The Influence of Leadership Style and Work Environment Against Work Ethic and Tutoring at PKBM in Tangerang City

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of leadership style (X1) on work ethic (Y1), leadership style (X1) on teacher's performance (Y2), work ethic (Y1) on teacher's performance (Y2) and the Work environment (X2).) On work ethics, (Y1) Work environment (X2) on tutoring (Y2) at PKBM in Tangerang City. The method used is qualitatively descriptive with a population of 165 using a random sampling method, namely 117 samples of the existing population. Research results Statistical test on model 1 with tcount> ttable (3.404> 1.97) and Sig <0.05 (0.000 <0.05), leadership style sometimes has a positive and significant influence on work ethic. Value Fcount> Ftable (14.815> 3.06) and Sig <0.05 (0.000 <0.05), management style and work environment have a positive and significant effect on work ethic at the same time. In model 2, the value of tcount> ttable (5.555> 1.97) and Sig <0.05 (0.000 <0.05) is obtained. The leadership style has a partially positive and significant effect on the tutor's performance. With the value of tcount> ttable (3.447> 1.97) and Sig <0.05 (0.001 <0.05), the working environment has a partially positive and significant effect on the teacher's performance. The value of tcount> ttable (4.261> 1.97) and Sig <0.05 (0.000 <0.05), partly work ethic, has a positive and significant effect on the teacher's performance. The value of Fcount> Ftable (35.927> 2.67) and Sig <0.05 (0.000 <0.05), the leadership style, the work environment and the work ethic all have a positive and significant effect on the tutor's performance.


INTRODUCTION
The Community Learning Activity Center or better known as PKBM is a non-formal educational institution that was created out of an awareness of the importance of society in the development process. Hence, PKBM's presence for community groups as actors of change is proactive to enable open access and meet the various learning needs of the community according to local conditions. In addition, it is expected that the existence of PKBM in the midst of society can become an instrument by strengthening the potentials that exist in the community.
The Community Learning Activity Center (PKBM) as an institution that grows by, through and for the community must be able to mobilize and enable various joint activities in community development. In order for these expectations to be met by the institutions in general, two conditions are necessary: on the one hand, they are deeply rooted and, on the other hand, they respond to the various demands for change and reform (2016: 16). For this reason, the PKBM manager or chairperson must respond to changes in the community that relate to learning needs and match the needs, characteristics and potential of the local community. As a result, PKBM institutions can not only be accepted, but also be anchored more firmly in society. Although the managers and administrators of PKBM are the municipality, they are also supported by the government (the Ministry of National Education, through the Sub-Department of After-School Education) at the provincial or district /city level. Based on existing data from the Center for Extracurricular and Youth Educational Development (BPPLSP).
The leadership of the chief manager is expected to create conditions that enable the development of a harmonious and beneficial working atmosphere and human relationships. This means that all educational components in PKBM must be developed in an integrated way in order to increase the relevance or suitability of the educational quality. However, it still shows that PKBM managers are indifferent or indifferent to the demands of the local community and still seem less serious about managing PKBM. If it still looks like this, how the head of management can lead PKBM well.
The working environment in PKBM is a place where learning activities and other activi-ties are carried out that intensively support the operation of PKBM. It is appropriate that the work environment can be designed to create a working relationship that binds workers in their environment. There are still some PKBMs that have their own buildings and those that already have their own buildings are still inadequate, let alone other institutions that support teaching and learning activities, such as B. Study rooms, tutor rooms, laboratories and others. How can you improve the teacher's performance when PKBM's building is still insufficient?
A good work environment is safe, quiet, clean, quiet, bright, and free of any threats and distractions that can prevent employees from doing their best. A conducive work environment has a positive effect on the continuity of the work of the employees. A less conducive work environment, on the other hand, has a negative effect on the continuity of the work of employees. Some of the tutors who are expected to become learning guides for the citizens of PKBM arrive late at the time of class, while others come in rarely.
The formulation of the problem in this study is how much influence the leadership style of the chief manager (X1) has on the performance of the tutors (Y) in PKBM in Tangerang City. How strong the influence of the work environment (X2) impact to performance of the tutors (Y) in PKBM in Tangerang City. How much the leadership style of the Chief Manager (X1) and the work environment (X2) influence the performance of the Tutor (Y) in PKBM in Tangerang City.

METHOD
This research uses a descriptive method used by researchers to describe the phenomena occurring in PKBM in Tangerang City in the 2019/2020 school year, while this research can be interpreted as a problem-solving process studied by describing the current state of will the subject and the research object are based on facts. -The facts that appear or what they are, as for the type used in this study, is the nature of the survey research.
This type of survey research is a descriptive research method performed on a group of objects that are usually quite large at one time over a period of time. The purpose of the survey is to provide an assessment of the state and functioning of a program in the present and the results are used to plan improvements to the program.
The method used in this investigation is a descriptive qualitative method, which is a form of investigation based on the data systematically collected during the investigation regarding the facts and characteristics of the object under study. In this study, the authors obtained data using a rated questionnaire, in which the data was later calculated statistically.
The population in this study were all tutors or teachers who taught at the PKBM in Tangerang City and who were members of the PKBM forum in the 2019/2020 school year, up to 165 tutors of 20 PKBM. The sample is part of the existing population drawn by random sampling.
In this study, to determine the size of the research sample with the help of a simple random sample (Sugiyono 2015: 152), the technique of taking sample members from the population at random was carried out without paying attention to the strata in the population. The total population of 165 tutors with a sample that the respondent determined from the number of tutors at PKBM in the city of Tangerang is 117 samples.

RESULTS
The environment According to Sedarmayanti (2013: 12), the conditions for the work environment are considered good or appropriate if people can carry out activities in an optimal, healthy, safe and comfortable manner. The effects of the suitability of the work environment can be seen over the long term. In addition, adverse work environments may require more work and time and may not support the achievement of an efficient work system design.
The type of work environment is divided into two areas: (a) The physical work environment is a physical condition in the workplace that can directly or indirectly affect employees. (B) Non-physical work environment are all situations that arise in connection with work relationships, both relationships with superiors and relationships with colleagues or subordinates.
The working environment is influenced by several factors that can influence the formation of the working environment according to Soedarmayanti (2013: 46): lighting / light, air temperature, noise, job security, employee relationships.
The definition of work ethic According to Sinamo (2011: 26), work ethic is a set of positive behaviors based on core beliefs and accompanied by a full commitment to an integral work paradigm.
Word performance is a translation of word performance, which is defined as the result or level of success of a person as a whole during a certain period of time in the performance of a task compared to various possibilities such as working standards, goals or objectives or criteria that have been set in advance and mutually agreed ( Rivai). & Basri, 2014: 14).
Moheriono (2012: 95) explains: "Performance is a description of the level of success in implementing a program of activities or a strategy to achieve the goals, visions and tasks of the organization as set out in the strategic planning of an organization." Tutors are educators for non-formal education (PNF). Tutors are teachers who are responsible for early childhood education, equality education, and literacy. Since the psychological development of the students is still so early, the task of the educator is more of a caregiver (Pamong).

Substructure path coefficient 1
F-test (simultaneous test);The simultaneous test of leadership style and the work environment for work ethic is shown in Table 1 with the following statistical hypothesis. Ha: pyx_1 = pyx_2 ≠ 0 Ho: pyx_1 = pyx_2 = 0 In table 1 showing . output anova model-1 anovaa is presented in the following section: The ANOVA output in Table 1 above shows that Sig. (0.000). The results of this statistical test can be interpreted to the effect that at the same time leadership style and work environment have a significant influence on work ethic in the Structure 1 model, in which the F-value at 14.815 with a Sig-value <0.05 (0.000 <0 , 05) is calculated.T test (partially).
In table 2 showing output coefficient model-1 coefficientsa is presented in the following section: The partial test of leadership style and work environment on work ethics is shown in Table 2 Coefficient Model 1 with the statistical hypothesis formulation as follows.
First statistical hypothesis Ha: pyx_1> 0 Ho: pyx_1 = 0 Second statistical hypothesis Ha: pyx_2> 0 Ho: pyx_2 = 0 The basis for decision making based on tests is as follows. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.
In Table 2 it can be seen that the total coefficient of the independent variables in Model 1 is at the limit. The partial influence of leadership style on work ethic has a Sig value. 0.000 or (0.000 <0.05). The Sig value is obtained for the partial influence of the work environment on work morale. is 0.000 or (0.000 <0.05). It can be concluded that, through a partial test, the independent variables, namely leadership style and work environment, have a significant influence on work ethic in Model 1. In other words, it means that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.

Coefficient of determination
In table 3 showing output summary model-1 model summaryb is presented in the following section:  Table 3 shows that the contribution of the independent variables in Model 1 (one), namely leadership style and work environment, is 0.168 or 16.8%, while the remaining 83.2% is another unidentified factor.
Calculation of the substructure path coefficient 2 F-test (simultaneous test); The simultaneous test of leadership style, work environment and work ethic affecting the tutor's performance is shown in Table 4 with the following statistical hypothesis. Ha: pzx _1 = pzx _2 = pzy ≠ 0 Ho: pzx _1 = pzx _2 = pzy = 0 The basis for decision making based on tests is as follows. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.
In table 4 showing output anova model-2 anovaa is presented in the following section:  Table 4 ANOVA Output, it can be seen that the Fcount value is 35,927 and the Sig value. (0.000). With regard to statistical tests for model 2 it can be interpreted that at the same time leadership style, work environment and work ethic have a significant influence on the performance of the tutor. It can be seen that the Sig value is <0.05 (0.000 <0.05). So the decision is that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.
In table 5 showing output coefficient model-2 coefficientsa is presented in the following section: T test (partially) The sub-test of leadership style, work environment and work ethic in relation to the teacher's performance is shown in Table 5 Coefficient Model 2, while the statistical hypothesis formulation is as follows. First statistical hypothesis Ha: pzx _1> 0 Ho: pzx _1 = 0 Second statistical hypothesis Ha: pzx _2> 0 Ho: pzx _2 = 0 Third statistical hypothesis Ha: pzy> 0 Ho: pzy = 0 The basis for decision making based on tests is as follows. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is accepted and Ha is rejected. If the tolerance value is 0.05 = sig, Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted.
In Table 5 it can be seen that the coefficient of all independent variables in Model 2 is related to the limit. The influence of the leadership style on the tutor's performance has a Sig value. 0.000 or (0.000 <0.05). The Sig value is obtained for the influence of the work environment on the performance of the teacher. 0.001 or (0.001 <0.05). In the meantime, the effect of work ethic on the teacher's performance is the Sig. 0.000 or (0.000 <0.05). With reference to the test results of the three independent variables, it can be concluded that the partial test of the independent variables, namely leadership style, work environment and work ethic, has a significant influence on the performance of the teacher in model 2, with the total value of Sig <0.05. Hence the proposed hypothesis is proven, or in other words, it means that Ho is rejected and Ha is accepted In table 6 showing output summary model-2 model summaryb is presented in the following section:  Table 6 shows that the contribution of the independent variables in Model 2 (two), namely leadership style, work environment, and work ethic, is 0.425 or 42.5%, while the remaining 57.5% are other factors that are not examined.

Discussion
From the results of the data processing with the program SPSS 25 for Windows, the research information for the path analysis model is obtained as follows.

Equation model-1
The value of R2 Y.X1.X2 or Rsquare can be seen in Table 3, Model 1 Summary, which is obtained by the value of R2 (0.168). Finding variables outside of the model is as follows. ρyε1=√(1-r^2 ) ρyε1=√(1-0,168)=0.912 ρyε1=0.912 The value of Standardized Coefficients Beta refers to Table 2 for the Output Cofficients Model-1, and the numbers for the leadership style variable (0.262) and the work environment variable (0.264) are obtained. To find the path coefficient outside the model (pyε1), see the formula below. Y = pyx_1 X1 + pyx_2 X2 + pyε _1 = 0.262X_1 + 0.264X_2 + 0.912ε _1 The explanation of the equation relates to the results of the calculation of the path analysis model 1, and the following information can be obtained.
In figure 1 showing Path diagram of the empirical causal relationships X1 and X2 to Y1 is presented in the following section: The influence of leadership style on work ethic is 0.262. The influence of the work environment on work morale is 0.264. The effect of variables outside the model or without investigation is 0.912.
Equation model-2: The direct and indirect effects (via Y1 to Y2) and the overall influence of leadership style (X1), work environment (X2) and work ethic (Y1) on the performance of the teacher (Y2) can be described as follows.
The value of R2 Y2.Y1.X1.X2 or Rsquare can be seen in Table 5.20, Model 2 Summary, which is obtained by the value of R2 (0.425). In the meantime, the path coefficient outside the model (ρYε2) can be found using the following formula. ρzε2=√(1-r 2 ) ρzε2=√(1-0,425)=0.758 ρzε2=0.758 The value of Standardized Coefficients Beta refers to Table 5.19 for Output Cofficients Model 2, and the numbers for the laeadership style variable (0.371) and the work environment variable (0.230) and work ethic variable (0.293) are obtained. Based on this value, it can be entered into equation model 1 as follows. Y = py_2 x_1 X1 + py_2 x_2 X2 + py1y2Y + pyε _2 = 0.371X_1 + 0.230X_2 + 0.293Y + = 0.758ε _2 The explanation of the equation in the calculation results of the model 2 path analysis can be shown in the path diagram as follows.
In figure 2 showing path diagram of the empirical causal relationships x1, x2 and y1 to y2 is presented in following section In table 7 showing summary of direct and indirect effect path coefficients is presented in following section:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We would like to take this opportunity to thank Pamulang University for funding this research. We also thank the Tangerang City PKBM (Community Learning Activity Center) tutors who worked well together until this research was completed.