Examining the Influence of Leadership Agility, Organizational Culture, and Motivation on Organizational Agility: A Comprehensive Analysis

: The primary objectives of this study encompass three main aspects: firstly, to determine and thoroughly analyze the influence of Leadership Agility on Organizational Agility; secondly, to ascertain and examine the impact of Organizational Culture on Organizational Agility; and finally, to establish and evaluate the effect of Motivation on Organizational Agility. To accomplish these objectives, a research methodology comprising descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression analysis was employed, with a sample size consisting of 85 respondents. The outcomes derived from the multiple linear regression analysis revealed several noteworthy findings. Firstly, it was observed that Leadership Agility exerted a positive and significant influence on Organizational Agility. This suggests that leaders who possess agile qualities, such as adaptability, flexibility, and effective decision-making, contribute significantly to enhancing the overall agility of the organization. Secondly, the study found that Organizational Culture also played a crucial role in shaping Organizational Agility. A positive and significant relationship was identified, indicating that a strong and supportive culture that values innovation, collaboration, and learning fosters organizational agility. Lastly, the analysis demonstrated that Motivation exhibited a positive and significant impact on Organizational Agility. Motivated employees who are driven by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, such as recognition, rewards, and a sense of purpose, contribute to a more agile organization. Overall, this research underscores the importance of Leadership Agility, Organizational Culture, and Motivation in driving and sustaining Organizational Agility. The findings emphasize the significance of cultivating agile leaders, fostering a supportive culture, and nurturing employee motivation to enhance an organization's ability to adapt, innovate, and thrive in a dynamic business environment.


Introduction
Organizations face challenges related to rapid change and successfully adapt the organization and its resources and meet the changing demands of the external environment to achieve long-term goals, then the organization is increasingly adaptive or agile. Maturbongs, (2021). These challenges have encouraged studies in the field of organization and management including the study of organizational agility, in response to the speed in the current business environment, so that organizations need to adapt to the new environment. Glenn, M. (2009), Kasali R, (2014), Alhadid, A. (2016), Hamidianpour, at.al, (2016), Gagel, (2018), and Anna T. Walter, (2019). This era is very familiar with the term VUCA or volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity, which is an era full of uncertainty. Horney, at.al (2010), Bawany, S. (2016), Nibedita at.al (2017). T. Krawczyńska-Zaucha, (2019), Rimita, K., Hoon, & Levasseur, (2020). Votality is intended as something that is easy to change; uncertainty is uncertainty; complexity is an increasingly complicated situation; and ambiguity is no clarity, Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016), Helmi Azahari et al (2021). The constant change in the VUCA era creates many pitfalls for leaders, Denning, S. (2015), Millar, & Mahon, J. F. (2018), Uyun, M. Q. (2018), and Simone (2021). All of them are rooted in RBV theory, and dynamic capabilities. Sriwidadi, (2015), argues that in the RBV (Resource-Based View) theory, a superior business strategy is carried out by allocating resources to market needs when the capabilities of competing companies are insufficient so that it will provide effective results for the company. One that can be used as a competitive advantage for the company is by means of innovation. Fahami, at.al. (2017). When an industry is able to implement their innovation performance well, they will be able to develop business strategies so that they can compete and excel (Zehir Cemal, et al., 2015), as also stated by Rashed and Al-Hawary, (2021). However, innovation is only able to survive in a fierce environment of competition, but not enough to survive in dynamic market conditions (Chau and Witcher, 2008). Finding creative ways to respond to environmental changes and generate success requires new methods and approaches (Fahami et al., 2017). The new paradigm that perceives change as an opportunity to respond, exploit, and benefit is known as agility (Sharifi and Zhang, 2001;Taghizadeh, 2015). Thus, agility in the 21st century is no longer an option, but a necessity for organizations , manufacturing and services (Fahami et al., 2017). Holbeche (2015), also suggests that being an agile organization, which continues to be able to adjust the direction of business strategy to an environment that is experiencing consistent changes in various aspects, is an important factor for sustainable business success Darvishmotevali, at.al (2020), Gao, at.al (2020). DuBrin (2015) also said that a common trait of leaders is their ability to inspire and stimulate others to achieve valuable goals. Leadership can be defined as trust and support among people to achieve organizational goals Gagel, (2018).
Modern leadership theory explains that Agile leadership as the ability to create and respond to change in order to succeed in an uncertain and turbulent environment, Naibaho, et al (2021). Agility supports the creation of adaptive leadership, which no longer relies on leaders as problem solvers, they know very well that discomfort is a good thing, discomfort leads to growth Lee, at.al (2015). However, there are times when in the face of this discomfort, someone has to do a pause button to stop for a moment, Ririn Fitaloka, et al (2020) also said that the "agile" management style is that leaders are required to be flexible, adaptable, and quick in making decisions. Nopriadi Saputra, (2021: 376) suggests that in the face of continuous change, it requires flexible and fast behavior. Therefore, a different leadership approach is also needed. Leadership agility is a concept proposed as a work team leadership approach in dealing with complex environments, full of uncertainty and uncertainty. Therefore, leadership agility is important to be understood, and researched, although research related to the variables in this study is still under research. Leadership theory in Human Resource Management has undergone a dynamic convergence process, as evidenced in the contingency theory of Simone at.al, (2021). In the theory of agility leadership style, leaders can manage the organization they lead in such a way that it can remain and continue to survive and even develop in the VUCA era and especially in the current era of adaptation to new habits, (Torres, R., Reeves, M., & Love, C. 2013). Bawany, S. (2016), (January Ayu Fridayani, 2021), suggests that by having agile characteristics the organization will continue to be able to adjust the direction of business strategy to an environment that is experiencing consistent changes in various aspects (Holbeche, 2012). The success of an agile organization depends heavily on the skills, attitudes, and behaviors of organizational people who are able to adapt to new strategies, structures, work processes, and even autonomy owned by teams and individuals (Crowe and Abraham, 2019 in Sakitri, 2021). Horney (2016) explains leadership agility as the ability to sense change (sensing) while responding to environmental changes with focused, fast and flexible actions. The following presents some research gaps. Based on some of the research mentioned above, it can be explained that this research has very principle differences with this research. Such as research by Kustyadji, at.al (2021), which states that leadership agility has a positive and significant effect on the performance of MSMEs in Indonesia. The complete research gap in the form of similarities and differences, research can be presented in table 2, below.

Achievement motivation Organizational agility Quantitative
The difference is using Motivation as a Mediating variable, with the Path Analysis Statistical analysis tool. Wageeh A. Nafei, (2016) Organizational Agility Quantitative The difference is because it uses mediation organizational agility, cooperative management and employee empowerment in the transportation industry One of the differences with this research is from the theoretical aspect, for example the Black Swan Effent theory. This theory is described by Taleb (2009), whose relevance is related to business risks in the VUCA era, in Alif Muh. GN, (2021). Another phenomenon is the strike activities that are often carried out by laborers and workers with one of the points of demand regarding the revision of the Manpower law is one of the triggers and things that can cause business to be disrupted. Therefore, companies always provide good compensation and are fair to all employees. With the rapid development of technology, it can be a threat to the company. The emergence of the latest gadgets and computers, software for business scale, and AI (artificial intelligence) will eventually reduce the need for human resources in certain business sectors. The use of these technologies will reduce market share, especially in human resource services. Towards industry 5.0, companies must re-concoct strategies to strengthen human resources to be agile in an environment that is increasingly flexible and far from certain. Various frameworks and organizational models that are agile and agile are known as agile. How exactly can organizational agility be successfully implemented. Muhammad U, Nazir et al. (2021), suggest agile leadership as leadership that is able to navigate the organization more adaptive, productive, and superior in all situations. Agile leadership is an agile leadership style that is different from traditional management models, with the most prominent feature being fast and flexible, Syed Arslan Haider, at.al. (2021). This leadership style emphasizes collaboration, not orders. Managers or organizational leaders work on the principle of serving team members and customers, not managing and controlling. Traditional leadership makes predictions and long-term planning, while agile leadership focuses more on providing organizational vision, direction, and strategy. Agile management does not control work and assignments, but rather nurtures teams and organizations to become self-sufficient. Research by Simone V. at.al, (2021), states that agile leaders are more understanding and ready in all situations and business environments. Gatot Kustyadji, Windijarto, Ari Wijayani, (2021), in their research found that leader agility or agile leadership has a positive and significant effect on performance. Umer Muhammad, at.al, (2021) in his research found that agile management in practice has a positive and significant effect on project performance in Pakistan . Muhammad Zulkifli (2021), in his research found that agile field leaders do not directly affect the performance of field units, but if mediated by internal operational capabilities, the results are significant. The urgency of organizational agility has been stated by Sakitri (2021), that the idea of an agile organization seems to provide a bright spot for a number of companies of various levels to welcome the new normal era and a future that is closely related to change, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA). According to Holbeche (2015), being an agile organization, which continues to be able to adjust the direction of business strategy to an environment that experiences consistent changes in various aspects, is an important factor for sustainable business success. A survey conducted by KPMG (2019) on a number of representatives from 17 countries in Europe revealed that there were 63% of respondents who recognized that becoming an agile organization is a strategic priority for companies today. Organizational culture can be a major competitive advantage instrument, if the organizational culture supports the organization's strategy, and if the organizational culture can answer or overcome environmental challenges quickly and appropriately Fahami, at.al. (2017). Research conducted by Carmen at.al, (2017), suggests that all dimensions of organizational culture have a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. In addition to organizational culture, work motivation is also something very strategic. Organizations do not become agile if the organization's human resources do not have good motivation in carrying out their work. Motivation variables with organizational agility are still under research, especially using motivation theory as it is known so far, so this study adapts Daniel Pink's motivation theory and Shafer's theory (2003), in sakitri (2021), which states that there are three main aspects that need to be cultivated in humans in order to become agile individuals, including, first, Proactive, is a person who likes to initiate an activity in the organization. second, Adaptive, is a person who likes to initiate an activity in the organization. Second, Adaptive, is a person who dares to take a simultaneous role in the organization.
Adaptive employees and managers tend to be more responsive to changes that require quick and precise decision-making. Adaptive personalities enable effective collaboration in a team and are able to adapt well to an environment full of uncertainty. Third, Generative, is a person who has the desire to continue learning new things. In this context, employees and managers are expected to have specific and deep competencies and skills, but also like to learn various new things in order to improve their quality. Therefore, work motivation in this study uses the basic theory of Daniel Pink, (2009), The Puzzle of Motivation. That motivation is a combination of autonomy, mastery, and main goals. (Autonomy, mastery, and purpose). With the basis of this theory, employee motivation can be linked to organizational agility. The relationship between agile leadership variables, organizational culture and work motivation to organizational agility in this study, including under researrch so that researchers have little difficulty in finding the exact or same research as a basis for conducting research development.

Literature Review
The adoption of the Black Swan Theory of this event is related to the leadership agility variable and the setting of this research, which is carried out in the right situation, or the Black Swan Phenomenon of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Many parties did not expect the Covid-19 phenomenon to have such a bad impact as it is today, Alif GN (2021). This means that this phenomenon is very far from the theory of business probability, and strategic management. Black swan theory is relevant to the VUCA era, which is trending today. The era of Volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity is an era full of uncertainty, Bawany, S. (2016), Martin (2021), Nibedita at.al (2017). T. Krawczyńska-Zaucha, (2019), Rimita, K., Hoon, & Levasseur, (2020). Votality as a representation of change, uncertainty is uncertainty; complexity is an increasingly complicated situation; and ambiguity is no clarity, Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016), Helmi Azahari et al (2021), so the next theory relevant to this research variable is complexity theory. Complexity Theory, also called complexity strategy or complex adaptive organization, is a theory that discusses complexity systems in the fields of strategic management and organizational studies. Now how is the ability of a manager or leader of an organization or company to understand and anticipate problems in order to get out of a complex and uncertain, and unclear situation like this. So for the sake of this research, the researcher adds another theory that is complementary to the variables of this study, namely the Resource Based View (RBV) theory. The Resource Based View (RBV) theory was first pioneered by Wernerfelt (1984), and has been adopted many times in various studies. RBV theory views that the company's resources and capabilities are important to the company, because they are the basis of the company's competitiveness and performance. The assumption of RBV theory is about how a company can compete with other companies, by managing the resources owned by the company concerned in accordance with the company's ability to achieve the company's competitive advantage.
In the development of research in the field of management, RBV theory has always been a grand theory, this is because competitive advantage requires the competence of organizational resources. The theories mentioned above basically attempt to reveal the phenomenon behind the process of organizational adaptation and change, or in other studies it is often called ambidexterity. This means that if the company wants to be part of the business competition in this VUCA era, then the company must do two things. First exploration, and second exploitation. Or in short, the company must use two hands equally well, namely exploring resources, and exploiting managerial functions. This research has a setting that is relevant to the theory mentioned above. That leadership agility, organizational culture, and motivation are a response to business phenomena so that companies can quickly reconfigure strategies, structures, processes, people, and technology, towards opportunities to create value and protect the value of their organization, or better called organizational agility.
Operationally, Leadership agility is the activism of leaders who have the ability to respond quickly, flexibly, adaptively in different conditions, new experiences, changing environments. Some relevant studies are Kustyadji, at.al (2021) Zulkifli (2021) Umer Muhammad, at.al, (2021), Alhadid, A. Y. (2016), Januari Ayu Fridayani, (2021), Bill Joiner, (2019), the study resulted in a significant relationship with organizational agility. Except for Tania Walter-Güpner's research, (2018), which produced insignificant findings. Based on the research mentioned above, there are differences in principle with this research, so that this relationship becomes the basis for the first hypothesis, namely leadership agility has a significant effect on organizational agility. Organizational Agility is formed from a group of teams oriented towards organizational human values that demonstrate a process of learning and making decisions quickly, utilizing technology and based on a commitment to a common goal to create value for stakeholders (Darino, Sieberer, Vos, & Williams, 2019). As a response to this rapidly changing phenomenon or business environment, the set of values and assumptions that arise from member or organizational interactions, which become guidelines and motivation at work, become the embryo that strengthens the position of organizational culture.
Success in realizing organizational agility requires changes based on organizational culture and values. According to the Global Human Capital Trends survey conducted by Deloitte (2016), 82% of respondents revealed that organizational culture is a potential competitive advantage, Sakitri, G. (2021). The value system and paradigm embraced by humans, as well as the behaviors that shape the way of working will affect how culture is formed in an organization. Organizational culture can be a major competitive advantage instrument, if organizational culture supports organizational strategy, and if organizational culture can answer or overcome environmental challenges quickly and appropriately Fahami, at.al. (2017). Carmen at.al, (2017), in his research, suggested that all dimensions of organizational culture have a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. Other studies that produce significant findings are Fauziyyah and S. Raharso, (2016). Sri Raharso, (2018) Goncalves, D., at.al (2019) Bill Joiner, (2019) Shaima'a Abdelqader at.al (2021). This is different from Steven Martin's research, (2021) with insignificant results. Based on this research gap, to build the second hypothesis, it can be done that organizational culture correlates with organizational agility. With organizational culture alone, it is not enough to build organizational agility, this is if employees or HR do not have good motivation. Motivation in this study is proxied as an integration between individual, organizational, and environmental variables. Wijaya A, Semmaila, Serlin Serang (2020), Motivation is a psychological process that reflects the interaction between attitudes, needs, perceptions and decisions that occur within a person. Daniel Pink (2009), suggests three factors in the theory of intrinsic motivation. The three are: Mastery or mastery of skills, Autonomy or independence, and Purpose or meaningful goals. All three must be possessed by someone who wants to work with constant enthusiasm and high motivation. Company management must manage these three factors in order to optimally motivate their employees in addition to salaries and benefits. Research conducted by Sakitri (2021) 2013), states that motivation, and its dimensions are correlated with organizational agility. So the third hypothesis is Motivation has a significant effect on organizational agility.

Research approach
The research approach used is quantitative descriptive research method that describes and explains the influence of Leadership agility, Organizational Culture, and Motivation on Organizational Agility. This research will be conducted at the Office of PT Bank Mandiri -Malang City Wahid Hasyim Branch. The time used during data collection and thesis preparation ranges from two months starting in November to January 2022. The sample was drawn using the Slovin formula where the population in this study was 619 employees with a tolerance limit of 0.1. Measurement of variable operational data as shown in table 3. A set of values, and assumptions that arise from member or organizational interactions, which guide and motivate work.
• clan, • adhocracy, • market, dan • hierarchy 3 Motivation a psychological process that reflects the interaction between attitudes, needs, perceptions and decisions that occur within a person.
• Mastery or mastery of skills • Autonomy or independence • Purpose or meaningful purpose.

Organization Agility
An organization that can rapidly reconfigure its strategy, structure, processes, people, and technology, toward opportunities to create value and protect organizational value.
• Customer satisfaction, • Cooperation, • people and information, • change control

Classical Assumption Test
The multiple linear analysis model can be called a good model if the model fulfills the assumption of data normality and is free from classical statistical assumptions, be it multicollinearity, autocorrelation, and heteroscedasticity.
a. Normality test is conducted to test whether the dependent variable in a regression model is normally distributed or not. The way to determine the normality of the data is the Kolmogorov Smirnov test, in this test the guidelines used in decision making are If the sig value is> 0.05 then the data distribution is normal If the sig value <0.05 then the data distribution is not normal. b. Multi-collinearity test is used to determine whether there is a correlation of independent variables between each other. In this study, the technique to detect the presence or absence of multicollinearity in the regression model can be seen from the tolerance value and Variance inflation factor (VIF), the tolerance value which is> 0.1 and the VIF value < 10 indicates that there is no multicollinearity between the independent variables. c. Heteroscedasticity Test. aims to test whether in the regression model there is an inequality of variance from the residuals of one observation to another. Heteroscedasticity testing is done using the Glejser test. In the Glejser test, the absolute residual value is regressed on the independent variable. If the Sig value. > 0.05, it is certain that the model does not contain symptoms of heteroscedasticity.

Multiple Linear Regression Analysis
Regression aims to test the influence relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. The equation for multiple linear regression is as follows: Y= α + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + e ) aims to determine how much the ability of the independent variable to explain the dependent variable. The R square value is said to be good if it is above 0.5 because the R square value ranges from 0 -1.

Descriptive Analysis
The characteristics of the respondent describe the identity of the respondent such as circumstances, characteristics or special characteristics that can provide an overview of the respondent's situation. The characteristic data in question includes gender, education level, age of the respondent, and length of work of the respondent.

Distribution of Respondents by Gender
The characteristics of respondents based on gender in this study are intended to determine the composition of respondents based on gender. The composition of the respondents is contained in the table 4:  Table 4, shows that of the 85 respondents who were sampled in this study, 54 respondents were male or (63.5%) and 31 respondents were female or (36.5%).

Distribution of Respondents Based on Education Level.
The distribution of respondents based on education is displayed to determine the level of education of respondents who are the object of quizzer data collection. This level of education is of course the basics of respondent instrument data in this study. Respondents based on education can be presented as follows: Based on table 5, it shows that the education level of employees o is mostly from high school graduates 76 respondents, Bachelor's degree as many as 9 respondents, while there is no master's degree. Table 6 shows that the age composition of respondents, the average age of employees is in the young age group of 18-25 years old.

Distribution of respondents based on length of service
The distribution of respondents based on length of service is often also called work experience. Experienced employees tend to have good performance, and it does not mean that other employees have poor performance. Based on table 7, it can be explained that the overall work experience of employees who work in this company for the longest is 2 years. Based on the table 8, all research variables have a calculated r-value greater than r-estimated, namely 0.1807, so that the question items in this study can be said to be valid. Meanwhile, to see the quizzer reliability test, the reliability test is used as contained in the table below: Based on table 9, all research variables have a Cronbach Alpha value greater than the standard value of 0.60 so that the question items in this study can be said to be reliable.

Heteroscedasticity Test
In the test results with the help of the SPSS 20 program, the homoscedasticity test can be seen from the comparison of the t value with the significant value as follows: According to Singgih Santoso 2000: 2008) a good regression model is not heteroscedasticity. The picture above shows no heteroscedasticity. This is indicated by the absence of a clear pattern, and the points spread above and below the number 0 on the Y axis.

F-Test
This test is intended to determine how the independent variables consisting of Leadership Agility (X1) Organizational Culture variables (X2) and Motivation variables (X3), simultaneously affect Organizational Agility. The table above obtained F-calculated = 52,600> F-estimated = 3.11, and has a significance level of 0.000. Because the probability of 0.000 is much smaller than 0.05, it can be said that the regression model that has been used can increase Organizational Agility.

T-test
To determine the partial effect of each independent variable of Leadership Agility (X1), Organizational Culture variable (X2) and Motivation variable (X3) on Organizational Agility, the following will be explained as follows: • Based on the results of research that examines the effect of Leadership Agility on Organizational Agility, the value of t count = 6.690> t-estimated= 1.663 with a significance level of 0.000, smaller when compared to the α = 5% level. These results indicate that in statistical calculations Leadership agility affects organizational agility. Thus the first hypothesis which states that Leadership Agility affects Organizational Agility, is proven (H1 is accepted). • Based on the results of research that examines the effect of organizational culture on organizational agility, the value of t count = 4,720> t-estimated = 1,663 with a significance level of 0.000, smaller when compared to the α = 5% level. These results indicate that in statistical calculations Organizational Culture affects Organizational Agility. Thus the second hypothesis which states that Organizational culture affects Organizational Agility is proven (H2 is accepted). • Based on the results of research that examines the effect of Motivation on Organizational Agility, the value of t-calculated= 2.163 > t-estimated = 1.663, with a significance level of 0.034, smaller when compared to the α = 5% level. These results indicate that in statistical calculations Motivation affects Organizational Agility. Thus the third hypothesis which states that Motivation affects Organizational Agility can be accepted or proven (H3 is accept).

a. The Effect of Agility Leadership on Organizational Agility
Based on the research results, it is stated that Leadership Agility has a positive and significant effect on Organizational Agility. Leadership Agility in this study uses dimensions modified from several studies, namely Joiner, 2009;Joiner & Yusuf, 2007, Spyridonidis, (2020, Ghazzawi at.al, (2020), Fidiana (2021), namely Anticipation, Articulation, Adaptation, and Collaboration. Where each indicator can be explained as follows. First, company managers have the ability to know risk management and anticipatory steps in facing the challenges of the current business environment. This indicator has responses with agreed criteria. The results of this response are in accordance with the views of (Fahami et al., 2017). that a new paradigm that perceives change as an opportunity to respond, exploit, and benefit, through creative ways to respond to environmental changes and generate success. This means that agile leaders are leaders who are able to make challenges an opportunity, this has been done by all levels of managers when the company faces business challenges. The results of this study are also in accordance with the theoretical opinion put forward by Purnomo, (2017), which states that there are three main problems facing entrepreneurial organizations today, namely customers, competition, and change. In order to face these three problems, during the old economy, organizations generally adapted by restructuring and reengineering in response to changes in the business environment. Meanwhile, in the new economic era characterized by a global business environment, crisis, and inter-connectivity, entrepreneurial organizations can survive by building organizational agility. Organizational agility is a new way for entrepreneurial organizations to deal with rapid and turbulent changes in the business environment.
Indicator Articulation, with the statement Managers have endurance and good managerial preparation when the company faces threats. This indicator also has responses with agreed criteria. This shows that managers as a company that provides employment services with an outsourcing system have the ability to articulate risk alarms as a sign of danger that the company will face. Risk is something that must be experienced by the company in running its business. Companies that want high profits must also be ready to bear high risks. Therefore, in addition to calculating the expected profits, the management must also calculate the risks that the company will bear. The management must be able to find alternatives that offer the highest level of return with a certain level of risk, or that offer a certain level of return with the lowest level of risk. For example, when the economy is in a situation leading to a crisis, the company also has planning to deal with it. The results of respondents' responses with the criteria agree. This shows that agile leaders are leaders who have good situational skills and responsiveness. So that they can understand market conditions, have good market sensing, by trying to maintain and maintain good relationships with stakeholders including customers.
The next item is related to the statement that managers at all levels work in one change management scheme. Respondents' responses with the criteria value agree. This certainly means that leader agility can be carried out through an integrative managerial scheme, with the strength of company resources. Collaboration Indicator. This indicator has a response value with criteria close to sufficient. This means that this collaboration problem is related to how to build a strong network with stakeholders, this needs to be a concern of managers, so as to strengthen their position as a competitive company, this can be done with a quick and precise reaction or response in decision making. For example, decisions related to cooperation, with partners, building corporate trust, and shareholders. Based on the results of the respondents' responses, the results of this study support the human resource management (HRM) literature, which has been studied related to various leadership styles and the theories that support them. In practice, a person's leadership style is flexible, even in contingency theory, someone with a conducive leadership character is usually considered more as a leader who understands a situation. Conceptually, in various studies in the field of management, the theories adopted as the basis for building a scientific paradigm of leadership agility variables originate from technological transformation and human resource management (HRM), which are so flexible and highly dynamic, so that the conception of agile leadership is always associated with expectations, as well as pragmatic situations and conditions Gao, at.al (2020). This is found in research in the fields of marketing management, information technology, strategic management (Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016), which is then transmitted to financial management, human resources, economics, and almost all segments of agile leadership science have a place in all segments of the organization. Research by Miruna (2020), Fachrunnisa, at.al. (2020). Syed Arslan Haider, at.al. (2021, Zulkifli (2021), Saputra N, (2021) can be the basis for theoretical justification. That the evolution of agility leadership, emerged from Teece et al.'s thinking, in 1997, about dynamic capabilities, with a focus on strategic management, and marketing strategy. Nibedita at.al, (2017), AT. Walter (2019), which is also inspired by the Theory Of The Growth Of The Firm theory, and RBV theory. The implications of the results of this study are in accordance with several studies adopted in this study, namely, Muhammad, at.al (2021) Nafei, (2016). The results of the study can be seen that indicators related to how to build networks, and act quickly should still be a point of further development. Another implication with the organizational agility variable is that the results of this study support the theories of Goldman et al. (1995), and Taylor (2020).

b. The Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Agility
Based on the results of the study, it is stated that Organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on Organizational Agility. Organizational culture in this study uses indicators of The Clan Culture, Adhocracy Cuture, Market Culture, and Hirarcy culture, where each of these indicators is explained as follows. First the Clan culture. or family culture type, this indicator has a statement, item one, working in this company makes me calm, and love work even more, with a family-like environment. Respondents' responses were in the agree category. Item two, Employees like to work in this place because of the cooperation and family relationship, with an agreed category value. This means that the company has a family character, there is an environment that can manage the company well through team work, and HR development and treat consumers as partners. The main task of management is to control and foster employees to make it easier for them to participate. The second indicator, the Creative Culture type (Adhocracy Culture), with two statements, namely superiors encourage employees to be creative, so that the services provided can satisfy service users, and employees have a commitment and understand that the key to the company's success is service. Based on the results of the respondents' answers, it is known that the criterion value of the answer is agreed.
The results of this study indicate that the main purpose of adhorachy is to foster or assist the development of adaptability, flexibility and creativity. An important challenge in this organization is to produce innovative products and services and adapt quickly to new opportunities. Effective leadership is visionary, innovative and risk-oriented. Readiness for the formation and fulfillment of new challenges such as new knowledge, new products and new services is important. Companies that embrace an adhocratic work culture will be more dynamic and creative. Leaders are seen as innovators who dare to take risks and spur employee motivation in realizing fresh ideas. This work culture emphasizes the concept of freedom for employees to create something new so that later it will be able to make the company survive in the midst of intense competition.
In relation to agility leadership, the type of leader is Innovator, entrepreneur, visionary. The driving values are Innovative output, transformation, agility. The theory of effectiveness is innovativeness, vision and effective new resources. The Quality Improvement Strategy is seen from the point of view of surprise and delight, creating new standards, anticipating needs, continuous improvement, finding creative solutions. The third indicator is market culture. This indicator also has an agreed criterion value. The results of this response indicate that market work culture is a work culture that uses competition as the basis for running a company. From this competition, employees will be more motivated to be competitive and focus on achieving work productivity levels. A leader in this work culture must be able to create a healthy and conducive competitive situation for all employees in the company. This type of culture is a results-based organization that emphasizes getting the job done and getting things done. In this culture, people are competitive and goal-focused. Leaders are hard drivers, producers, and rivals at the same time. People are resilient and have high expectations. Emphasis is on the organization winning together and continuously. Reputation and success are the most important. Long-term focus is the concept of competitive activities and achieving goals. Market and stock pressure is the definition of success. Competitive pricing and market leadership are important.
The organizational style is based on competition. The type of leader in a market culture type organization is a hard-nosed and "cold-handed" mover, competitor, producer. The driving values espoused are stock market, goal achievement, profitability. Effectiveness theory is based on effective competitive aggressiveness and customer focus. Quality improvement strategies are based on measuring client preferences, increasing productivity, creating external partnerships, increasing competitiveness involving customers and suppliers. The fourth indicator is The Hierarchy Culture. This indicator has an agreed response value. The results of this response indicate that organizations with this hierarchical culture are organizations with formal and structured work environments. It is the procedure that has the right to decide what members of this organization do. Leaders ensure and keep the organization functioning smoothly is the most important thing. Formal rules and organizational policies are executed and set together. Long-term goals are stability and results, paired with efficient execution and smooth running of tasks. Trusted delivery, good planning, and low costs define success. The leader type is a coordinator, monitor, organizer. The driving values in this organization are efficiency, timeliness, consistency, and uniformity. The theory of effectiveness is control and efficiency with effective processes. Quality improvement strategies look at error detection, measurement, process control, systematic problem solving, quality of tools used. In relation to leadership agility and organizational agility, Agility requires a proactive attitude requiring integration with customers so that customer needs and demands are well identified (Sharp et al, 1999), in Purnomo (2017). Organizations that are able to adapt will have a greater chance of gaining competitive advantage and achieving strategic goals. This is certainly in accordance with the company's vision, which is to become an integrated and leading labor service provider company in Indonesia by prioritizing the quality of reliable human resource development. The ease with which organizations can change and the speed with which organizations can change recently indicate a shift from strategic flexibility to agility, which is generally characterized by dimensions of responsiveness to the environment and adaptive change. Based on the discussion above, in general, the results of this study show the same results as the research of Fauziyyah and S.  (2015) also identified a significant relationship between organizational culture and organizational agility. Raharja Irwan (2021) also found the same results. Meanwhile, Steven Martin's research, (2021), showed insignificant results. The implication of this research with the theories adopted in this study, is that organizations with modern and competitive labels, unconsciously or without knowing, that they have applied the principles of agility. Organizational culture affects all aspects of the organization, will empower the organization based on shared beliefs and values, including agility (Fahami et al., 2017;Sarshar and Hezarjaribi, 2016). In relation to organizational agility, the results of this study are also in accordance with the Goldman Agility Model theory, that organizational agility requires customer satisfaction, cooperation, people and information, and change control. In addition, the appropriate theory is RBV as stated earlier. The results of this study also justify the competing value framework model of Cameron and Quinn (2006), which is classified as a model that is comprehensively able to analyze organizational culture (Rai, 2011); consisting of four cultural types, namely: clan, adhocracy, market, and hierarchy. In the real world, it is rare for an organization to have only one type of organizational culture; an effective organization requires the full performance of the four sets of organizational culture criteria. Organizations that have all four types of culture are considered "balanced" and will be high performing.

c. The Effect of Motivation on Organizational Agility
Based on the results of the study, it is stated that Motivation has a positive and significant effect on Organizational Agility. Motivation in this study, using Daniel Pink's theory, which describes three factors in the theory of intrinsic motivation. The three are: Mastery or mastery of expertise, Autonomy or independence, and Purpose or meaningful goals. The use of this theory is based on the consideration that motivation theories generally have the same root problems. Each of these dimensions can be explained as follows. The first indicator relates to the existence of space or opportunities for employees to take part in training and skills related to work, and the company provides space for creativity for employees to continue to innovate in work. Based on the results of respondents' responses, it shows that the results obtained with the criteria agree. The results of this response indicate that employees are always given the opportunity to attend training before carrying out their duties. The results of this study are also in accordance with the facts in the field that in placing employees, of course, it is preceded by training and developing HR expertise. Indicators of Independence.
This indicator is related to appreciating and empowering the work of productive employees, socializing company policies and prospects to employees. The results of respondents' responses show that employees really appreciate the performance of their employees, the company also always socializes policies to employees. The results of this study also show that in this way, employee commitment to employees will also grow. The results of this response are in line with the research of Nikpor et al (2015), at the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Iran, with significant positive research results from the relationship between organizational agility and employee productivity. These results also support the research of Qader Abdel Ahmad (2021), who examined organizational agility in the Jordanian Cement Company, with the result that organizational agility is positively related to employee commitment. Indicator Purpose with the statement The company encourages understanding of the company's goals to be achieved to employees. The response results show that the criteria agree. This means that by understanding the goals that the company will achieve, employees will increase their intrinsic motivation. The results of this response are in accordance with Zahra's research, (2021), which examined the Hamadan Gas Company, with the finding that to build organizational agility, employees must be provided with empowerment by providing facilities that function as a source of motivation. Abbood Bandar. (2020), which examines educational institutions in Karbala with the same results. Based on the results of the explanation above, then overall, the results of this study support the research, Farangis Elyasi, at.al, (2013). Sakitri (2021), Manoj M. (2020), Manoj M. (2020). The results of this study support the theoretical statement from Sakitri (2021), that in the formation of an agile culture, leaders who are oriented towards creativity and innovation are needed, emphasizing the importance of adaptive and responsive performance, as well as focusing on team collaboration and delegating autonomy. In addition, leaders need to consistently implement organization-wide learning and development to be agile and nimble in the face of uncertainty. Agile organizations are designed to not only aim for stability, but also focus on dynamism. This paradigm asserts that a dynamic system will make the organization able to move flexibly and responsively to opportunities and challenges that arise, while still maintaining stability with tenacity, reliability, and efficiency in the implementation of work processes (Aghina, Smet, & Weerda, 2015). Agile organizations are not formed just like that, there are many aspects that influence the formation of organizations to be agile, both from external and internal factors. In this case, what the organization can control are internal variables. In addition, if internal factors can be controlled and strengthened, it is expected that external factors can also be faced and controlled. Organizational agility is formed from a set of teams oriented towards organizational human values that demonstrate learning and fast decision-making processes, utilize technology and are based on a commitment to a common goal to create value for stakeholders (Darino, Sieberer & Vos, 2019). In this case, several strategies can be used by the organization, including building an organizational climate and employees who are always willing to learn, have good competencies, are willing to change, as well as attitudes that are responsive, resilient, reflective, and optimize existing resources.

Conclusion
Based on the results of the research and discussion, the researchers concluded as follows: Leadership agility has a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. The results of this study have answered the problems and hypotheses proposed. Agile leaders will be able to bring about changes in the company. Agile companies need the role of leaders in building the integration of company resources, so as to provide great benefits for the sustainability of the company. Organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. The results of this study not only answer the problem and hypothesis, but also support the theory used. Organizational culture in the company is a source of energy in building organizational agility. Because organizational culture affects all aspects of the organization. The behavior of organizational members is more determined by organizational culture than direction from the leadership, besides that the implementation of strategies in various organizations is more determined by organizational culture. Success in realizing organizational agility requires changes based on organizational culture and values. Motivation has a positive and significant effect on organizational agility. The results of this study answer the research problems and hypotheses. Motivation is very important for a company. The concept of motivational behavior based on material incentives, rewards and punishments is not enough, in building organizational agility. Motivation must be rooted in culture and leadership patterns that are agile, innovative, and creative. Agile leadership must be able to strengthen a strong network with company stakeholders. It is recommended to the company, in order to further strengthen relations with business networks, through improving quality services. Besides that, it must also act quickly in solving company problems, so that it can be more competitive. Organizational culture must be the energy of employee mindset change, towards company agility. It is suggested that market culture, clan culture, and adhocracy culture should be integrated into the behavoiral power of employees in strengthening organizational agility. Employee work motivation must be maintained. The company must encourage employee understanding so that they have a strong bond to organizational agility. It is recommended that companies strengthen contractual relationships with employees, so that employees feel comfortable and continue to be intrinsically motivated..