Job satisfaction as a mediator between work ethic, productivity, and farmer performance: a pls-sem study on patchouli cultivation

  • Lucky O. H. Dotulong 
    Universitas Sam Ratulangi
    Indonesia
  • Irvan Trang
    Universitas Sam Ratulangi
    Indonesia
  • Jessy J. Pondaag
    Universitas Sam Ratulangi
    Indonesia
  • Stralen Pratasik
    Manado State University
    Indonesia

Abstract

Patchouli (Pogostemon cablin Benth.) is a strategically important smallholder commodity in Indonesia, which contributes approximately 90% of global patchouli oil production. However, farmer performance in Tompasobaru Satu Village, South Minahasa Regency, remains inconsistent despite relatively high productivity and work ethic, indicating that technical capacity alone may not explain performance outcomes. Grounded in the Porter–Lawler performance–satisfaction model, this study examines job satisfaction as a mediating mechanism linking work ethic and productivity to patchouli farmer performance. A quantitative explanatory design was employed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4. Data were collected through a census of 150 active patchouli farmers using a 32-item, five-point Likert-scale questionnaire adapted from established instruments and pilot-tested on 30 respondents. The measurement model generally met the recommended reliability and validity criteria, although the average variance extracted (AVE) for job satisfaction was marginally below the recommended threshold (0.484). Harman’s single-factor test indicated no dominant common method factor (28.3%). Bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples revealed that work ethic (β = 0.225) and productivity (β = 0.435) were positively associated with job satisfaction, which explained 36.6% of its variance. The structural model explained 55.8% of the variance in farmer performance. Job satisfaction partially and complementarily mediated the relationships between productivity and performance (indirect β = 0.125, p < 0.001) and between work ethic and performance (indirect β = 0.065, p = 0.031). Productivity had the strongest total effect on performance (β = 0.446). This study extends the application of performance–satisfaction theory to self-employed smallholder farmers by conceptualising job satisfaction as a transmission mechanism rather than a moderating factor. The findings highlight the importance of integrating productivity-enhancing interventions with strategies that strengthen farmers’ job satisfaction and psychological well-being to support sustainable performance.

Keywords
  • Farmer performance,
  • Job satisfaction,
  • Productivity,
  • Work ethic,
  • PLS-SEM,
  • Mediation,
  • Smallholder agribusiness,
  • Patchouli
Lisensing Information
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
O. H. Dotulong, L., Trang, I., J. Pondaag, J., & Pratasik, S. (2026). Job satisfaction as a mediator between work ethic, productivity, and farmer performance: a pls-sem study on patchouli cultivation . Lentera Negeri, 7(1), 2067–2082. https://doi.org/10.29210/993900
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX
References
  1. Amaliasita, M., & Astuti, R. J. (2023). Islamic work ethic and employee performance: The role of job satisfaction as a mediator. International Journal of Islamic Business Ethics, 8(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.30659/ijibe.8.2.83-93
  2. Balittro. (2022). Laporan Tahunan Balai Penelitian Tanaman Rempah dan Obat 2022. Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia.
  3. Besser, T., & Mann, S. (2015). Which farm characteristics influence work satisfaction? An analysis of two agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems, 141, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.10.003
  4. Bonifacio, E. K. D., Ong, A. K. S., & Magana, M. C. (2025). Assessing the impact of longer workweeks on macroergonomics variables, work-life integration, employee satisfaction, and productivity among Filipino employees. Acta Psychologica, 260, 105580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105580
  5. Bos-Nehles, A., Townsend, K., Cafferkey, K., & Trullen, J. (2023). Examining the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) framework in HRM research: Conceptualization, measurement and interactions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 25(4), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12332
  6. BPS Kabupaten Minahasa Selatan. (2023). Kabupaten Minahasa Selatan dalam Angka 2023. BPS Kabupaten Minahasa Selatan.
  7. Brennan, M., Hennessy, T., Meredith, D., & Dillon, E. (2021). Weather, workload and money: Determining and evaluating sources of stress for farmers in Ireland. Journal of Agromedicine, 27(2), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2021.1988020
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  9. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
  10. Daghagh Yazd, S., Wheeler, S. A., & Zuo, A. (2019). Key risk factors affecting farmers' mental health: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4849. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234849
  11. David, L., Dambrun, M., Harrington, R., Streith, M., & Michaud, A. (2021). Psychological and physical health of organic and conventional farmers: A review. Sustainability, 13(20), 11384. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011384
  12. Dinas Pertanian Minahasa Selatan. (2023). Laporan Tahunan Dinas Pertanian Kabupaten Minahasa Selatan Tahun 2023. Dinas Pertanian Minahasa Selatan.
  13. Eliyana, A., Ma'arif, S., & Muzakki. (2019). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment effect in the transformational leadership towards employee performance. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 25(3), 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iedeen.2019.05.001
  14. FAO. (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4476en
  15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  16. Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x
  17. Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
  18. Gibson, J. L., Ivancevich, J. M., Donnelly, J. H., & Konopaske, R. (2020). Organizations: Behavior, structure, processes (15th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  19. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, Marko. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.
  20. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  21. Hair, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
  22. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
  23. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  24. Herrera Sabillón, B., Gerster‐Bentaya, M., & Knierim, A. (2022). Measuring farmers' well‐being: Influence of farm‐level factors on satisfaction with work and quality of life. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(2), 452–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12457
  25. Hogan, C., Lawton, T., & Beecher, M. (2024). The factors contributing to better workplaces for farmers on pasture-based dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, 107(10), 8044–8057. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2023-24416
  26. Johari, J., Mohd Shamsudin, F., Fee Yean, T., Yahya, K. K., & Adnan, Z. (2019). Job characteristics, employee well-being, and job performance of public sector employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(1), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-09-2017-0257
  27. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376
  28. Kallioniemi, M. K., Simola, A., Kaseva, J., & Kymäläinen, H.-R. (2016). Stress and burnout among Finnish dairy farmers. Journal of Agromedicine, 21(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2016.1178611
  29. Kamaruddin, R., Abdullah, N., & Ayob, M. A. (2018). Determinants of job satisfaction among Malaysian youth working in the oil palm plantation sector. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, 8(4), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-06-2017-0063
  30. Katebi, A., HajiZadeh, M. H., Bordbar, A., & Salehi, A. M. (2022). The Relationship Between “Job Satisfaction” and “Job Performance”: A Meta-analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 23(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00280-y
  31. Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
  32. Lawler, E. E., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-232X.1967.tb01060.x
  33. Li, X., Wang, X., Zhu, Y., Liu, Z., & Qi, Z. (2024). Does ecological planting–breeding mix pattern improve farmers' subjective well-being? Evidence from the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River. Agriculture, 14(4), 528. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040528
  34. Liengaard, B. D., Sharma, P. N., Hult, G. T. M., Jensen, M. B., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., & Ringle, C. M. (2021). Prediction: Coveted, yet forsaken? Introducing a cross-validated predictive ability test in partial least squares path modeling. Decision Sciences, 52(2), 362–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12445
  35. Ma, W., Vatsa, P., Zhou, X., & Zheng, H. (2021). Happiness and farm productivity: Insights from maize farmers in China. International Journal of Social Economics, 49(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-08-2021-0474
  36. Maniendaran, S. K., Ahmad, A. R., Mohamad, A., Abu Seman, N. A., Rashid, U. K., & Mohamad, A. (2025). Managing Workplace Conflict for Enhancing Employee Satisfaction in MSMEs. Procedia Computer Science, 253, 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.01.125
  37. Mzoughi, N. (2014). Do organic farmers feel happier than conventional ones? An exploratory analysis. Ecological Economics, 103, 38–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.015
  38. Natarajan, N., Newsham, A., Rigg, J., & Suhardiman, D. (2022). A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Development, 155, 105898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105898
  39. Nitzl, C., Roldan, J. L., & Cepeda, G. (2016). Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1849–1864. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-07-2015-0302
  40. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
  41. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
  42. Qureshi, T. M. (2024). The Impact of Individual and Organizational Characteristics on Work Ethics - Cross-Cultural Comparison. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education, 12(3), 633–645. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2024-12-3-633-645
  43. Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results: The importance-performance map analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(9), 1865–1886. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2015-0449
  44. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
  45. Santoso, R. (2024). Work ethic and technical skill improve employee performance. International Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.29040/ijebar.v8i2.13114
  46. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C. M., & Howard, M. C. (2020). Beyond a tandem analysis of SEM and PROCESS: Use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses! International Journal of Market Research, 62(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320915686
  47. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
  48. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
  49. Zyphur, M. J., Bonner, C. V., & Tay, L. (2023). Structural Equation Modeling in Organizational Research: The State of Our Science and Some Proposals for Its Future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 495–517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041621-031401

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Downloads

PDF

Statistic

Abstract Views
: 58 times
PDF
: 9 times