RELATIONSHIP OF SELF-EFFICACY TO IMPROVING EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A STUDY IN MEDAN CITY

To form a superior organization, it is necessary to place employees as the main supporting factor for success. This is because employees are the spearhead of implementing organizational activities to be able to achieve goals effectively. The work behavior of employees who are oriented towards high performance will be directly proportional to organizational goals. This article provides a discussion on aspects of the role of motivation as a mediating variable. The antecedent variables of motivation are leadership style, work environment, and self-efficacy. Meanwhile, the motivational consequence variable is employee performance. The sample of this re search totaling 242 employees from 6 (six) financial companies in Medan City. Sampling method, using a purposive sampling technique. Data analysis, using path analysis with the help of Lisrel. The results showed that motivation was proven to play a mediating role in influencing employee performance t -count 8.93 ≥ 1.96.


INTRODUCTION
The support given by employees to the organization is the essential part of creating organizational progress (Aarabi et al., 2013). Th is is because employees are the organization's greatest asset that plays an essential role in advancing and improving organizational quality (Spencer, 1994) and a source of strategic advantage (Wright & Snell, 1998). Therefore, many organizations focus on exploiting the capabilities of employees. Rue and Byars (2004) define employee performance as the level of employee ability to do work.
In addition, employee performance is defined as a form of behavior to achieve organizational goals (McCloy et al., 1994) . Another different opinion defines employee performance as the results achieved by employees in carrying out the work carried out efficiently and effectively (Lawler, 1967). Therefore, organizations need to know the abilities of their employees so that they can be appropriately managed, which in turn is aligned with the overall organizational strategy (Boxall & Purcell, 2011).
The performance produced by employees is directly proportional to organizational performance (Kleinknecht et al., 2014;Vosloban, 2012). Beach and Beach (1985) state that the organization is a system where a structure and planning are formed that runs and is carried out with full awareness. In the end, with this awareness, form a working relationship based on coordinated ways, cooperate and encourage each other to achieve the shared goals that have been set.
Several previous studies stated that motivation as a driver of employees has high performance (Golembiewski, 1973;Meyer & Allen, 1991;SUMA & BUDI, 2021). Omollo and Oloko (2015) say that motivation is the key to an organization's success to survive and develop. In simple terms, it can be said that employee motivation is a description of the energy level, commitment, and creativity of employees at work. Grant (2008) said that motivated employees are performance and productivityoriented, actively involved in work, and are willing to take responsibility (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2009).
On the other hand, Kelly (2004) says motivation is related to the forces that influence and maintain the quality and intensity of behavior. Roberts (2005) states that motivation is the basis for forming one's behavior at work and making decisions in acting (Pinder, 2014). Therefore, motivational factors are essential for employees to encourage effectiveness in doing work (Locke & Latham, 2004). Thus, it is expected that the effectiveness of the work can improve the organization's ability to compete (Baron et al., 1996).
This article provides a discussion of employee motivation to work in financial organizations. The subjects of this research are employees who work in 6 banking organizations in Medan City, Indonesia. The current problem is the change in work responsibilities experienced during the COVID -19 pandemic. At this time, the impact of COVID-19 is causing problems in the community's economic sector. As a result of this, many credit loan customers have difficulty paying credit.
In addition, the impact of covid -19 has created fear in financial organizations in providing credit to the public. To stabilize thei r finances, many organizations have reduced employees, especially in the marketing department. The consequences of these actions are demanding other employees to do work that is not their responsibility.
Several previous studies provide a variety of antecedents that can affect employee performance. In their research, Biswas and Varma (2012)  This study provides a study of predictors of employee performance using three independent variables (leadership st yle, work environment, self-efficacy) and one mediating variable (motivation). The novelty in this research is to provide a joint study of self-efficacy variables as predictors of employee performance.
At this time, achieving organizational excellence requ ires an influential role of leadership (Pinto & Slevin, 1988). Crawford (2000) states that the competence of a leader has an impact on the organization. Müller and Turner (2010) state that successful leaders can combine technical knowledge and management skills, and leadership skills (Pinto & Slevin, 1988;Zimmerer & Yasin, 1998). House and Mitchell (1975) state that leadership style is measured by the responses shown by subordinates to aspects of subordinate satisfaction, attitude expectations, and practic al performance expectations (Negron, 2008). Therefore, Indvik (1986) mentions that leadership style functions to support, involve, and provide structure to subordinates to achieve organizational goals. The influence of leadership style on organizational success has become a controversial issue. This is because there are still differences of opinion in formulating the impact of leadership style. Ahrendts (2013) said that Burberry's business leadership style had increased income up to five times. However, Tosi et al. (2004) said that placing a superstar leader does not impact increasing business, and on the contrary, it causes high salary expenses.

LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 2.1. Leadership Style, Motivation and Performance
Northouse (2014) explains that leadership is a person's ability to persuade others to behave following work goals. Northouse (2016) says leadership is a process in which a person can influence a group of people to achieve a common goal. Today, leaders do not just rely on power to persuade employees to do what they are told. However, they are interested in interacting with subordinates or enhancing and extending the interests of their subordinates (Northouse, 2016).
Several previous studies gave different results about the effect of leadership style on performance through motivation. Research shows the significant impact of leadership style on employee performance through motivation (Guterresa et al., 2020;Turang, 2015). However, other research shows no leadership style influences performance through motivation (Handoyo, 2015;Mendoza et al., 2018 ).

Work Environment, Motivation and Performance
Magnusson (1981) says that environmental factors can impact employees' psychological perceptions at work (Caplan, 1987). Blumberg and Pringle (1982 ) say that the environment impacts employee work behavior (Kyriakidou & Ozbilgin, 2004;Olson & Borman, 1989). Guchait and Cho (2010) stated that almost 80% of employees choose a job because of the work environment. Therefore, organizations need to create a conducive and supportive work environment (Ghosh & Sahney, 2011).
Based on the results of previous research, it is explained that the environmental impact on employee performance gives different results. Several studies have shown a significant effect o f the work environment on performance through motivation (Badrianto & Ekhsan, 2019;Parashakti et al., 2020;Sri Rahardjo, 2014 Bandura (1977) says that selfconcept reflects a person's beliefs about his ability to carry out an activity. Bandura (2000) explained that this belief arises from feeling, thinking, self-motivated, and behaving. Baron and Byrne (1987) say self-efficacy is a person's evaluation of his ability to carry out an activity, achieve goals and overcome obstacles. Bandura and Wood (1989) mention that selfefficacy is related to beliefs that encourage the emergence of motivation, cognitive abilities, and actions to achieve goals.

Self Efficacy, Motivation and Performance
Research on the impact of selfefficacy on employee performance through motivation shows a significant relationship (Cherian & Jacob, 2013;Lunenburg, 2011;Na -Nan & Sanamthong, 2019) . Meanwhile, several other studies show a significant relationship between self-efficacy and employee performance (Carter et al., 2018;Raub & Liao, 2012) .

Motivation and Performance
The word motivation comes from the Latin word "movere," which is defined as an urge to "move" (Luthans, 2002). Therefore, motivation can be interpreted as an impetus to carry out an activity. Luthans et al. (1995) state that the basis for understanding motivation lies in its meaning, namely the relationship between needs, encouragement, and rewards. Therefore, motivation is considered a process that begins with a physiological need that gives rise to achieving goals. Robbins and Judge (2012) define motivation as a driver of behavior that forms the intensity, direction, and effort to achieve goals.

Hypothesis
This research was conducted using Structural Equation Model (SEM) data analysis. The analysis carried out is to examine the direct and indirect impacts. Direct testing aims to determine the impact of the variables of leadership style, work environment, and self-efficacy on employee performance. In comparison, the indirect test to determine the role of motivational variables as a mediation. So, the hypothesis in this study :

H1:
Leadership style has a significant effect on motivation. H2: The work environment has a significant effect on motivation. H3: Self-efficacy has a significant effect on motivation. H4: Motivation has a signifi cant effect on employee performance.

H5:
Leadership style has a significant effect on employee performance. H6: The work environment has a significant effect on employee performance. H7: Self-efficacy has a significant effect on employee performance.

Research Sample
This research is explanatory. Sekaran (2011) said that explanatory research aims to test theories in strengthening or rejecting existing research results. Data col lection is carried out primarily in the form of providing surveys/questionnaires to respondents. Survey activity aims to obtain data from research respondents.
The sample of this study was collected from 242 employees of the marketing department who work in 6 (six) private banks in Medan City. Marketing work activities are by finding new customers, supervising customer payment portfolios. The job responsibilities were carried out before the COVID -19 pandemic hit the world.
However, after the Covid -19 pandemic, their responsibilities were more in monitoring customer payments-determination of the research sample, using a nonprobability sampling approach. Nonprobability sampling is a sampling technique that is not based on equal opportunities (Sugiyono,201 5).
The selection of respondents as a sample was carried out by the purposive sampling method. Sekaran and Bougie (2016) say the purposive sampling method selects samples based on criteria determined by the author himself. The criteria determined are the marketing department, a minimum working period of 12 months, permanent employee status, and being willing to be a respondent.

Measure
The respondent's answer size scale technique uses a 5 -point Likert scale, from a scale of 5 (strongly agree) to 1 (stro ngly disagree). The leadership style variable consists of 5 indicators, which is a modification of the opinion of Avolio and Gardner (2005). These indicators have an inspiring vision, support for employees, employee supervision, decision making, leadership ability. Meanwhile, the work environment variable consists of 4 (four) indicators that modify the opinion of Roca and Searcy (2012).
The indicators are work facilities, salary, training, and job security. The indicator of selfefficacy variable is a modif ication of the opinion of Smith and Betz (2000). The indicators are confidence in completing work, trying hard, being persistent, facing obstacles, solving problems, and adapting. The indicator for the motivation variable, consisting of 4 (four) indicators , is a modification of the opinion of Robbins et al. (2009

Validity and Reliability Test
To test the theoretical construct, confirmatory factor analysis was carried out. Confirmatory factor analysis aims to test the dimensional analysis of variables. This analysis examines variable indicators to see the impact of indicators in shaping both exogenous and endogenous variables. Hair et al. (2006) stated that the latent variable (construct) has indicators that generally provide a reliable influence. The following are the results of the validity and reliability of the indicators for each variable.  Table  1 shows that the indicators of motivation and performance variables have a data loading factor < 0.5. Therefore, indicator two on the motivation variable is omitted. The same thing was also done on the indicators of 5 performance variables. After the two invalid indicators are removed, a reliability test is carried out with a value > 0.7.

Hypothesis Testing
Before testing the hypothesis, the model fit test is first perfo rmed. Based on the test results, it was found that the model met the requirements as a fit model. Hypothesis testing in this study, using a structural model by looking at the parameter values of the path coefficients of the relationship between latent vari ables. The following shows the results of the path relationship hypothesis test .
Based on the structural analysis above (figure 1), the hypothesis testing of this study was carried out in 2 (two) stages. The first stage is to test the direct effect of exog enous variables on endogenous variables. Then the second test was conducted to determine the effect of the mediating variable. The results of hypothesis testing obtained the equation:  After obtaining the results of the above equation, it can be concluded that the t -count value of H1 -2.37 1.96 so that there is a significant influence of leadership style on motivation. In other words, H1 is accepted. The results of hypothesis testing for H2 obtained a t-count value of 1.08 < 1.96, so that hypothesis 2 is rejected. In other words, there is no significant effect of work environment on motivation. In the H3 test, the t -count value is 3.42 1.96, it shows that there is a significant effect of self -efficacy on motivation.
This result causes hypothesis 3 to be accepted.

Discussion
The results of hypothesis testing show that leadership style affects employee motivation (H1). This result also agrees with Armstrong (2009) that leadership is related to managing other people. These results are also following the research of Guterresa et al. (2020) and Turang (2015). However, based on the results of hypothesis testing, it is known that the significance value is negative. This shows that, under current circumstances, the leadership role is instrumental in encouraging employee morale to work, even in St r at egi c M an ag em e nt B u si ne s s Jo ur n al eI SS N: 2 7 7 5 -6 5 7 2 . V o l. 0 1 , I ss u e. 1 Ju ne 2 0 2 1 © U P M I M a n a g e m e n t P u b l i s h S u b m i t : A p r i l , 21, 2 0 2 1 , R e v i s e d : M a y , 1 3 , 2 0 2 1 , A c c e p t e d : M a y , 30, 2 0 2 1 uncertain circumstances regarding job security. The results of hypothesis testing indicate that the work environment has no significant effect on motivation (H2). This result also confirms Magnusson's (1981) statement that the work environment can have a psychological impact on employees. The state of the COVID -19 pandemic has caused an uncertain work atmosphere, where there is a reduction in employees, reduced income, and increased workload, thus affecting employee behavior at work. These results are also following the research of Erawati et al. (2019).
Based on the results of hypothesis testing, the results obtained that self -efficacy has a significant effect on employee motivation (H3). In other words, self-efficacy forms a high belief that employees can do a good job (Bandura, 1977). These results are also consistent with the research results by Cherian and Jacob (2013) that self-efficacy increases employee motivation (Lunenburg, 2011).
The results of other hypothesis testing indicate that motivation has a significant effect on employee performance (H4). This shows that employee motivation encourages the formation of work behavior that leads to good work resu lts (Robbins & Judge, 2013). These results are also consistent with the results of previous studies that motivation produces good performance (Festiningtyas & Gilang, 2020;Gachengo & Wekesa, 2017;Muogbo, 2013;Shahzadi et al., 2014).
The research test results showed that leadership style had no significant effect on employee performance (H5). This shows that the applied leadership style does not directly increase performance. These results are following Handoyo's research (2015). Testing hypothesis 6 shows that work environment factors have a significant effect on employee performance (H6). This shows that the facilities provided by the organization to employees can improve employee performance. These results are following research conducted by .
The last test of hypothesis 7 shows that self-efficacy has a significant effect on increasing employee performance (H7). However, the results of the study produced a negative value. This shows that employee confidence in working creates a stigma of fear of the circumstances that will occur when employees face reductions. The results of this study are following research conducted by (Na -Nan & Sanamthong, 2020).

CONCLUSION
Based on the tests' results, it can be concluded that there is a need for a leadership style that can combine transformational and transactional styles in the current situation. This is because combining the two styles can encourage employees to be motivated in improving their performance. In addition, it is an essential part for leaders in encouraging employee self-efficacy at work. This is due to the high selfefficacy of employees in working to encourage the achievement of work results following organizational goals. The implication of this research shows that employee motivation needs to be maintained by the organization. In other words, employees who have high motivation have an impact on achieving high results. Employees who have high motivation at work provide strength for the organization to survive in today's uncertain circumstances.
The theoretical implication of this research shows that work environment factors directly impact improving employee performance. This study shows that the role of motivation as a mediating variable is proven to encourage employee performance. M eanwhile, this research cannot provide studies on private banking organizations without involving government (state) bank organizations. Preferably further research, it is necessary to discuss bank organizations, both private and public.