The Influence of Situational Leadership, Work Environment and Innovativeness on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in Elementary School

Emalia Rosellin Br Sembiring

Institute of Technology and Business Indonesia, Medan, North Sumatera, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: The study aims to identify the effect of Situational Leadership, Work Environment, and Innovativeness on teachers’ job satisfaction in Tigapanah Subdistrict, Karo District. The research uses the quantitative through Path Analysis model with 146 Teachers as respondents in 24 schools that located in Tigapanah Subdistrict. Google Form is used in this research to gather the data. before spread the questionnaire, Validity test and Reliability test is done beforehand. In analysis test, first step is the analysis requirements Test, it is containing normality test using Skewness and Kurtosius test and Linearity test. The findings in this research are the positive direct effect of Situational Leadership on Innovativeness, the Work Environment has positive direct effect on Innovativeness, there are the direct positive effect of Situational Leadership, Work Environment and Innovativeness on Teachers’ Job satisfaction in Tigapanah Subdistrict, Karo District. Situational Leadership and Work Environment have positive indirect effect on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction Through Innovativeness.

KEYWORDS: Situational Leadership, Work Environment, Innovativeness, Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

1. INTRODUCTION

The quality of education is related to how advanced a country is because education becomes one of the benchmarks of success of one country, the better the education, the more advanced the country and achieve quality education influenced by various components and one of the determining components is teachers (Sembiring and Purba, 2019: 65; Maqbool, 2017:180). The teacher’s job is not only as an educator but also as an instructor, and coach for students, as well as an agent of social change that can affect students’ mindsets, attitudes, and behaviors to get better, and is expected to help students have independent lives in the future (Crawford, 2018:2; Sembiring and Purba, 2019:66).  The teacher is fully the determinant of student success where the influence of the teacher is very significant on the success of the student, but it can only be achieved if the teacher is constantly updating the skills or abilities needed to be able to carry out better learning (Deporter, Reardon and Nourie, 2014: 41).

1. INTRODUCTION

The quality of education is related to how advanced a country is because education becomes one of the benchmarks of success of one country, the better the education, the more advanced the country and achieve quality education influenced by various components and one of the determining components is teachers (Sembiring and Purba, 2019: 65; Maqbool, 2017:180). The teacher’s job is not only as an educator but also as an instructor, and coach for students, as well as an agent of social change that can affect students’ mindsets, attitudes, and behaviors to get better, and is expected to help students have independent lives in the future (Crawford, 2018:2; Sembiring and Purba, 2019:66).  The teacher is fully the determinant of student success where the influence of the teacher is very significant on the success of the student, but it can only be achieved if the teacher is constantly updating the skills or abilities needed to be able to carry out better learning (Deporter, Reardon and Nourie, 2014: 41).

In the process of ending the ability of teachers, of course, must be balanced with various policies and conditions that will encourage teachers to continue to progress and develop. The imbalance between job demands and supportive policies is concerned that it will be counterproductive in relation to teacher job satisfaction which affects their behavior at their jobs and the “imbalance” between teachers. The expectations to be achieved and the results that have been achieved seem to have become a phenomenon that often occurs.

The level of primary school teacher education based on The Ministry, Education, Research and Technology Indonesia data has met the criteria of the National Standard of Education (The Ministry, Education, Research and Technology/ Kemendikbud, 2018: 112). The total number of elementary teachers in Indonesia amounted to 1,602,857 with the Bachelor and above is 1,416,198 or 88.35% and only 186,659 or 11.65% of teachers in Indonesia who have not up to bachelor’s degree. The quality of teachers reviewed from the level of education will ideally be able to produce outstanding students. The quality of teacher education level is in fact still inversely proportional to the learning outcomes of children in Indonesia. Based on the results of the International Student Assessment Program (PISA, 2018: 6) proves the ability of Indonesian children is still below the average of only getting 400 points in the categories of reading, mathematics and science compared to other countries such as Malaysia gets 450 points, Thailand 420 points and Singapore as one of the best performances in the education system scored above 550 points.

The phenomena on of “imbalance” between expectations and results that have been given by teachers can certainly be a measure of their job satisfaction because job satisfaction refers to the general attitude of individuals towards their work. A person who has a high level of job satisfaction has a positive attitude towards the job and will give all their ability towards the job, while a person who is dissatisfied with his work holds a negative attitude towards work and will be reluctant to do his job well (Robbins and Timothy, 2007: 85). Job satisfaction is the perception, attitude, and emotional response of workers to work (Ambarita, Purba, and Ambarita, 2016: 130). Emotional responses can be positive, negative, happy, and unhappy when exerting all skills for work or work only for routine purposes. Job satisfaction refers to a simple feeling about work, like being happy with work, believing that work is meaningful and being satisfied with work (Adil and Kamal, 2016:80; Burusic, 2019:2; Maqbool, 2017:184).

The problem of job satisfaction became a hot issue in the elementary school education environment in Tigapanah Subdistrict, Karo Regency. Total Elementary Schools in Tigapanah District are 24 schools with 230 teachers teaching in the district. The conclusion of the interview results from the Principal in Tigapanah District is that the teacher does not concentrate on his teacher’s work and chooses to work part-time in addition to being a teacher as much as 85%. Teachers who work in Public and Private Elementary Schools decided to quit their jobs and choose other jobs as much as 10%. The problem of teachers like “Gossip” is still the biggest problem in the school environment in Tigapanah District. The high culture of groups between teachers in the school makes the intake of whiteness often constrained because it has been created camps.

After a field survey was found that factors that resulted in job satisfaction problems occurred in Tigapanah Subdistrict. First, the lack of school comfort that result in teachers not being consulted to teach. A good work environment will generate positive energy for teachers, increase concentration and focus on their work, and create new ideas for their teaching and learning processes (Sembiring and Purba, 2019:77; Anila dan Krisnaveni, 2016:342; Luthan, 2011:141). The role of the environment in organizations is so broad, or it can be simplified that through a learning environment, conditions are created for teachers to promote potential and maximize learning and on learning. In turn, the work environment improves personal and organizational development (Gill, Rodrigo and Bellido, 2018:703). A good work environment will create members who can generate creative ideas in educating children, helping them in thinking well by creating good emotions for educators (Deporter, Reardon and Nourie, 2014:49).

Leadership styles that are not in accordance with members can result in a decrease in morale (Luthan, 2011: 143), supervisors / superiors entered into the highest indicators in member job satisfaction, where high pressure can decrease morale and complain more (Robbins dan Timothy, 2007:19).Situational leadership is one of the flexible leadership styles in every situation and the style used differently in dealing with each member (Brett, Branstetter and Wagner, 2014: 363) because humans are created with their own uniqueness and view everything differently, so it is important to pay attention to the way in directing and supporting each member because the way of directing each member is also different (Luthan, 2011: 142).

The lack of job satisfaction of teachers is also affected by weak innovativeness in teachers. Research of factors that make people satisfied with their work include conformity with their interests, the prestige attached to the work, and the innovativeness of a person. An innovative person is more likely to gain a higher level of satisfaction compared to a non-innovative person. Innovativeness makes a person see things in new ways, create new ideas and discover new things from things or things that already exist. Lack of innovativeness in the teacher makes the students not experiencing development. Lack of innovation or innovation behavior in teachers is certainly a question for leaders because when viewed from explanations and data that exist inversely proportional to expectations and reality (Deporter, Reardon, dan Nourie, 2014: 35).

Based on the explanation above, the researchers examined the job satisfaction of teachers in Indonesia by using the aforementioned variables and the following objectives:

1. To find out the relationships of Situational leadership and work environment toward innovativeness among teachers
2. To investigate the relationship among variables such as situational leadership, work environment and innovativeness toward teachers’ job satisfaction
3. To know the indirect relationship between situational leadership and work environment toward teachers’ job satisfaction through innovativeness.

Through the research objectives above, it is expected that this research can provide answers to teachers’ job satisfaction and also the issues why teachers cannot perform well in improving their job performance.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction because of employees’ perceptions of how well they work and how their results are seen as important (Luthan, 2011: 141). Job satisfaction is something that is difficult to explain, but simply job satisfaction is a person’s attitude towards his work where it reflects feelings of pleasure or unpleasantness based on existing circumstances (Ambarita, Purba, and Ambarita, 2016: 129). “Job satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (Colquitt, LePine, and Wesson, 2013:98) in other words, job satisfaction is closely related to feelings about the job a person is doing, which will lead to the attitude of a person towards his work. Where attitude or attitude can be defined as individual’s feelings about or inclinations towards other persons, objects, events, or activities (Kondalkar, 2007:84). Low job satisfaction is the cause of the current teaching crisis, in addition, it is positively correlated with job performance, and schools that have a high level of job satisfaction with their teachers will instill a higher and more successful level of education in students (Crisci, Sepe, and Malafronte, 2018: 2403). A person with a high level of job satisfaction will produce a positive attitude towards his job and will produce a negative attitude towards his job if the level of job satisfaction is low (Ambarita, Purba, and Ambarita, 2016: 131). Indicators that affect a person’s job satisfaction (Luthan, 2011:98; Al-edenat, 2018:817; Colquitt, LePine and Weson, 2013:99), among others are as follows salary, environment, supervisor, teamwork, and work itself. Job satisfaction is one of the main reasons for creating a healthy organizational environment. When they are happy with their work, members tend to work harder and perform better (Sadaghi, Amani and Mahmudi, 2013:688).

 2.2 Situational Leadership

Leadership is one of the keys to the success of an organization because it is directly related to human resources which as a driver in determining the success and failure of the goals of an organization (Sutton, 2004: 1; Nusair, Ababnesh and Bae, 2012:182). Leadership is a leader who uses strategies and tips in leading his members in working well to achieve the goals that have been set (Sopiah, 2018: 123). Leadership is an idealized leader developing a vision among followers based on humanistic values and fairness, behaviors that make subordinates feel valued and empowered (Gashema, 2019:147; Thomson dan Glaso, 2018:575). Situational leadership approach is the most flexible leadership style currently where a situational leadership approach describes a manager as having the power to delegate, support, train, or direct.  Situational leadership can be described as the inter-relation between the task behavior (that is, giving instruction, direction, guidance, and the relationship behavior), listening, support, and value (Elaine, 2019:31) This model makes the situational Leadership Approach the most dynamic. Ken Blancard (2013:1) explains Situational Leadership II (SLII) is a model for developing abilities on specific goals or tasks.

SLII is based on the relationship between the level of development (competence and commitment) to a particular goal or task and the leadership style (direction and support) that the leader provides. Situational leadership II is based on the interaction between 1. the amount of guidance and direction that a leader gives to subordinates, 2. The amount of emotional social support that the leader provides to members and 3. the level of readiness that followers show in performing certain tasks (Ken Blancard, 1988: 140). A good leader is a leader who has characteristics where he can adjust himself in all situations he faces (Ambarita, Purba, and Ambarita, 2016: 66). In situational leadership, leaders determine the most effective leadership style for a particular employee, based on the level of development and needs of each member (Irby, 2011:7; Hartono, 2018: 14; Elaine, 2019: 33). Two key behaviors are inherent in situational leadership, namely task behavior and relationship behavior-oriented leader behavior because it needs to be leadership development that aims to improve organizational effectiveness through instruments designed to measure the level of task orientation and the orientation of the leader’s relationship to members in order to build harmony through the maturity level of followers (McCleskey,  2014: 125).

2.3 Work Environment

The more satisfied people are in their work environment, the more likely they are to survive (Brett, Branstetter and Wagner, 2014:360; Wu, Ming, and Huang, 2019:1). A conducive work environment will certainly increase the enthusiasm of every teacher in the school. If the work environment is low and not conducive, then it directly affects their work. Schools that have good and bad environments will produce different performances (Manik and Syafrina, 2018: 158). Schools with a good work atmosphere will create better learning conditions (Burusic, 2019: 11).  A work environment is categorized as good if its members can work optimally, healthy, safe, and comfortable thus creating a conducive workplace that in turn can determine the success of an organization in achieving its goals (Luthan, 2011:142). If the work environment is not good, it will have a direct influence on their work. Poor work environments have been shown to be associated with reduced job satisfaction, absenteeism, complaining, fatigue, and depression. Thus, the work environment is the work atmosphere felt by teachers in their workplaces indicated by relationships with colleagues, relationships between subordinates and leaders and the availability of facilities and infrastructure (Rossberg, Eiring dan Friss, 2004:577; Luthan, 2011: 144; Anila dan Krisnaveni, 2016: 246). The work environment not only talks about buildings and facilities and the symbols that are in it, but coworkers or social relationships with coworkers also become one related to the work environment (Clegg, Martin, and Tyrone, 2016: 528).  In addition, leaders also become an internal part of a person’s work environment, where support is needed in creating security and peace in that environment.

2.4 Innovativeness

Innovativeness refers to bringing in new ideas and demonstrating creativity in developing new products and processes. This is an important component in high-performing organizations because it reflects the organization’s tendency to engage in the investigation of new phenomena and experiments; which leads to the development of new products (Nisar, Jabeen, and Sheikh, 2018: 52). Innovativeness is an attribute found in a person to assist in meeting the challenges facing the organization. He also explained that there are several phases in innovating (Stauffer, 2016: 20).

                               Fig. 1. Innovative Cycle

This theory asserts that the center of all types of innovation is a person’s Innovative cycle (Figure 1) which develops with the following explanation:

• Idea phase, in this phase the possibility of something new is generated
• The action stage in which the idea is implemented to determine whether the idea is likely to work
• Reality stage, at this stage the larger environment determines whether the idea is likely to succeed or fail; and
• Feedback phase where feedback is evaluated and success is maintained and used to inform the next possible new idea and return to the idea phase.

Innovative people are individuals who use innovation as a tool to exploit change as an opportunity Factors that affect a person’s innovation (Al-edenat, 2018: 825 EiMeleggy etc., 2016: 95-98, Afsar and Badir, 2017:97), among others are motivation, support, Lack of organizational barriers, Adequate resources, Realistic workload pressure, Management practice, freedom, challenges.

2.5 Conceptual Framework

Maqbool (2017: 192) found a strong positive correlation exists between members who are quite satisfied with their work and satisfied with their leadership behavior, it will result in effectiveness in them so that innovating behavior (innovativeness) is born in them.  Creating a comfortable work environment today is to provide care and concern in an ideal work environment reinforces feelings of respect and reflects components of job satisfaction and caring (e.g., active listening, concern for personal needs and growth; openness to people-centered shared decision-making; situational understanding, and support through educating, performance coaching, role modeling, and support) (Brett, 2014:364; Hastituningsih, 2018:69). Luo and Shansi (2014:1731) found that only a leader who can act in various roles can adapt to a complex, dynamic, and competitive environment with a high level of effectiveness. Chen, Zhao, and Liu, 2012:167 Teachers who are highly integrated and self-sacrificing have higher job satisfaction and integrate positive behaviors related to innovative behavior, while avoiding negative behaviors associated with innovativeness.

From the explanation of theoretical studies and relevant among variables, the following research hypotheses are proposed:

1. Situational leadership has a positive direct influence on innovativeness.
2. Work environment has a positive influence on innovativeness.
3. Situational leadership has a positive influence on job satisfaction.
4. Work environment has a positive influence on job satisfaction.
5. Innovativeness has a positive influence on job satisfaction.
6. A positive indirect effect of situational leadership on job satisfaction through innovativeness
7. A positive indirect effect of work environment on job satisfaction through innovativeness

III.METHOD

3.1 Research Design

The method used in this study was a quantitative method in which researchers distribute questionnaires to teachers that consist of four parts, namely job satisfaction, situational leadership, work environment and innovativeness.

• Population and Sampling

The area of research of this study was done in Tigapanah District, North Sumatera, Indonesia. The population was defined as teachers from all the 24 Elementary schools with total of 230 teachers which come from various demographic background. Moreover, several samples Krejcie and Morgan tables were used in which obtained 146 teachers using the Proportional Simple Random Sampling technique.

• Instrumentation

The questionnaire was adopted from several previous research. For example, questionnaire by Luthan (2011) were adopted to measure job satisfaction, questionnaire by Ken Blanchard (2013) was adopted to measure Situational Leadership, and in measuring work environment, it was adopted from Hastitutiningsih, A. T. (2018). Moreover, the research by Stauffer (2016) was utilized to measure the innovativeness variable. The questionnaire was distributed to 24 elementary schools and finally a total of 146 were returned. The Likert scale was designed to measure the satisfaction level using the statement on the 5-point scale with anchors: 1= Very Satisfied, 2 = Satisfied, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Unsatisfied, 5 = Very Unsatisfied. Items for each Variable In this section, the respondents were asked to answer the questions which were divided into 4 sections: job satisfaction of 35 items, Situational leadership II of 28 items, work environment of 35 items and innovativeness of 28 items.

• Validity and Reliability

The internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha. A research variable was considered as reliable if the Cronbach’s Alpha value was equal or more than 0.5 (Sekaran, 2010) while for validity test, Pearson Correlation was used to obtain the validity of each item. SPSS 23 was utilized to test the validity and reliability of the analysis.

Table 1. Reliability Test

From the Reliability test, r critical value with Alpha 0.05, the items should be Alpha>0.361 to be said as reliable and the result of each Variable was reliable. The result of Cronbach’s Alpha for Job satisfaction with 35 items was at 0.9138, the value of Cronbach’s Alpha for situational leadership with 28 items was at 0.8711, the value of Cronbach’s Alpha for Work Environment with 35 items was at 0.8284 and the result of Cronbach’s Alpha for Innovativeness with 28 items was at 0.8803 and for Validity Test, The item is categorized as valid item if r count>r table (r count > 0.2268), the value of 126 items was valid because it had a value above 0.2284.

Table 2. Validity test for Job Satisfaction Variable

Table 3. Validity test for situational leadership II Variable

Table 4. Validity test for Work Environment Variable

Table 5. Validities test for Innovativeness Variable

3.5 Data Collection Procedure

Data collection was conducted by using a survey questionnaire to 24 elementary schools in Tigapanah District, North Sumatera Utara, Indonesia. Before distributing the questionnaire to the respondents, the researchers asked for permission from the Head of Education Office of Tanah Karo to conduct research. Then, the researchers asked for permission from the schools’ principal to distribute the questionnaire to the teachers and make a schedule for questionnaire completion. The respondents were asked to complete the provided questionnaires wherein each school was represented by 9-12 respondents.

3.6 Data analysis

This research used SPSS (V.23) in processing the data, started from validity test and reliability test on the research instruments. This software was also utilized in processing the results of the data for hypotheses testing, started from processing the results of normality test, linearity test and regression significant, following the hypotheses testing.

3.7 Finding

The teachers are the samples of this research and since the process of analysis have been done, to achieve the research objective and answer the hypotheses proposed, the following results are explained.

3.8 Hypotheses Testing

A Path analysis was conducted to answer the hypotheses in this study, so at first, the analysis test was carried out through normality test, linearity test and regression significance. Based on the calculation of the normality test, the following is the summary of the results from each variable.

Table 6. Normality Test

*C. V Critical Value

Based on the above data, Zkew and Zkert values ≤ 1.96 for all variables, so it can be concluded that the distribution of Situational Leadership (), work environment (), innovativeness () and job satisfaction () is normal distribution and for residual standardized skewness (0.015≤ 1.96) and Kurtosis (0.66≤ 1.96) so that the requirements of assuming the normality of the data have been met.

Table 7. Linearity Test

*WE: work environment, I: Innovativeness, JS: job satisfaction, SL: situational leadership

Based on Table 5, the linearity test obtained the Fh value with its significant value (sig.)> 0.05 while the regression significance test, and for regression meaningfulness tests all values are significant if Sig.< 0.05, meaning all forms of exogenous variable relationships with the endogenous variables above are linear and meaningful, so that the assumption of linearity and regression meaning is fulfilled.

Table 8. Bivariate Correlation Analysis

Correlations are significant, positive at a rate of 1 percent significance. Linearity therefore exists between situational leadership and the work environment (r=0.23,p=0.00), situational and innovative leadership (r=0.52,p=0.00), situational leadership and job satisfaction (r=0.53, p=0.00), work environment and innovativeness (r=0.50, p=0.00), work environment and job satisfaction (r=0.45, p=0.00), and innovativeness and job satisfaction (r=0.59,  p=0.00).

Table 9. Correlation of Indicators/Dimensions of Situational Leadership with Total Variable Score

Table 10. Correlation of Indicators/Dimensions of Work Environment with Total Variable Score

Table 11. Correlation of Indicators/Dimensions of Innovativeness with Total Variable Score

Table 12. Correlation of Indicators/Dimensions of job Satisfaction with Total Variable Score

The directing indicator of the Situational Leadership Variable has the highest value (r) which is 0.86, followed by the Selling indicator with a value (r) of 0.80 and followed by the Delegate indicator and the bottom indicator with a value of 0.60 is the participation indicator. Correlation per indicator to the total score of the work environment variable, the lighting indicator with the highest correlation (r) with the number 0.79, the second highest indicator that is color with a value of 0.77 and the indicator with the lowest correlation value is on the indicator of the relationship between superiors and subordinates with a value of 0.29. Variables from innovativeness have 4 indicators in this study, correlation values per indicator to the total score of the intelligence itself, motivational indicators have the highest correlation value with a total of 0.86, followed by knowledge indicators with correlation values (r) 0.84, then ability indicators of 0.82 and freedom indicators with total correlation values (r) 0.75.

Table 13. Findings for Research Hypotheses

*Significance correlation coefficient {t count>t table (5%) = 1,96} **p<0.05

Table 13 show first hypothesis is accepted (0.432>0.05, p<0.05), second hypothesis is accepted with 0.4101>0.05, p<0.05, the third and four hypotheses is also have accepted status with 0.325>0.05 and 0.226>0.05, p<0.05 and the fifth hypothesis is accepted (0.306>0.05, p<0.05).

After calculating and interpreting the path coefficient value, the next step is to calculate the direct and indirect effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables as summarized in Table 14 below.

Table 14. Decomposition of Path Coefficients, Indirect Influence of Exogenous Variables with Endogenous Variables

1. DISCUSSION

McCleskey (2014:125) explains that principals should accept and support teacher skills and conduct competency training aimed at developing their task-oriented skills. Previous empirical research has shown that follower maturity levels are linked to previous educational and training interventions. The principal has delegated duties to teachers in schools with high grades (r =.670) but still has to increase the confidence of teachers in delegation of tasks so that the responsibility given by the principal makes teachers innovate because of the lack of challenges in the teacher’s work makes them comfortable with existing conditions, the findings of EiMeleggy et al, 2016: 95-98 and Afsar and Badir, 2017:97 say the lack of job challenges makes teachers lazy in thinking creatively. The role of situational leadership in the development of favorable conditions for innovation has been verified in the capacity of innovation in educational organizations (Alfonso, Beatrit and Jesus, 2018:702; Amtu, Siahaya and Taliak, 2019:13), in addition, research from Chan Lin et al. (2006:65) found The work of school leadership is fundamental to develop attitudes of change and innovation, The higher the orientation of leadership (Orientation leadership) through situational leadership, the higher the innovativeness in the teacher (Samsir, 2017: 540; Tri, Nga and Sipko, 2019:198).  Leadership-oriented will strive to improve the ability of teachers and support in every innovation (Muhammad dan Abida, 2018:92).

Tri, Nga, and Sipko (2019: 198) found that the work environment has a strong effect on the innovativeness of teachers, furthermore, to stimulate innovativeness in teachers is that by paying attention to their work environment, poor working conditions will suppress their creativity. In research from Vele and Toader (2016: 61) found that work environments and innovativeness have a strong relationship. In his findings explained that teachers are only valuable if they can bring measurable value in the organization in which they work. The work environment consisting of physical and social (Extrinsic and intrinsic) is very influential on the process of developing the creativity of a member (Folch et al, 2019: 2741; Chaubey et al, 2018:61;Eimeigy et al, 2016:112).Amy (2019:151) explained that leaders (principals) must create a safe environment in providing input, receiving ideas from teachers (Creating Fearless Workplace), further explaining feelings of insecurity hinder learning.

Good leadership and in accordance with the state of the school will create its own satisfaction for the members who work in the school environment (Bowling et al, 2015:95). Thamnajit & Kijboonchoo (2015:67) explains situational leadership is crucial factors that affect job satisfaction of employees because basically how the principal can direct each teacher is a gift that can be felt by teachers. Amy (2019:125) explains to make someone (teacher) able to produce extraordinary work sometimes do not need to offer a high salary but appreciate every ability, spend a lot of money to train their skills, appreciate their every idea then they will survive in your worst situation.

Positive direct relationships have an innovative effect on job satisfaction. The results of this finding are also supported by the previous researcher Nikpour (2018: 116); Riivari et al (2012:310); Kessel et al (2014:63).Chandler (2008:191) explains that even young children will dare to appear in public with only a little motivation in the form of the words that he/she can do it, a little mental support and a little snack as a reward then the child will be confident and display his best, as well as teacher, they will give the best result for motivation that given by leader. In research from Shyji and Santhiyavalli (2014: 34) says It may differ from person to person, place to place, job to job and organization to organization. Situational leadership styles demonstrate a positive impact on job satisfaction through innovative teachers. Members led with situational leadership satisfaction will be further increased when members who have strong initiative in themselves.

Abigael and Huzzard (2008:236) found that innovativeness cannot simply arise if it is not supported by the necessary factors, in producing creativity a room that is attractive and interesting to look at and let satisfaction follow because basically members who are already comfortable with their environment will fencing leave the place. Ghosh’s research (2015:1140) found organizational work environment through innovativeness had positive significant impact on job satisfaction.

1. IMPLICATION AND CONCLUSION

Situational leadership has been shown to have a positive direct influence on teacher job satisfaction. This means that job satisfaction will increase when led by a principal who applies a situational leadership style. As is known, each teacher has a different character and uniqueness, so in fostering them must also be done in a different way, cannot be equalized all methods to teachers. For teachers who feel less able in doing their duties in school and do not have a struggle to be more advanced can be done an approach with the method of telling, in this case the leader must be able to be friends for the teacher, exchange ideas and provide full support until the teacher feels confident that he is able to do the task well. For teachers who are less able but have the desire to struggle and develop, the principal can approach the Selling method, in this method there is a take and give that must be done, this type of teacher is the type who expects something so that the leader must do or give something that is able to excite the teacher.

The work environment is one of the strongest indicators of influencing teacher job satisfaction and the findings in the study also yielded the same results as the previous literature. A poor work environment has been shown to reduce job satisfaction, because a poor work environment is very capable of lowering mood, generating negative energy for teachers who teach. The importance of a spatial arrangement is needed in maximizing the ability of teachers, because when they have a good concentration then they will produce better work. The work environment basically not only talks about its physical but also social in that environment. The importance of maintaining togetherness between superiors and subordinates, subordinates with subordinates in a work environment needs to be maintained so as not to produce a miss-communication where it can damage the atmosphere because when the situation is peaceful and controlled then a sense of security will follow.

Providing full support for his ability can be used as bait in exploring all creative ideas from teachers in the teaching and learning process. Lack of support makes a person afraid to try new things, afraid of doing wrong when from mistakes it will make them grow, in this case, the teacher only needs a motivation from the leader not a punishment that can turn off their innovative return. The lack of space in moving is also one of the obstacles in the process of developing the creativity of teachers, giving them a little freedom can be an electric shock, giving them space to dig deeper into their abilities. Besides freedom, sometimes their work is not challenging so they are difficult to develop. Challenging their work can be an alternative to fostering innovativeness in teachers.

REFERENCES

1. Adil, A., & Kamal, A. 2016. Workplace Affect as Mediator Between Emotional Intellegence and Job Satisfaction Among Customer Service Representatives. Journal of Behavior Sciences, 26(2), 79-94.
2. Afsar, & Badir. (2017). Workplace Spirituality Perceived Organizational Support and Innovative Work Behavior: The Mediating Effects of Person-Organization Fit. Journal of Workplace Learning, 29 (56-109).
3. Al-edenat, M. (2018). Reinforcing Innovation Through Tranformational Leadership: Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(4), 810-838.
4. Alfonso, J., Beatrit, R.-m., & Jesus, M.-B. (2018). The Effect of Leadership in the Development of Innovation Capacity: A Learning organization Perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 39(6), 694-711.
5. Ambarita, B., Purba, S., & Ambarita , C. (2016). Behavior and Conflict in Organization. Bandung: Alfabeta.
6. Ambarita, M., Paningkat, S., & Sukarman, P. (2014). Organization Behavior. Bandung: Alfabeta.
7. Amy, C. (2019). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety In the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth. Hoboken: New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
8. Anila, K. P., & Krishnaveni, V. (2016). Influence of Family Environment and Work Environement on Work Life Balance Among Women Employees. International Journal of Management Research and review, 6(3), 341-347.
9. Bank, A. D. (2015). Education in Indonesia: Rising to the Challenge. Paris: OECD Pubishing.
10. Blahus, R. (2014). Environmental Stimulants of Creativity for Operatives and Non‐Creative Worker. European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 493-499.
11. Blanchard, K. (2013). Situastional Leadership II. USA: The Ken Blanchard Companies.
12. Brett, A., Branstetter, J., & Wagner , P. (2014). Nurse Educators’ Perceptions of Caring Attributes in Correct and Ideal Work Environement . Nursing Education Perspective, 35(6), 361-366.
13. Brian, S. (2016). Exploring Situational Leadership in Quick Service Restaurant. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 8(2), 1-6.
14. Burusic, J. (2019). The Perceived School CLimate Croation Elementary Schools With Poor, Average, and Good School’s Learning Environment. Journal of Contemporary Management, 1(24), 1-15.
15. Cekmecelioglu, & Ozbag. (2012). Psychological Empowerment and Support for Innovation in Turkish Manufacturing Industry:Relations with Individual Creativity and Firm Innovativeness. JEEMS, 21(1), 20-34.
16. Chaubey, A., Sahoo, C., & Khatri, A. (2019). Relationship of Transformational Leadership With Employee Creativity and Organizational Innovation: A Study of Mediating and Moderating Influences. Journal of Strategy and Management, 12(1), 61-82.
17. Chen, X., Zhao, K., & Liu, X. (2012). Improving Employees’ Job Satisfaction and Innovations Performance Using Conflict Management. Intrenational Jornal of Conflict Management, 23(2), 151-172.
18. Clegg, S., Martin, K., & Tyrone, P. (2016). Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.
19. Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Organizational Behavior: Improving Performance and Commitment in the Work Place 4th. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Crawford, M. (Retrieved on 13 March 2018 from Blog.worldbank.org/eastasiapasific/unlock-student-potential-east-asiapacific-be-demanding-and-supportive-teachers). To Unlock Student Potential in East Asia Pasific, be Demanding and Supportive of Teachers.
21. Crisci, A., Sepe, E., & Malafronte, P. (2018). What Influences Teachers’ Job Satisfaction and How to Improve, Develop and Reorganize the School Activities Associated with Them. Qual Quant, 53(5),1-18.
22. Deporter, B., Reardon, M., & Nourie, S. (2014). quantum Teaching: Quantum Learning PracticesIn Class Room. Bandung: KAIFA.
23. EiMeleggy, A., Mohiuddin, Q., Boronico, J., & Maasher, A. (2016). Fostering Creativity in Creativity Environment: An Empirical Study of Saudi Architectural Firms. Contemporary Management Reseach, 12(1), 89-102.
24. Elaine, W. (2019). The Value of Situational Leadership. Community Practioner, 92(2), 31-33.
25. Fahri, O. (2019). The Impact of Ethical Leadership On Service Innovation Behavior: The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Asia pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 73-88
26. Folch, M., Joanpere, M., & Papaoikonomou, E. (2019). Promoting Creativity in the Cooperative Work Environment: A Case Study of the Lacol Cooperative. The Quality Report, 24(11), 2722-2748.
27. Gashema, B. (2019). How Transformational Leadership Fuels Employee’s Creative Performance Behavior in the Workplaces? International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 8(4), 144-162.
28. Ghosh, K. (2015). Developing organizational creativity and innovation Toward a model of self-leadership, employee creativity, creativity climate and workplace innovative orientation. Management Research Review, 38(11), 1126-1148.
29. Gill, J., Rodrigo, & Bellido. (2018). The Effect of Leadership in the Development of Innovation capacity: A Learning Organization Perspective. Leadership & Organization Journal, 39(6), 694-711.
30. (2018). The Effect of Situational Leadership on Employee Performance Through Job Satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior as Intervening Variables. Thesis, Makassar:Universitas Hasanuddin.
31. Hastitutiningsih, A. T. (2018). The Effect of Workload and Work Environment on Employee Performance Mediated by Work Stress: A Study on PT. MSV Pictures Yogyakarta. Thesis, Yogyakarta: Universitas Islam Indonesia.
32. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Irby, T. (2011). The Situasional Leadership Approach Effect on Employee Motivation in Multi-Generational Information Technology Organizations. Dissertation, United States: Maryland University College.
34. Ministry of Education and Culture. (2018). Elementary School Statistics in 2018/2019. Jakarta: Center for Educational and Cultural Data and Statistics.
35. Kessel, F. G., Oerlemans, L., & Stroe-Biezen. (2014). No Creative Person is An Island:Organizational Culture, Academic Project-Based Creativity, and The Mediating Role of Intrairganizational Socialties. SAJEMS, 1(17), 46-69.
36. Kondalkar, V. G. (2007). Organizational Behavior: New Age. New Delhi: International Publisher.
37. Liu, J. T. (2016). Influence on Kindergarden Teacher’s Job Satisfaction From Kindergarden Organization Culture and Work Pressure. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(1), 80-96.
38. Luo, H., & Shansi, L. (2014). Effect of Situastional Leadership and Employee Readiness Match on Organizational Citizenship Behavior in China. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(10), 1725-1732
39. Luthan, F. (2011). Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-based Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40. Manik, S., & Syafrina, N. (2018). The Effect of Work Environment on Teacher Performance in 009 Elementary School on Kuala Terusan, Pangkalan Krinci District. Riau Economics and Business Review, 9(3), 158-167.
41. Maqbool, S. (2017). Interrelation Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Job Satisfaction of Teacher at Secondary Schools. Journal of Critical Inquiry Quarterly, 15(1), 180-196.
42. McCleskey, A. J. (2014). Situational, Transformational and Transactional Leadership and Leadership Development. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(4), 117-130.
43. Muhammad, U.-u.-H., & Abida Hassan. (2018). Effect of Inclusive Leadership on Teacher Involvement In Creativity Task: The Mediating Role Psychological Safety. Pakistan Journal of Education, 35(3), 77-96.
44. Nisar, S., Jabeen, & Sheikh. (2018). Reinventing Public Sector for Innovativeness and Performance: A Case Study of university of the Punjab, Lahore. A Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 23(1), 49-65.
45. Nusair, Ababnesh, & Bae. (2012). The Impact of Transformational Leadership Style in Innovation as Perceived by Public Employee in Jordan. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 23(1), 182-201.
46. Onisimus, A., Agusthina, S., & Jeditia, T. (2019). Improve Teacher Creativity Trough Leadership and Principals Management. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 23(1), 1-18.
47. Palvalin, M. (2019). What Matter For Knowledge Work Productivity? Employees Relation, 41(1), 209-277.
48. Phil, V. (2014). Leadership Situastional Leadership Excellence. Essential:aurora, 35(9), 13.
49. Program For International Student Assessment (2019). PISA 2018 Result Combined Executive Summaries. Volume I, II and III. www.oecd.org/about/publishing/corrigenda.htm
50. Raza, S., & Asmi. (2018). Impact of Leadership Style of Teacher on the Performance of Student: An Application of Hersey and Blanchard Situational Model. Bulletin of Education and Research, 73-94.
51. Robbins, S. P., & Timothy, A. J. (2007). Organizational behavior (Twelfth edition). New Jersey: Perason, Prentice Hall.
52. Rossberg, J. I., Eiring, O., & Friss, S. (2004). Work Environment and Job Satisfaction. A Psychometric Evaluation of the Working Environment Scale 10. Soc Psychiatry Epidemiology, 39(1), 576-580.
53. Sadaghi, Amani, & Mahmudi. (2013). A struktural Model of Impact of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction Among Secondary School Teacher. Asia-Pacific Edu Res, 22(4), 687-70
54. Sadar, M., & Sadar, S. (2011). Teacher Job Satisfaction: A Study of Psot Graduate Management Programme Teacher. Anvesha, 4(1), 82-86.
55. Samsir, S. (2018). The Effect of Leadership Orientation on Innovation and its Relationship with Competitive Advantages of Small and Medium Enterprises in Indonesia. International Journal of Law and Management, 60(2), 530-542.
56. Sembiring, E., & Purba, S. (2019). Influence of Interpersonal Communication, Work Environment, And Locus of Control on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Malaysian Online Journal of Education Management, 7(4), 64-81.
57. (2018). Organization Behavior. Yogyakarta: ANDI.
58. Stauffer, D. (2016). Personal Innovativeness as a Predictor of Entrepreneurial Value Creation. International Journal of Innovation, 8(1),4-26.
59. Steve, C., & Richardson, S. (2008). 100 Ways to motivates Others: How Great Leader Can Produce Insane Result Without Driving People Crazy. Franklin Lakes: NJ: Career Press.
60. (2011). Research Method. Yogyakarta: Alfabeta.
61. Suriansyah, A. (2014). Relationships of School Culture, Communication and Commitment Toward Teachers’ Performance of Elementary School. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 32(14), 358-267.
62. Sutton, H. R. (2004). A Modified Situastional Leadership Theory: An Empirical Investigation of the Relationship Between Perceived Leadership Styles and Selected Personality Types in a Major Retail Operation. Dissertation, United Stated: Maryland University College.
63. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
64. Taleb, F. T. (2013). Job Satisfaction Among Jordan’s Kindergarden Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions and Demographic Chracteristics. Early Childhood, 41(2), 143-152.
65. Theurer, P., Tumasjan, & Walpe. (2018). Contextual Work Design and Employee Innovative Work Behavior: When Does Autonomy Matter? PLoS ONE, 13(10), 1-35.
66. Thomson, G., & Glaso, L. (2018). Situational Leadership Theory: A Test from a Leader-Follower Congruence Approach. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 39(5), 574-579.
67. Tri, H., Nga, V., & Sipko , J. (2019). Prediciting Overall Staffs’ Creativity and Innovative Work Behavior In Banking. Sciendo, 14(2), 188-202
68. Vele, C., & Toader, D. (2016). Creating an Organizational Environment That Support Creativity in Order to Increase Efficiency. Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, 9(2), 57-61.
69. Wu, R., Ming, S., & Huang , F. (2019). Guanxi and Unethical Behavior in the Chinese Workplace: Job Satisfaction as a Mediator. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 47(3), 1-14.
70. Zhang, Z. (2006). Retaining K-12 Teachers in Education: A Study on Teacher Job Satisfaction and Teacher Retention. Dissertation, Charlotsville: University of Virginia.