Analyzing the Effect of Bureaucratic Leadership on Public Service Motivation and Job Performance

Bureaucratic leadership in public institutions often gets a negative stigma due to a shift in understanding of bureaucracy in the public service system. This research aims to analyze the effect of bureaucratic leadership on public service motivation and job performance. A causal study through a questionnaire to employees at the sub-district level in Bandung randomly selected 245 employees. Data analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) procedure. The finding showed that bureaucratic leadership test results show the positive influence of bureaucratic leadership on public with a beta coefficient of 0.485 or are in the medium category. Directly leadership influences job performance with a beta of 0.196 or is a low Public service motivation positively influences job performance, with a beta coefficient of 0.384. PSM can mediate the influence of bureaucratic leadership on job performance. The test results using the Sobel test show that the calculated Z value is in the area of acceptance of the hypothesis, which is 3.81.

Bureaucratic leadership in public institutions often gets a negative stigma due to a shift in understanding of bureaucracy in the public service system. This research aims to analyze the effect of bureaucratic leadership on public service motivation and job performance. A causal study through a questionnaire to employees at the sub-district level in Bandung randomly selected 245 employees. Data analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) procedure. The finding showed that bureaucratic leadership indicated by the encouragement of professionalism, distribution of power, coalitions, and leadership abilities in administrative matters could encourage motivation to provide services and ultimately improve service performance. Orientation to the public interest, self-sacrifice as a public servant, and interest in policymaking for the public interest as an indication of motivation to provide services mediate the influence of bureaucratic leadership on the performance of employees. Bureaucratic leadership influences employee performance either directly or through Public Service motivation (PSM). The theoretical implication is that the interaction between leaders and subordinates is a process of exchange and social learning for employees. The practical implication is the need to develop interactions between leaders and subordinates as a process of exchanging values and learning to improve employee motivation and performance.
Interaction between leaders and subordinates is a social learning interaction. Subordinates identify their selves with the leader. They strive to be in line with the values of the leadership, show willingness and are motivated for public service performance. Leaders encourage changes in the motivation of subordinates, capacities, solving problems that hinder subordinate performance, and minimizing bureaucratic obstacles. Interaction and support for the implementation of performance encourage subordinates to work optimally. Leaders meet and provide external motivations that become resources to serve the public.
Public service motivation (PSM) is defined as an individual's tendency to respond to motives based on public institutions and organizations" (Perry & Wise, 1990;Perry, 2020;Vogel, 2020). PSM can be narrowed down to regulatory-specific constructs demonstrating a sense of community responsibility (Nowell et al., 2016). The desire to exert effort benefits others (Steijn & Van der Voet, 2019;Grant, 2008). Vogel (2020) argues that based on SDT (self-determination theory), PSM is an individual identity about roles and functions as public servants. Saleem et al. (2019) stated performance as activities and tasks carried out effectively and efficiently.
External factors such as leaders determine employee performance. Leaders can encourage an interest in public participation, commitment to public values, and selfsacrifice (Tummers & Knies, 2016). Vogel (2020) suggests that individuals are attracted to work in the public sector because of the unique motives and incentives offered compared to the private sector. This uniqueness is a normative value in public services. Amina et al. (2021) suggested the relationship between leadership and employee performance from the Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) perspective. Nazir et al. (2020) convey the influence of leaders on the behavior of subordinates.
Values learned based on their interactions with leaders trigger PSM, increase PSM levels over time, enhance authentic calling, and ultimately boost performance. Robbins and Judge (2018) explain that motivation is a process that determines individuals' intensity, direction, and persistence in achieving goals. Corduneanu et al. (2020) added that PSM is a core motivational construct in public sector research. Leaders encourage the growth and fulfillment of the primary factors of intrinsic motivation, such as psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2018).
Leaders act as a source of value that drives motivation-intrinsic values such as norms and ethics. Perry and Wise (1990) and Kim (2006) suggest that an ethical approach can be used to encourage motivation to provide services. Sarnacchiaro et al. (2019), Val Loon (2018 suggests the influence of PSM on performance. Schwarz et al. (2020) suggest that the position of a leader can encourage PSM and ultimately affect performance. Wright et al. (2016) consider ethical leadership behavior to influence PSM positively and ultimately improve performance. Schwarz et al. (2016) show that leadership improves employee PSM by emphasizing the importance of serving the wider community.
Leaders have accountability that encourages dialogue and justifies employees' actions for various stakeholders, including politicians, citizens, and non-governmental organizations. Leaders are responsible for encouraging employees to be open and honest and influencing subordinates to follow policies and procedures designed in the public interest. Miao et al. (2019) proposed the influence of leadership on PSM and performance. 127 ISSN: 2620-8091 print | 2620-3812 online Both Leadership and PSM influence the performance of subordinates directly, performance is a picture of the existence of social processes as a motivational driver for providing public services. The leader becomes a source of motivation for subordinates' performance. Leaders are role models for performance (Caillier, 2020) The proposed hypotheses are: H1: There is a positive influence of bureaucratic leadership on PSM H2: There is a positive influence of bureaucratic leadership on job performance (JP) H3: There is a positive influence of public service motivation on job performance H4: PSM positively mediates the influence of bureaucratic leadership on job performance

METHOD
Research design using the explanatory survey is to explain the facts of the variables studied and test hypotheses, namely testing the relationship and influence of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The sample is employees at the subdistrict level, employment status who have worked at least one year in the city of Bandung, with as many as 245 employees. The employees were randomly selected.
The measurement scale uses a semantic differentiated rating scale from 1 to 5, with answers ranging from very low to very high. Questions use positive and negative questions as an effort to reduce bias. Measurement of bureaucratic leadership variables such as: (1) has contribution and encouragement through professional development to the organization; (2) power distribution/power; (3) building coalitions rather than conflicts; (4) leaders build clarity, commitment, enthusiasm, and consensus Bennis (1969), Bush (2019); (5) the capacity to build relationships within the bureaucracy, (Ohemeng et al., 2020)); (6) administrative to ensure the continuity of public services, policy implementation, problem-solving, budget understanding, ability to face environmental constraints and bureaucratic structures Ohemeng and Huque (2017), Lumby (2019); (7) credibility, openness, and ability to coordinate human and material resources, as well as integrity to consistently carry out the organization's vision (Ohemeng et al., 2020) Measurement of public service motivation refers to Perry and Wise (1990), Kim (2006), Ward (2017), and Prysmakova (2020), consisting of Attraction to policymaking, public interest, and self-sacrifice. Job performance measurement refers to (Kaplan & Norton, 2001;Pidd, 2012), namely: (1) performance-based on stakeholders; (2) utilization of resources; (3) management process; (4) learning and innovation. Data analysis using the SEM covariant procedure starts from constructing the model according to the theory to testing the goodness of fit based on the criteria set as a test reference.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The result of descriptive statistics shows in Table 1 as follows. The finding shows that each variable is in the high category. The ability of leadership is not only in the administrative order. Leaders continue to encourage professional development for employees in sub-districts, such as expanding opportunities for education and training. Proportional distribution of power is carried out and reduces conflict by expanding the relationship between sub-districts and the community to handle problems and reduce the impact of the pandemic due to Covid 19. Capacity to build relationships between institutions to ensure public services increase. Leaders seek to increase credibility and openness and coordinate human resources.
Public service motivation as a public servant is in the high category. Service illustrates that employees have a basis for acting based on ethical, rational values. Employees have responsibility, empathy, help, and concern autonomously without authority to the community, especially in the current conditions during the pandemic due to Covid 19. Restrictions on the scale at level 4 and level 3 are a dilemma choice that impacts the affected community's social and economic life. Employees in the public sector have different value foundations and orientations from employees in profit institutions. Corduneanu (2020) says about a sense of community responsibility (SOCR) which is the basis for the prosocial behavior of public servants. The motivation of employees is based on intrinsic values.
Employees' job performance is seen from the existing behavior and processes. The demands on public service agents with various stakeholders make the performance criteria very complex. Moreover, the optimization of resources by public servants is an important measure. Public institutions generally face budget constraints, including budget cuts with budget relocations to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Public servants must innovate with limitations and learn to deal with public pressure and the interests of groups, elites, and the general public. The results showed that the employees could show their performance amid limited resources and the stakeholders' interests.
The complete model research results show in Figure 1 as follows. The Test result of confirmatory factor analysis (convergent validity, average variance extracted (AVE), Composite reliability is shown in Table 2 as follows.

Source: Researcher Processed Data, 2022
The results of the discriminant validity test are shown in Table 3 as follows. According to the test results in the table above, it is known that the BL1-BL7 indicators have the highest correlation to the bureaucratic leadership variable (BL)(X1). The PSM1-PSM3 indicator has the highest correlation to the PSM variable (X2), and the JP1-JP4 indicator has the highest correlation to the Job performance variable (Y), so it can be concluded that discriminant validity is in the category. Each indicator is more than 1.96, with a loading factor of more than 0.5. Each observed variable has a more significant relationship with its respective latent variables than the other latent variables.
The results of testing the relationship between latent variables show a significant relationship between latent variables. The beta coefficient that shows the relationship between BL and PSM is 0.48, and the beta coefficient of PSM and JP is 0.38. The beta coefficient of the relationship between BL and JP is 0.196 The results of the model fit test are shown in Table 4 as follows. Source: Researcher Processed Data, 2022 Based on test results criteria of goodness of fit, each criterion of the goodness of fit that is absolute fit indices, incremental fit indices, and parsimony indices are fully represented. The test results show that the model is accepted. There is a match between the data obtained through a survey with the model constructed in the study.
The results of the causality test show the relationship between significant positive variables, including the results of testing the role of public service motivation (PSM) as a mediating variable, as shown in Table 5.  The test results show the positive influence of bureaucratic leadership on public service motivation with a beta coefficient of 0.485 or are in the medium category. Directly bureaucratic leadership influences job performance with a beta coefficient of 0.196 or is in a low category. Public service motivation positively influences job performance, with a beta coefficient of 0.384. PSM can mediate the influence of bureaucratic leadership on job performance. The test results using the Sobel test show that the calculated Z value is in the area of acceptance of the hypothesis, which is 3.81.
Leadership is a central issue in the management of bureaucracy. The results of the study show that both directly and indirectly, leadership has a significant influence on employee job performance. It is in line with (Sarnacchiaro et al., 2019;Val Loon, 2018) that internal and external factors influence the performance of employees. Institutional leadership and intrinsic motivation based on rationality, norms, and affection determine performance. Both internal and external sources are a series of interrelated processes.
The interaction between leaders is not just a process that shows the exchange of values. The process illustrates the existence of employee social learning with a leader who promotes professionalism, distributes power, builds coalitions, and increases clarity, commitment, enthusiasm, and consensus (Bennis, 1969;Bush, 2019). As well as supporting subordinates with relationships within the bureaucracy, Ohemeng et al. (2019) as well as leaders with administrative capabilities Ohemeng and Huque (2017), Lumby (2019) and has Credibility and openness and can coordinate human and material resources, as well as integrity in carrying out the organization's vision consistently (Ohemeng et al., 2019). Leadership in public institutions determines the sustainability of employees' performance, including in stressful situations.
The interaction of leaders and subordinates is a process of value exchange that directs autonomy in work based on their understanding of rationality, norms, and affection. In line with Nazir et al. (2020), Amina et al. (2021) argue about public performance based on the perspective of an exchange between leaders and subordinates. The leader's success in encouraging motivation and performance lies in making the relationship between leaders and subordinates a dyadic relationship process possible in a relatively lean regional structure between leaders and subordinates and mutually beneficial. Subordinates give a good response of extra time and effort for more effective 127 ISSN: 2620-8091 print | 2620-3812 online and efficient work. Subordinates in these exchanges demonstrate mutual trust, integrity, and loyalty. The interaction between the two is not based on hierarchy, and communication is based on roles according to a formal and rigid organizational structure. The relationship between leaders and subordinates encourages positive attitudes and behaviors, as redefined by (Nazir et al., 2020).
Leaders' success in encouraging performance through public service motivation is a social learning process between leaders and subordinates where there is model imitation. As stated, subordinates imitate the leader as a model (Bennis, 1969;Bush, 2019;Ohemeng et al., 2019;Ohemeng & Huque, 2017;Lumby, 2019). In line with the construction of PSM that PSM has a rational, norm-based, and affective basis (Perry & Wise, 1990). Rationale and norms are obtained and developed based on their interactions with leaders. Interaction with leaders becomes a learning process for employees to build rational arguments and understand norms and affection as public servants. The leader gains the trust of subordinates, as stated by Robbins and Judge (2018), Ohemeng et al. (2019), and Huque and Ferdous (2019) regarding leadership reform in the public sector. Interactions with leaders' direct employees to provide better services to the community as a social learning process. Move, implement policies and regulate administration as the task of leaders in public institutions (Berkowitz & Krause, 2018). Huque and Ferdous (2019) state that leadership ability encourages individual intensity, direction, and persistence to achieve organizational goals as a social learning process.
The study results show that leadership can foster a desire to exert effort to benefit others. The leader's role is to encourage social interactions that are empathetic, helpful, and caring for the community. The interaction between the leader and subordinates builds the independence of subordinates to take action autonomously based on individual orientation as public servants, which in the end is shown by service performance such as paying attention to the interests of the community and at the same time continuing to function as agents of implementing political policies, implementing public administration although with some limitations. The budget is allocated to the institution. In line with Kaplan and Norton (2001), the task of public servants is to serve stakeholders such as the community, local executives, and legislative interests. Employees motivated based on autonomy can utilize resources, organize every program and policy in public services, and keep trying to learn & innovate, especially in their capacity as policy implementers in the field who face problems directly.
Leaders encourage rationality, become an example in implementing public administration and policy, and become a guide in social learning to build autonomy in providing services to the public. Innovate, especially in their capacity as policy implementers in the field that face problems directly. Leaders encourage rationality, become an example in implementing public administration and policy, and become a guide in social learning to build autonomy in providing services to the public. Innovate, especially in their capacity as policy implementers in the field that face problems directly. Leaders encourage rationality, become an example in implementing public administration and policy, and become a guide in social learning to build autonomy in providing services to the public. Bureaucratic leadership, public service motivation, and job performance are in the high category. It shows that each of these variables has undergone significant changes and developments that lead to an adequate bureaucratic service system. Bureaucratic leadership significantly influences employees' performance in the regional environment, either directly or through public service motivation. The theoretical implication is the need for an interdisciplinary approach in the study of public administration at the micro level to explain the interactions between leaders and subordinates related to performance. The practical implication is the importance of developing interactions between leaders and subordinates in public institutions as a process of exchanging values and learning to improve employee motivation and performance.

| Journal of Local
The research has limitations regarding local area coverage with cross-sectional data collection. The research samples were not grouped by rank or length of service. The research variables description is based on employees' perceptions as the unit of analysis. The possibility of bias is due to employees' perceptions in measuring performance, such as too high or too low. Further research is needed with design. Longitudinal as well as qualitative to explore the role of other types of leadership in the bureaucracy. Further research is suggested with the same unit of analysis, but the observation units as respondents are expanded, such as superiors and colleagues, to measure the performance of subordinates and measure PSM and avoid measurement bias.