Lindley distribution was introduced by Lindley (1958) in the context of Bayes inference. Its density function is obtained by mixing the exponential distribution, with scale parameter β, and the gamma distribution, with shape parameter 2 and scale parameter β. Recently, a new generalization of the Lindley distribution was proposed by Ghitany et al. (2013), called power Lindley distribution. This paper will introduce an extension of the power Lindley distribution using the Marshall-Olkin method, resulting in Marshall-Olkin Extended Power Lindley (MOEPL) distribution. The MOEPL distribution offers a flexibility in representing data with various shapes. This flexibility is due to the addition of a parameter to the power Lindley distribution. Some properties of the MOEPL were explored, such as probability density function (pdf), cumulative distribution function (cdf), hazard rate, survival function, quantiles, and moments. Estimation of the MOEPL parameters was conducted using maximum likelihood method. The proposed distribution was applied to data. The results were given which illustrate the MOEPL distribution and were compared to Lindley, power Lindley, gamma, and Weibull. Model comparison using the log likelihood, AIC, and BIC showed that MOEPL fit the data better than the other distributions.

This study discusses the work discipline, work motivation, employee performance, and work environment. Research uses a quantitative approach, using path analysis. With the number of respondents 54. The purpose of this study was to test the influence of work discipline and work motivation on employee performance through the work environment as an intervening variable. Based on the results of the analysis, shows that work discipline and work motivation affect directly or indirectly on employee performance and through the work environment. 1) Work disciplines had a positive and significant effect on employee performance by tcount is 2,611 ttable 2.00758 with a significant level is 0.012 0.05. 2) Work motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance by tcount  is 2,240 ttable 2.00758 with a significant level is 0.030 0.05. 3) The work environment had a positive and significant effect on employee performance by tcount  3,351 ttable 2.00758 with a significant level is 0.002 0.05. 4) Work disciplines had a positive and significant effect on the work environmentby tcount  2,084 ttable 2.00758 with a significant level is 0.042 0.05. 5) Work motivation has a positive and significant effect on the work environment tcount 3.364 ttable 2.00758 with a signifcation level is 0.001 0.05. 6) Work discipline has a positive and significant effect on employee performance through the work environment with an indirect influence coefficient of 0.112776 with a tcount of 2.720275 ttable 2.00758 with a significance of 0.05. 7) Work motivation has a positive and significant effect on employee performance through the work environment with an indirect influence coefficient of 0.002257 with a tcount of 58.961679 ttable 2.00758 with a significance of 0.05

No abstract