47.4%). 56 articles
(26.8%) used the sample between 401 until 650 respondents, 20 articles (9.6%) used sample
between 651 until 900 respondents, and 25 articles (12%) using sample more than 900
respondents (Nunkoo et al., 2013). Limited studies (9 articles, 4.3%) used sample less than
150 respondents. Therefore, the minimum number of samples required in this research was
200 respondents. This number determined as the number between 151 until 400 respondents.
This study used non-probability as a sampling method, which was purposive sampling.
This method draws the sample with a certain amount from the population with consideration
or using decided criteria (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). The criteria to select the sample to use
were:

Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 127

 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
a. Respondent was someone who was 18 years old and above.
b. Respondent was a person who was working or had once worked at Tour & Travel
Agent (employee in the tour & travel sector).
c. Working and domiciled in Batam, Riau Islands, Indonesia.
Data collection was performed into two categories, which were primary data and
secondary data. Primary data is data received from the first source, such as a questionnaire
outcome or interview results done by the researcher (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). While
secondary data is data that already available (in a company, industry, archived, and more) or
information collected from various sources like the internet (Sekaran & Bougie, 2016). This
research used those two types of data by utilizing a questionnaire as the primary data. The
questionnaire was made based on the journal and using Google Forms as the media
(docs.google.com/forms). Then the questionnaire was distributed using the google forms link.
There are 114 Tour & Travel Agents who participated in this research. Secondary data in this
research used the government's publication, online newspapers, electronic books, articles,
journals, and other written media. All of the secondary data were accessed through Google
web searcher and Google Scholar site.

Results and Discussion

There were 250 questionnaires distributed from November 2020 until December 2020.
Distribution was done using online media such as Line, WhatsApp, Facebook, Official Website,
and E-mail. But around 29 questionnaires did not return, so the total number of questionnaires
used were 221 copies. The characteristics of 221 respondents are shown in the table below.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Respondents’ Demographics

Frequency Percentage
1 Gender
Male 105 47.5%
Female 116 52.5%
2 Age
18-22 years old 83 37.6%
23-27 years old 79 35.7%
28-32 years old 31 14%
33-37 years old 18 8.1%
>37 years old 10 4.5%
3 Last Education
Senior/Vocational High 95 43%
School
Bachelor 124 56.1%
Magister 2 0.9%
4 Employement Status
Permanent 152 68.8%
Freelancer 69 31.2%
5 Working Period
0-1 year 80 36.2%
2-4 years 93 42.1%
5-9 years 35 15.8%
>10 years 13 5.9%
6 Division
Admin 42 19%
Ticketing Staff 31 14%
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 128
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
Tour Consultant 34 15.4%
Marketing Staff 25 11.3%
Accounting Staff 13 5.9%
Manager 21 9.5%
Tour Guide 33 14.9%
Tour Leader 22 10%
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

Data Quality Test Results

Collected primary data must be tested if they are valid or not. The validity of every
question item can be seen by its loading factor value. The requirement of valid is the loading
factor must more than 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). The results of validity are shown below.

Table 2. The Results of Validity Test

Variable Question Loading Factor Conclusion

Leadership Style LS1 .736 Valid
LS2 .723 Valid
LS3 .755 Valid
LS4 .655 Valid
LS5 .743 Valid
LS6 .648 Valid
LS7 .688 Valid
LS8 .485 Invalid
LS9 .366 Invalid
Employee Training ET1 .815 Valid
ET2 .803 Valid
ET3 .827 Valid
ET4 .700 Valid
Intrinsic Reward IR1 .540 Invalid
IR2 .586 Invalid
IR3 .810 Valid
IR4 .692 Valid
Extrinsic Reward ER1 .807 Valid
ER2 .808 Valid
ER3 .803 Valid
ER4 .746 Valid
Employee Motivation EM1 .725 Valid
EM2 .669 Valid
EM3 .753 Valid
EM4 .759 Valid
EM5 .760 Valid
EM6 .777 Valid
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

Table 2 shows four question items that do not pass the requirement to have a loading
factor of more than 0.6. They are LS8, LS9, IR1, and IR2 that only have a loading factor around
0.485, 0.366, 0.540, and 0.586. They are not going to participate in further tests as they have
value under 0.6.
The value that needs to be focused on reliability test is Cronbach's Alpha. Question items
considered as reliable if they have Cronbach's Alpha more than 0.6 (Hair et al., 2010). Those
values are shown in the table below.

Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 129

 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)

Table 3. The Results of Realibilty Test

Variable Cronbach’s Alpha Conclusion

Leadership Style 0.835 Reliable
Employee Training 0.796 Reliable
Intrinsic Reward 0.642 Reliable
Extrinsic Reward 0.798 Reliable
Employee Motivation 0.833 Reliable
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

Classic Assumption Test Results

The multicollinearity test aims to know if a regression model has a correlation between
its independent variables. The requirement in this test is Tolerance value must be more than
0.1 and the VIF value less than 10.

Table 4. The Results of Multicollinearity Test

Variable Tolerance VIF Conclusion

Leadership Style .583 1.715 No multicollinearity exist
Employee Training .576 1.736 No multicollinearity exist
Intrinsic Reward .608 1.646 No multicollinearity exist
Extrinsic Reward .571 1.751 No multicollinearity exist
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

A normality test is performed to see if data deployment is normal. Normality testing used
Kolmogorov Smirnov Test.

Table 5. The Results of Normality Test

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .200c,d
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

If Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) value is more than 0.05, data are considered as normal. Based
on table above, the value is 0.200 and it is stated as normal because more than 0.05.
Heteroscedasticity test used Glejser Test to show the regression model does not contain
heteroscedasticity. The independent variable must not significantly influence its residual
absolute value. In other words, significance value in the t test must be more than 0.05.

Table 6. The Results of Heteroscedasticity Test

Variable Sig Conclusion

Leadership Style .077 No heteroscedasticity exist
Employee Training .001 Heteroscedasticity exist
Intrinsic Reward .286 No heteroscedasticity exist
Extrinsic Reward .951 No heteroscedasticity exist
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

Hypothesis Test Results

Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 130

 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
A simultaneous significance test aims to know the influence of the independent variable
simultaneously. The criteria in this test is if the significance value shown in the ANOVA table is
less than 0.05, the independent variable is considered simultaneously influence the dependent
variable.

Table 7. The Results of Simultaneous Significance Test

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1072.516 4 268.129 72.641 .000b
Residual 797.294 216 3.691
Total 1869.810 220
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

The significance value shown above is 0.000, which means leadership style, employee
training, intrinsic reward, and extrinsic reward are simultaneously significant to employee
motivation.
Adjusted R Square value was used to see how much those independent variables in this
research could explain the dependent variable.

Table 8. The Results of Determination Coefficient Test

Model Summaryb
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
1 .833a .694 .688 1.37622
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

The result shows that leadership style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and extrinsic
reward can explain employee motivation for 68%. The rest of it 32% is explained by other
factors that do not exist in this research.
The individual parameter significance test was used to know how influential each
independent variable. Significant value must less than 0.05 and Beta value is needed to know
either the independent variable influence positively or negatively. As greater the Beta value,
the influence is greater too.

Table 9. The Results of Individual Parameter Significance Test

Variable Beta (Coefficients) Sig Hypothesis

Leadership Style .178 .000 Significant
Employee Training .381 .000 Significant
Intrinsic Reward .154 .002 Significant
Extrinsic Reward .293 .000 Significant
Source : Primary Data Processed (2020)

From the table above, all of the independent variables are significant to employee
motivation. Besides, those independent variables positively influence employee motivation. The
most influencing variable is employee training (0.381), followed by extrinsic reward (0.293),
leadership style (0.178), and intrinsic reward (0.154).
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 131
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)

Conclusions
This research aimed to know if leadership style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and
extrinsic reward have significance with employee motivation. After all process of gathering and
calculating data, it is found that leadership style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and
extrinsic reward positively influence employee motivation. From four independent variables
involved, employee training shows the greatest influence on employee motivation. Leadership
style, employee training, intrinsic reward, and extrinsic reward explain employee motivation for
68%. This amount shows mostly of employee motivation are well explained by them. As for
the remaining 32%, are those factors not involved in this research.

References
Afroz, N. N. (2018). Effects of Training on Employee Performance : A Study on Banking
Sector, Tangail Bangladesh. Global Journal of Economic and Business, 4(1), 111–124.
https://doi.org/10.12816/0048158
Aunjum, A. H., Abbas, G., & Sajid, M. (2017). Transformational Leadership and Employee
Motivation in Banking Sector of Pakistan. Advances in Economics and Business, 5(9),
487–494. https://doi.org/10.13189/aeb.2017.050901
Chaudry, A. Q., & Javed, H. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership
Style on Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science , 3(7), 7.
http://www.ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_7_April_2012/28.pdf
Dorcas, T., Oparanma, A., & Ejo-orusa, H. (2020). Training and Employee Motivation of Non-
Governmental Medical Organizations in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. International Journal of
Business & Law Research, 8(1), 128–135.
Hafiza, N. S., Shah, S. S., Jamsheed, H., & Zaman, K. (2011). Relationship Between Rewards
and Employee’s Motivation in The Non-Profit Organizations of Pakistan. In Business
Intelligence Journal (Vol. 4, Issue 2). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi
=10.1.1.472.8414&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=130
Hair et al. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis. Seventh Edition. Prentice Hall. In England:
Pearson.
Haryono, S., Supardi, S., & Udin, U. (2020). The Effect of Training and Job Promotion on
Work Motivation and Its Implications on Job Performance: Evidence from Indonesia.
Management Science Letters, 10(9), 2107–2112.
https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.1.019
Husain, A., & Batagoda, C. (2017). Impact of Organizational Rewards on Employee Motivation
of Operational Level Employees in the Sri Lankan Large Scale Apparel Industry in
Colombo District. HRM Scintilla Human Resource Management Journal , 5(2), 29–39.
Indriantoro N, & Supomo B. (2013). Metodologi Penelitian, Cetakan Ketujuh. In Yogyakara;
Penerbit BFEE UGM.
Kompas.com. (2017, January 26). Bekerja Lebih “Happy” dengan “Internal Motivations.”
https://money.kompas.com/read/2017/01/26/060700426/bekerja.lebih.happy.dengan.int
ernal.motivations.?page=all
Kompas.com. (2019, March 23). BI: Industri Pariwisata Jadi Sektor Paling Hasilkan Devisa.
https://travel.kompas.com/read/2019/03/23/084500627/bi--industri-pariwisata-jadi-
sektor-paling-hasilkan-devisa
Mahardiana, L., & Thahir, H. (2019). A Study of Competence and Motivation of Employees To
Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 132
 Volume 1 No 1 (2021)
Achieve Performance in a Supermarket. Review of Behavioral Aspect in Organizations
and Society, 1(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.32770/rbaos.vol145-56
Nadeak, B., Sasmoko, Iriani, U. E., Naibaho, L., Sormin, E., & Juwita, C. P. (2019). Building
Employees’ Mental Health: The Correlation between Transactional Leadership and
Training Program with Employees’ Work Motivation at XWJ Factory. Indian Journal of
Public Health Research and Development, 10(6), 1373–1379.
https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01489.X
Nunkoo, R., Ramkissoon, H., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Use of Structural Equation Modeling in
Tourism Research: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of Travel Research, 52(6), 759–
771. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287513478503
Pranitasari, D. (2020). The Influence of Effective Leadership and Organizational Trust to
Teacher’s Work Motivation and Organizational Commitment. Media Ekonomi Dan
Manajemen, 35(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.24856/mem.v35i1.1257
Pratheepkanth, P. (2011). Reward System And Its Impact On Employee Motivation In
Commercial Bank Of Sri Lanka Plc, In Jaffna District. Global Journal of Management and
Business Research, 11(4).
Safiullah, A. B. (2014). Impact of Rewards on Employee Motivation of the Telecommunication
Industry of Bangladesh: An Empirical Study. IOSR Journal of Business and Management,
16(12), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.9790/487x-161222230
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business. In Encyclopedia of Quality
of Life and Well-Being Research (Vol. 7). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-
5_102084
Wahyuni, N. P. D., Purwandari, D. A., & Syah, T. Y. R. (2019). Transactional Leadership ,
Motivation and Employee Performance. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic, 156–161.
Zafar, N., Ishaq, S., Shoukat, S., & Rizwan, M. (2014). Determinants of Employee Motivation
and its Impact on Knowledge Transfer and Job Satisfaction. International Journal of
Human Resource Studies, 4(3), 50. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v4i3.5874
Zareen, M., Razzaq, K., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2014). Impact of Transactional, Transformational
and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles on Motivation: A Quantitative Study of Banking
Employees in Pakistan. Public Organization Review, 15(4), 531–549.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-014-0287-6

Oda I.B. Hariyanto1 Haverina2 133