Keywords

Self Leadership, Intrinsic Motivation, Performance, Behavior Awareness, Self-Control

Introduction

The mandate of Law Number 5 of 2015 concerning State Civil Apparatus that in order to realize the state civil apparatus as part of bureaucratic reform, it is necessary to establish the state civil apparatus as a profession that must manage and develop itself and is obliged to be accountable for its performance and apply the principle of merit in the implementation of management State civil apparatus. However, there are still employees who are not entirely capable of directing and developing themselves towards achieving good performance. It can see from the fact that there are still employees who have not been able to formulate Employee Work Goals (SKP) because they do not have an adequate understanding of their main tasks and functions. This phenomenon indicates that there are still employees who do not have clear work performance targets to achieve. Also, for some employees, the job is only used as a work routine with specific predetermined targets, without any feedback for him as a means of evaluation and correction for improving future performance to exceed the predetermined targets. Clear and specific work goals will be an encouragement or challenge for employees to be more motivated to achieve these targets or goals. However, some employees do not have clear work targets, resulting in minimal motivation or motivation for them to work.

As performance of employees is predominantly influenced by self?leadership rather than by intrinsic motivation, so that an in-depth research needs to be done, especially in the context of state court employees. Hence, this research conducts in the General Court of Palangka Raya City, which consists of two work units: the Palangka Raya High Court and the Palangka Raya District Court. This observational study on the relationship between self?leadership, intrinsic motivation, and performance intended to analyze the influence of self?leadership and intrinsic motivation to performance and test the indirect effect of self ? leadership on performance through intrinsic motivation. Previous studies showed that self-leadership is an important influence on the behavior of a person who also uses perceptual control, which has a positive impact on his performance. Politis (2015) found that self-leadership encourages someone to be actively involved in analyzing the organizational environment and using their creativity to get a more productive way of doing a task or job. Ho & Nesbit (2014) found that self-leadership was positively and significantly related to performance. Employees who tend to engage in self-leadership strategies receive higher performance ratings from their supervisors and have high satisfaction with their jobs. This study is expected to provide information and material for consideration in the formulation of employee performance improvement policies.

Theoretical Basis And Hypothesis Development

Self-leadership explains that although external factors, including leadership, often influence a person's behavior, one's actions control internal forces rather than outside (Stewart et al., 2011). According to Manz and Sims (2001), individuals can release their need for supervision of their leaders through self-planning, self-direction, self-monitoring, and self-control, which will increase organizational effectiveness and organizational members' ability to learn (Mulyono, 2012). Self-leadership is the process of influencing oneself to build self-direction and self-motivation, which are necessary to produce good performance. Self-leadership is an important influence in the behavior of someone who also uses perceptions of control, which positively impacts their performance. Self-leadership involves the influence of a person in directing themselves to build self-motivation and independence, behave or act in the way they want (Prussia et al., 1998).

Politis (2015) stated that employees have control over them, direct themselves, and evaluate themselves to achieve the desired goals in their daily lives. Andressen et al. (2012), found that self-leadership is a factor that determines motivation. Self ? leadership can increase a person's motivation. Self-leadership has a role in determining the motivation for each individual. Intrinsically motivated people will look for better ways to do their job and find the strength and satisfaction in doing it well. Intrinsic motivation is an impulse that arises from within a person because he is involved in activities for himself and gets pleasure and satisfaction from his participation (Thomas, 2000; Rahmi, 2013). Cho and Perry (2014) found that intrinsic motivation was positively associated with employee satisfaction. The presence of intrinsic motivation increasingly enables a person to show more good work performance (Rahmi, 2013).

Regarding intrinsic motivation, according to Rahmi (2013), motivation is a desire in a person that causes that person to take action. Thus, motivation is an impulse that makes people want to work or act consciously. The encouragement of someone to direct and maintain behavior related to the work environment refers to work motivation. Umam (2010) identifies the main elements that give rise to a person's intrinsic motivation. Thomas (2000) explains that intrinsically motivated people to look for better ways to do their job and find strength and satisfaction in doing it well. The rewards subject get from intrinsic motivation come from the work itself, not from external factors, such as a raise or praise from the subject boss. Rahmi (2013) suggests that intrinsic motivation is an impulse that arises from within a person because he is involved in activities for himself and gets pleasure and satisfaction from his participation. The components of intrinsic motivation model described choice, competence, meaningful and progress. Choice is the opportunity to complete practical task activities and carry them out in an adequate manner. Competence is the perceived achievement when carrying out activities in a highly skilled manner. Meaningful is the opportunity to pursue a valued goal, the goal of which is the larger scheme. Progress is the feeling that meaningful strides have made in achieving the task objectives.

Lastly, performance is an abbreviation of work energy kinetics, which is equivalent in English, is performance. The performance also defines as the result of work or work performance. Performance is about doing the job and the results it achieves. Performance is about what do and how to do it ( Lestari, 2013). Government Regulation Number 58 of 2005 Article 1, paragraph 35 states that performance is the output/result of activities/programs that will be or achieve in connection with the budget with measurable quantity and quality.

From the description of the theoretical basis, the following hypothesis can be formulated:

H1: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

H2: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee intrinsic motivation.

H3: Intrinsic motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

H4: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee performance through intrinsic motivation.

Research Methods

This type of research is a descriptive study with a quantitative approach. This research design uses a descriptive research design view. The aim is to describe the effect of self-leadership on performance through intrinsic motivation. This research conduct in the General Court of Palangka Raya City, which consists of two work units: the Palangka Raya High Court and the Palangka Raya District Court. This study's populations were all employees who served in the work units of the Palangka Raya High Court and the Palangka Raya District Court. The entire population takes as a sample, namely all employees totaling 82 people, so this research is census research.

The independent variable in this study is self-leadership. The indicators used in this study refer to Houghton et al. (2012), namely 1(behavior ? awareness and volition, 2) task motivation, 3) constructive cognition.

The dependent variable in this study is employee performance. According to Chung / Megginson (Sugiyono, 2008; Anindrasari, 2016 ), several criteria are indicators for measuring performance, namely 1) Quantity of Work, 2) Quality of Work, 3) Job Knowledge, 4) Creativeness, 5) Cooperation.

The intermediate variable in this study is intrinsic motivation. The indicators used in this study refer to Kenneth Thomas (2000), namely 1) choice, 2) competence, 3) meaningful, 4) progress. The conceptual research framework show in Figure 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Respondents' Perceptions

Based on the mean value, an interpretation is made of the respondent's perception and refers to the three-box method (Ferdinand, 2014), then the range of 4.0 divided by three will produce a range of 1.3, which will use as the basis for the interpretation of the index value, namely as follows: 1.0 - 2.3 = Low; 2,4 - 3,7 = moderate; 3.8 - 5.0 = high. Furthermore, based on the criteria mentioned, the index of respondents' perceptions of the research variables was determined, namely: Self-Leadership (X), Intrinsic Motivation (Y1), and Employee Performance (Y2).

Table 1 about the average score of each indicator, shows that the indicators of Behavior-Awareness and Volition (X1) and Constructive Cognition (X3) are perceived as high by respondents where the score is> 3.8. Meanwhile, the indicator of Task Motivation (X2) was perceived as moderate by respondents, where the score was 3.3. The description of the respondents' perceptions illustrates that the General Courts employees in Palangka Raya City have a perception that their self-leadership is at a high level. This result means that employees have good abilities in managing and motivating themselves to perform well too. Behavior-awareness and volition and constructive cognition are the main factors in managing and motivating these employees. Meanwhile, task motivation perceives at the middle level in the process of managing and motivating employees.

Table 1 Description Of Respondents' Perceptions Of The Self-Leadership (X) Variable
Variable Indicators	Respondents' Answers Frequency (%)										Average Score
	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)		(5)
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
X1.1	0	0	2	3.0	9	13.6	40	60.6	15	22.7	4.03
X1.2	0	0	2	3.0	12	18.2	37	56.1	14	21.2	3.94
X1.3	0	0	2	3.0	8	12.1	40	60.6	16	24.2	4.06
X1	0	0	6	9	29	43.9	117	177.3	45	68.1
Behavior-Awareness and Volition (X1)	0	0.0	2	3.0	10	14.6	39	59.1	15	22.7	4.0
X2.1	3	4.5	11	16.7	19	28.8	24	36.4	9	13.6	3.38
X2.2	2	3.0	13	19.7	17	25.8	28	42.4	6	9.1	3.35
X2.3	3	4.5	11	16.7	26	39.4	19	28.8	7	10.6	3.24
X2	8	12	35	53.1	62	94	71	107.6	22	33.3
Task Motivation (X2)	3	4.0	12	17.7	21	31.3	24	35.9	7	11.1	3.3
X3.1	0	0	3	4.5	14	21.2	33	50.0	16	24.2	3.94
X3.2	0	0	4	6.1	12	18.2	35	53.0	15	22.7	3.92
X3	0	0	7	10.6	26	39.4	68	103	31	46.9
Constructive Cognition (X3)	0	0.0	4	5.3	13	19.7	34	51.5	16	23.5	3.9
X	1	1.3	6	8.7	15	21.9	32	48.8	13	19.1	3.8

Table 2 about the average score of each indicator, shows that meaningful indicators (Y1.3) and progress (Y1.4) are perceived as high by respondents where the score is ≥ 3.8. Meanwhile, the respondents perceived choice (Y1.1) and competency (Y1.2) as moderate, where the scores were 3.7 and 3.5, respectively.

Table 2  Description Of Respondents' Perceptions Of Intrinsic Motivation Variables (Y1)
Variable Indicators	Respondents' Answers Frequency (%)										Average Score
	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)		(5)
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
Y1.1.1	3	4.5	1	1.5	13	19.7	36	54.5	13	19.7	3.83
Y1.1.2	7	10.6	9	13.6	13	19.7	27	40.9	10	15.2	3.36
Y1.1.3	3	4.5	4	6.1	9	13.6	39	59.1	11	16.7	3.77
Y1.1	13	19.6	14	21.2	35	53	102	154.5	34	51.6
Option (Y1.1)	4	6.5	5	7.1	12	17.7	34	51.5	11	17.2	3.7
Y1.2.1	2	3.0	13	19.7	14	21.2	27	409	10	15.2	3.45
Y1.2.2	5	7.6	11	16.7	22	33.3	21	31.8	7	10.6	3.21
Y1.2.3	3	4.5	2	3.0	18	27.3	29	43.9	14	212	3.74
Y1.2	10	15.1	26	39.4	54	818	77	116.6	31	47
Competence (Y1.2)	3	5.0	9	13.1	18	27.3	26	38.9	10	15.7	3.5
Y1.3.1	2	3.0	0	0	10	15.2	36	54.5	18	27.3	4.03
Y1.3.2	1	1.5	2	3.0	14	21.2	32	48.6	17	25.8	3.94
Y1.3.3	10	15.2	15	22.7	11	16.7	19	28.8	11	16.7	3.09
Y1.3.4	1	1.5	5	7.6	18	27.3	32	48.5	10	15.2	3.68
Y1.3.5	1	1.5	4	6.1	7	10.6	27	40.9	27	40.9	414
Y1.3	15	22.7	26	39.4	60	91	146	221.,3	83	125.9
Full of meaning (Y1.3)	3	4.5	5	7.9	12	18.2	29	44.3	17	25.2	3.8
Y1.4.1	0	0	4	6.1	10	15.2	32	48.5	20	30.3	4.03
Y1.4.2	3	4.5	0	0	10	15.2	24	36.4	29	43.9	4.15
Y1.4.3	2	3.0	6	9.1	16	24.2	32	48.5	10	15.2	3.64
Y1.4.4	2	3.0	1	1.5	17	25.8	31	47.0	15	22.7	3.85
Y1.4	7	10.5	11	16.7	53	80.4	119	180.4	74	112.1
Progress (Y1.4)	2	2.6	3	4.2	13	20.1	30	45.1	19	28.0	3.9
Y1	3	4.7	6	8.1	14	20.8	30	45.0	14	21.5	3.7

The description of respondents' perceptions illustrates that the General Courts employees in Palangka Raya City have a perception that their intrinsic motivation is at a moderate or moderate level. This result means that employees have a reasonably good (moderate) level of intrinsic motivation. Meaningfulness and progress are the leading indicators that determine the level of employee motivation. Meanwhile, choice and competence perceive as intermediate or moderate in determining the intrinsic motivation level of employees.

Table 3 about the average score of each indicator, shows that the indicators of job knowledge (Y2.3), creativeness (Y2.4), and cooperation (Y2.5) were perceived as the highest by respondents where the score was> 3.8. Meanwhile, the indicators of quantity (Y2.1) and quality (Y2.2) perceive by respondents where the scores were 3.4 and 3.5, respectively.

Table 3 Description Of Respondents' Perceptions Of Employee Performance Variables (Y2)
Variable Indicators	Respondents' Answers Frequency (%)										Average Score
	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)		(5)
	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%	f	%
Y2.1.1	2	3.0	12	18.2	31	47.0	16	24.2	5	7.6	3.15
Y2.1.2	2	3.0	11	16.7	29	43.9	21	31.8	3	4.5	3.18
Y2.1.3	0	0	7	10.6	12	18.2	39	59.1	8	12.1	3.73
Y2.1	4	6	30	45.5	72	109.1	76	115.1	16	24.2
Quantity (Y2.1)	1	2.0	10	15.2	24	36.4	25	38.4	5	8.1	3.4
Y2.2.1	4	6.1	16	24.2	31	47.0	10	15.2	5	7.6	2.94
Y2.2.2	2	3.0	6	9.1	20	30.3	26	39.4	12	18.2	3.61
Y2.2.3	0	0	1	1..5	9	13.6	41	62.1	15	22.7	4.06
Y2.2	6	9.1	23	34.8	60	90.9	77	116.7	32	48.5
Quality (Y2.2)	2	3.0	8	11.6	20	30.3	26	38.9	11	16.2	3.5
Y2.3.1	2	3.0	1	1.5	14	21.2	34	51.5	15	22.7	3.89
Y2.3.2	2	3.0	2	3.0	15	22.7	36	54.5	11	16.7	3.79
Y2.3.3	0	0	2	3.0	10	15.2	45	68.2	9	13.6	3.92
Y2.3	4	6	5	7.5	39	59.1	115	174.2	35	53
Job Knowledge (Y2.3)	1	2.0	2	2.5	13	19.7	38	58.1	12	17.7	3.9
Y2.4.1	2	3.0	2	3.0	17	25.8	36	54.5	9	13.6	3.73
Y2.4.2	0	0	1	1.5	10	15.2	45	68.2	10	15.2	3.97
Y2.4.3	2	3.0	0	0	12	18.2	44	66.7	8	12.1	3.85
Y2.4	4	6	3	4.5	39	59.2	125	189.4	27	40.9
Creativeness (Y2.4)	1	2.0	1	1.5	13	19.7	42	63.1	9	13.6	3.9
Y2.5.1	6	9.1	3	4.5	15	22.7	32	48.5	10	15.2	3.56
Y2.5.2	0	0	1	1.5	8	12.1	41	62.1	16	24.2	4.09
Y2.5.3	0	0	2	3.0	11	16.7	34	51.5	19	28.8	4.06
Y2.5	6	9.1	6	9	34	51.5	107	162.1	45	68.2
Cooperation (Y2.5)	2	3.0	2	3.0	11	17.2	36	54.0	15	22.7	3.9
Y2	1	2.4	5	6.8	16	24.7	33	50.5	10	15.7	3.7

The description of respondents' perceptions illustrates that the General Courts employees in Palangka Raya City have a perception that their performance is at a moderate or moderate level. This result means that employees have a reasonably good (moderate) level of performance in carrying out their daily tasks and jobs. Knowledge and creativity at work and cooperation are the main factors that determine their performance. Meanwhile, the quality and quantity of work are perceived to be medium or moderate in determining their performance level.

Moreover, convergent validity calculation aims to determine instrument items that can use as indicators of all latent variables. Convergent validity means that a set of indicators represents one latent variable and the underlying latent variable. The convergent validity test results are measured based on the value of the loading factor (outer loading) of the latent indicator (construct). The convergent validity test results, which have an outer loading value below 0.50, are dropped from the model, and the analysis results of external loading can be seen in Table 4 below:

Table 4 Convergent Validity Test Results
Variable	Indicators	Outer Loadings			Information
		SL	MI	KP
X	SL1	0,845			Valid
	SL2	0,801			Valid
	SL3	0,852			Valid
	SL4	0,722			Valid
	SL5	0,756			Valid
	SL6	0,687			Valid
	SL7	0,683			Valid
	SL8	0,749			Valid
Y1	MI1		0,742		Valid
	MI3		0,533		Valid
	MI4		0,656		Valid
	MI5		0,604		Valid
	MI6		0,697		Valid
	MI7		0,743		Valid
	MI8		0,740		Valid
	MI10		0,667		Valid
	MI12		0,691		Valid
	MI13		0,819		Valid
	MI14		0,795		Valid
	MI15		0,772		Valid
Y2	PF2			0,525	Valid
	PF3			0,528	Valid
	PF4			0,535	Valid
	PF5			0,660	Valid
	PF6			0,689	Valid
	PF7			0,861	Valid
	PF8			0,823	Valid
	PF9			0,659	Valid
	PF10			0,880	Valid
	PF11			0,781	Valid
	PF12			0,795	Valid
	PF14			0,753	Valid
	PF15			0,722	Valid

Table 4 shows that outer loading has a value above 0.50 so that the indicator is valid or has met the criteria for convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

As to measure discriminant validity, measurement of reflective indicators by comparing each construct's AVE value, with the correlation between other constructs in the model. In this regard, it recommends that the measurement value should be greater than 0.50. The results of discriminant validity testing can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5 Results Of Discriminant Validity Testing
Variable	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Self-Leadership (X)	0,584
Intrinsic Motivation (Y1)	0,503
Performance (Y2)	0,522

Table 5 shows that the results of the discriminant validity test have an AVE value above 0.50. It can conclude that this measure meets the requirements for discriminant validity.

Composite Reliability

Composite reliability aims to test the reliability of the instrument in a research model. The results of testing composite reliability can be seen in Table 6 below:

Table 6 shows that the results of testing composite reliability have a value of> 0.70. So that all latent variables are reliable.

Table 6 Composite Reliability Test Results
Variable	Composite Reliability
Self-Leadership (X)	0.918
Intrinsic Motivation (Y1)	0.923
Performance (Y2)	0.932

Structural Model Measurement

After the estimated model meets the Outer Model criteria, the next step is testing the structural model (Inner Model). The Goodness of Fit test for the structural model uses the predictive ? relevance (Q2) value. The R² value of endogenous latent variables can be seen in Table 7 as follows:

Table 7 Endogenous Variable R2 Value
Endogenous Variables	Composite Reliability
Intrinsic Motivation (Y1)	0.709
Performance (Y2)	0.628

The following formula obtains the predictive ? relevance value:

Q2=1-(1-R2) (1-R2)

Q2 = 1 - (1 - 0.709) (1 - 0.628)

Q2=0.892.

The results of the calculations show the predictive ? relevance value of 0.892. This result shows that the Self-Leadership explains 89.2% of the Employee Performance variable variation and Intrinsic Motivation variables, other factors outside the model explain the remaining 10.8%. Hypothesis test.

Hypothesis testing uses the t-test (t-test) on each path of influence between endogenous and exogenous variables

H₁: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

The test results on the parameter coefficient between self-leadership and employee performance showed a path coefficient value of 0.554. This result means that self-leadership has a positive contribution of 55.4% to employee performance. With an at-statistic value of 3.861, it is significant at a P-value of 0.000. The t-statistic value is greater than the t-table (0.2042); thus, the first hypothesis (H1) can accept.

H₂: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee intrinsic motivation.

The test results on the parameter coefficient between self-leadership and employees' intrinsic motivation showed a path coefficient value of 0.793. This result means that self-leadership has a positive contribution of 79.3% to employees' intrinsic motivation. With an at-statistic value of 13.375, it is significant at a P-value of 0.000. The t-statistic value is greater than the t-table (0.2042). Thus the second hypothesis (H2) can be accepted.

H₃: Intrinsic motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance.

The test results on the parameter coefficient between intrinsic motivation and employee performance show the path coefficient value of 0.332. This result means that intrinsic motivation contributes positively to 33.2% to employee performance. With the t-statistic value of 2.335, it is significant at a P-value of 020. The t-statistic value is greater than the t-table (0, 2042). Thus the third hypothesis (H3) can be accepted.

H₄: Self-leadership has a positive and significant effect on employee performance through intrinsic motivation.

With an at-statistic value of 2.133, it is significant at a P-value of 0.033. The t-statistic value is greater than the t-table (0.1986), so the fourth hypothesis (H4) can be accepted. The path coefficient of the indirect effect of self-leadership on employee performance through intrinsic motivation is 0.263. This value is smaller than the coefficient of direct self-leadership influence on employee performance, which is 0.554.

The results confirm that self?leadership has a significant influence on employee performance in the General Courts of Palangka Raya City. The results of this study support the theory put forward by Tambunan (2006 ), which states that self-leadership is a process of influencing oneself to build self-direction and self-motivation, which is needed to produce a good performance. The results also showed that self-leadership has a significant influence on employees' intrinsic motivation in the General Court of Palangka Raya City. The results of this study support the theory put forward by Prussia et al. (1998), who argues that self-leadership involves the influence of a person in directing themselves to build self-motivation and independence, behave or act in the way they want.

Intrinsic motivation has a significant influence on employee performance in the General Courts of Palangka Raya City. The results of this study support the theories that have forward previously. A person's performance can influence psychological factors, including motivational factors ( Umam, 2010). There is a significant effect of intrinsic motivation on performance (Rogstadius et al., 2011). Giesbers et al. (2013) found that intrinsic motivation was positively related to performance or performance. Self-leadership has a significant effect on employee performance through employees' intrinsic motivation in the General Court of Palangka Raya City. The results of this study support the findings of previous studies. Prussia et al., (1998) found that self-leadership has a positive influence on motivation variables. Motivational aspects mediate the relationship between self-leadership and performance. et al. (2012)found that motivational variables have a mediating effect on the relationship between self-leadership and performance.

Conclusion

The results showed that self-leadership of employees in the Palangkaraya City Regional General Court is already good. It can be maintained and even improved. Efforts to maintain self-leadership can make by encouraging every employee to always be proactive in developing and managing themselves and building self-confidence and optimism at work.

The intrinsic motivation of employees in the Palangkaraya City Regional General Court is quite good but still needs improvement. Efforts to increase employee intrinsic motivation can provide security guarantees in working equally to all employees, providing an adequate understanding of the objectives to be achieved from the tasks and work performed, increasing transparency of agency policies, and providing rewards following the competencies owned by employees. The performance is also quite good but still needs improvement. Efforts that can make are to encourage employees to perform more effectively and efficiently to exceed the predetermined standards and the need for an adequate performance appraisal system that can accommodate the components of knowledge, creativity, and cooperation in working as a measure. Given that currently, it still uses a performance appraisal system that only emphasizes work performance (quantity and quality), as stated in the Employee Work Goals (SKP).

For further research, additional data collection is required, such as interviews with respondents, to ensure that the questionnaire's statement items can be understood well by the respondents. It is necessary to develop research instruments adjusted to the conditions and environment of the object to be studied.

References

Andressen, P., Konradt, U., & Neck, C.P. (2012). The relation between self-leadership and transformational leadership: Competing models and the moderating role of virtuality. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 68-82.

Anindrasari. (2016) Pengaruh Stres Kerja terhadap Kinerja Pegawai Melalui Kepuasan Kerja Sebagai Variabel Intervening (Studi Kasus Pada Koordinator Statistik Kecamatan BPS Provinsi Sulawesi Barat). Masters thesis, Universitas Terbuka.

Cho, Y.J., & Perry, J.L. (2012). Intrinsic motivation and employee attitudes: Role of managerial trustworthiness, goal directedness, and extrinsic reward expectancy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 32(4), 382-406.

ahref="https://digilib.ubd.ac.id/index.php?p=show_detail&id=6617&keywords=" target="_blank">Ferdinand, A. (2014). Pedoman Penelitian Untuk Penulisan Skripsi Tesis dan Disertasi Ilmu Manajemen: Metode Penelitian Manajemen. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro

Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2013). Investigating the relations between motivation, tool use, participation, and performance in an e-learning course using web-videoconferencing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 285-292.

Ho, J., & Nesbit, P.L. (2014). Self-leadership in a Chinese context: Work outcomes and the moderating role of job autonomy. Group & Organization Management, 39(4), 389-415.

Houghton, J.D., Dawley, D., & DiLiello, T.C. (2012). The abbreviated self-leadership questionnaire (ASLQ): A more concise measure of self-leadership. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(2), 216-232.

Lestari, S. (2013). Kepuasan Kerja dan Motivasi Kerja dengan Kinerja Pustakawan pada Perpustakaan Perguruan Tinggi di Yogyakarta (Studi pada Perpustakaan UIN Sunan Kalijaga dan Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta). Master Thesis. Program Pascasarjana UN Kalijaga. Yogyakarta.

Manz, C.C., & Sims, H.P. (2001). The new superleadership: Leading others to lead themselves. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Mulyono, F. (2012). Self Leadership: sebuah Pendekatan. Bina Ekonomi, 16(1).

Politis, J.D. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation, creativity, and productivity: The influence of self-leadership strategies. Management, 3(7-8), 203-213

Prussia, G.E., Anderson, J.S., & Manz, C.C. (1998). Self-leadership and performance outcomes: the mediating influence of self-efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 19(5), 523-538.

Rahmi, E.R. (2013). Hubungan antara Motivasi Intrinsik dan Self-Efficacy dengan Keterlibatan Kerja pada Karyawan Bagian Konveksi PT Dan Liris Sukoharjo. Undergraduate thesis, Universitas Sebelas Maret

Rogstadius, J., Kostakos, V., Kittur, A., Smus, B., Laredo, J., & Vukovic, M. (2011, July). An assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on task performance in crowdsourcing markets. In Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.

Stewart, G.L., Courtright, S.H., & Manz, C.C. (2011). Self-leadership: A multilevel review. Journal of management, 37(1), 185-222.

Sugiyono. (2008). Metode penelitian pendidikan:(pendekatan kuantitatif, kualitatif dan R & D). Bandung: Alfabeta.

Tambunan, D.B. (2006). Analisis Hubungan Self-Leadership terhadap Keberhasilan Kerja Dimediasi oleh Self Efficacy. Surabaya: Universitas Ciputra.

Thomas, K.W. (2000). Intrinsic motivation at work: Building energy & commitment. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Umam, K. (2010). Perilaku Organisasi. Jakarta: Pustaka Setia.