Social Exchange Theory proposed by (Blau, 1964) explains that the relationship between individuals is formed on the basis of profit and loss considerations in every social interaction. This theory emphasizes that in social relationships, individuals act based on reciprocal exchanges built on trust, obligation, and expectations of reciprocity. Relationships that occur are interdependent and develop into long-term relationships if both parties feel that the relationship is beneficial (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Employees will reciprocate the treatment they receive according to the rewards they get from the organization for the contributions they make, so this will affect employee job satisfaction (Rimi et al., 2023).

Social relationships built on trust, obligation, and expectation of reciprocity involve two principles in this theory, namely reciprocity, which emphasizes balanced give and take, and fairness, which refers to equal and proper treatment in the relationship (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Reciprocity refers to an individual's urge to reciprocate positive treatment received from others. When employees feel they get Work Life Balance (WLB) and Quality of Work Life (QWL) support from the organization, they will respond with positive attitudes such as loyalty, improved performance, and job satisfaction.

Meanwhile, the principle of justice refers to an individual's perception of whether the treatment and rewards received are in accordance with the contributions made. In this case, self-efficacy is related to perceptions of fairness, because a person's confidence is formed from the fair treatment he receives in the work environment.

According to Sukardi & Saputro (2024), Work life balance (WLB) is a balanced condition in a person's life that allows individuals to fulfill work obligations while still paying attention to and carrying out roles in their personal lives.

Employees consider life balance a necessity because they have work and family responsibilities. Meanwhile, companies see it as a challenge to build a work culture that encourages consistency of responsibilities inside and outside work (Asari, 2022). A good level of WLB will encourage employees to have a high level of job satisfaction (Pratama & Setiadi, 2021). In line with previous research showing the same results. (Aulia & Putra, 2024), (García-Salirrosas et al., 2023),(Abdurrahman, 2025)state that WLB has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction.

H1: Work Life Balance has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction.

According to Irawati & Novianti, (2022), Quality of Work Life (QWL) is a management approach that aims to continuously improve the quality of employees' work life together and sustainably within the organizational environment. QWL can support the creation of a productive and purposeful organization, while meeting the personal needs of employees through the formation of values, improving health and well-being, providing security, job satisfaction, developing abilities, and maintaining a balance between work and personal life (Hendrawijaya & Rizal, 2022). QWL that is implemented properly will make employees feel satisfied in carrying out their work (Kurniawan & Karanita, 2022). This is in line with research from (Ekowati & Ariani, 2022), (Azmi & Pitoyo, 2023), (Amelia et al., 2023)showing that QWL has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction.

H2: Quality of Work Life has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction.

Self-efficacy is a person's belief in their own ability to organize and carry out the steps needed to achieve goals or complete certain tasks (Bandura, 1977).Someone with a low level of self-efficacy tends to feel unable to solve tasks and problems, so there is a lack of confidence in their own abilities. Meanwhile, employees with high self-efficacy will be more confident, more productive, and faster in completing the tasks and problems faced (Sasti et al. 2023)., High self- efficacy makes employees confident in their ability to work so that employees can be more productive, have high motivation, and feel more satisfied with their work (Ketut et al., 2024).This is in line with research (Sutoro, 2021), (Roro & Soemadi, 2022), (Mubyl & Sari, 2023)Self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction.

H3: Self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction.

Table 1 explains that out of 107 questionnaires distributed, 107 questionnaires were returned (100%). All questionnaires returned in good condition, so 107 respondents can be used in the analysis.

Table 2 shows that there are 74 male respondents (69.2%), while female workers are 33 respondents (30.8%). The majority of employees employed are male due to the needs of divisions that require physical strength or technical skills such as in the operational section. There were 54 (50.5%) respondents who were married, while 53 (49.5%) respondents were unmarried. Individuals who have family responsibilities often experience a balance between work and personal life which can have an impact on job satisfaction. All 107 (100%) respondents are contract employees. The majority of respondents have a high school / vocational high school education 69 people (64.5%) of respondents who are ready to enter the world of work. A total of 41 respondents (38.3%) have worked for >5 years, this illustrates that most respondents have had considerable work experience. Most of the respondents were from the Housekeeping division 24 Respondents (22.23%) and Food & Beverage Service 24 Respondents (22.23%), which shows that these two divisions are the divisions with the largest number of employees, illustrating the high need for operational labor in supporting the main service activities at the hotel.

Convergent Validity serves to test the validity of the indicators used in variable measurement. Referring to the general rule, the indicator LF value ≥ 0.7 is declared valid (Hair et al., 2017). Outer loading is a value that provides an overview of the correlation between an indicator and its latent variable.

Table 3. Outer Loadings

According to Hair et al. (2017), outer loading values <0.70 can be considered for elimination. However, if it is between 0.4-0.7, the indicator can still be retained if it does not cause a decrease in AVE and CR. In the first run, some values did not meet the criteria. Therefore, a second run was carried out by eliminating indicators X1.4, X1.8, X2.3, X2.4, X2.6, X2.11, X3.4, X3.6 and Y1.5 to increase the average variance extracted (AVE) value. After the second run, the results show that all indicators in this model are valid.

Based on the results of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculation, the AVE values for all variables in this study, namely Work Life Balance (0.520), Quality of Work Life (0.505), Self-efficacy (0.516), and Job satisfaction (0.652), are all greater than the minimum limit of 0.5. This shows that each latent variable is able to explain more than 50% of the variance of its indicators.

Discriminant Validity is used to test that each concept of each latent variable is different from other variables. A model has good discriminant validity if the correlation value of the construct with the measurement item is greater than the correlation value with other constructs. The SmartPLS output results for the Fornell-Larcker value in the second round are as follows:

Table 5. Discriminant Validity Test (Fornell-Larcker Criterion)

Discriminant test results using the Fornell-Larcker Criterion based on the discriminant validity test above. Data is categorized as having good discriminant if each highest loading factor is compared with the loading factor for other latent variables. Indicates that each latent variable shows good discriminant validity, although some still show highly correlated measurements with other constructs.

Table 6. HTMT Test (Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations)

In table 6, discriminant validity is tested using HTMT (Heterotrait- Monotrait Ratio). According to Henseler et al., (2015), the recommended HTMT value to indicate discriminant validity is <0.85. The values of WLB and QWL (0.764), QWL and Self-efficacy (0.733), Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction (0.547), All HTMT values <0.85 mean that discriminant validity is met, each construct has a clear difference with each other statistically, which indicates that the constructs are indeed measuring different things, discriminant validity is met according to the limits recommended by (Henseler et al., 2015).

Composite reliability is a measure of indicators for variables that show good composite reliability if the composite reliability value exceeds 0.7 (Ghozali, 2014).

In Table 7 above, the results indicate that the composite reliability test in this study demonstrates good reliability, suggesting that the questionnaire used is consistent. This is further supported by the Cronbach's Alpha values for all constructs, which are greater than 0.7, confirming that the indicators are consistently measuring their respective constructs.

The Structural Model is a model that provides a description of the relationship between constructs. This evaluation includes R Square (R²) and direct effect. The use of R Square is to measure the success rate of regression model predictions on the value of the dependent variable.

Based on Table 8, the coefficient of determination (R²) for Employee Job Satisfaction (Y) is 0.268, which indicates that 26.8% of the variation in employee job satisfaction can be explained by the influence of Work Life Balance, Quality of Work Life and Self-efficacy variables. Meanwhile, the remaining 73.2% is affected by other variables not discussed in this study. The F-Square value is interpreted as follows: small effect ≥ 0.02, medium for ≥ 0.15, and large for ≥ 0.35. The F-Square value of Work Life Balance is very small (0.005), the Quality of Work Life value shows a small effect (0.048) and the Self-efficacy value has a small effect (0.108) on employee job satisfaction.

The model fit evaluation results show that the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) value is 0.087, which indicates that this model has an acceptable standard residual level even though it exceeds the ideal limit of ≤ 0.08 (Henseler et al., 2016). The d_ULS value of 2.284 and d_G of 0.865 are in a range that indicates a low level of model mismatch. The Normed Fit Index (NFI) value obtained of 0.646 indicates that the fit of the model to the data is low, considering the recommended limit is ≥ 0.90 (Hair et al., 2017).

The t-statistics and probability values obtained through bootstrapping results are analyzed for hypothesis testing. Hypothesis testing using the t- statistics value, for alpha 5%, the t-statistics value used is 1.96. Apart from that, hypothesis testing can be carried out using a P-value <0.05. If the variable meets the criteria, then the variable can be declared to have a significant influence.

From table 10, the rejected hypothesis is H1 does not meet the requirements of the t statistic value> 1.96, which is 0.824 with a significance of P values 0.410 so it can be said to be insignificant. Furthermore, H2 is accepted because it has met the requirements for the t statistic value> 1.96, which is 2.194 with a significance of P values 0.029 so that it is said to be significant. H3 is accepted because it has met the requirements of the t statistic value> 1.96, which is 3.664 with P Values 0.000 so that it can be said to be significant.

Referring to the results of the tests that have been carried out, this study shows that Work Life Balance has a negative and insignificant effect on job satisfaction so that hypothesis H1 is rejected. When there is an increase or decrease in WLB, it is not proven to affect the level of employee job satisfaction. The results of this study are in line with (Findy et al., 2020)and (Shyamadanthi et al., 2023)that WLB has a negative and insignificant effect on employee job satisfaction. Meanwhile, research (Pratiwi & Fatoni, 2023)WLB has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction.

The results of this study are related to Social Exchange Theory (SET), even though the company has provided support for work life balance, employees do not always feel it as a form of satisfying return or employees do not view Work Life Balance as an important factor in increasing their satisfaction. This finding is reinforced by research Shyamadanthi et al., (2023), showing that in certain situations, especially in demanding work environments, job stability, social relationships at work, and shared achievements are prioritized over Work Life Balance.

The results of this study provide important implications for the management of Java Heritage Hotel Purwokerto, especially in designing policies related to employee job satisfaction. Companies should not only focus on implementing work-life balance, but also pay attention to other factors that are more influential on job satisfaction, such as a supportive work environment, social relationships between employees, and recognition of work achievements. In addition, this research also theoretically shows that Social Exchange Theory in this context does not always apply absolutely, because in some conditions, employees do not always consider work-life balance as a desired form of reward. The Effect of Quality of Work Life on Employee Job Satisfaction

The results showed that H2 was accepted, that Quality of Work Life has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction. The results of this study are supported by the findings of (Luh et al., 2023)and (Azmi & Pitoyo, 2023)which show the results of Quality of Work Life has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction. This shows that the higher the quality of work life felt by employees, the higher the level of job satisfaction they feel. However, different results were found by (Sangga et al., 2021)which stated that Quality of Work Life has a negative and insignificant effect on employee job satisfaction.

This finding reinforces the principles in Social Exchange Theory. Employees who feel they get fair and supportive treatment from the organization tend to give back in the form of positive attitudes and behaviors, such as increased job satisfaction (Rimi et al., 2023). QWL is not only a welfare effort, but also a social exchange that strengthens the relationship between the organization and employees. QWL can be applied in the form of job training for new employees, recognition of contributions, and provision of facilities that support work comfort (Latukau et al., 2020). In addition, aspects of reward, recognition, job security, and employee participation are important parts of quality of work life that can affect job satisfaction (Kurniawan & Karanita, 2022). management of Java Heritage Hotel Purwokerto in an effort to increase employee job satisfaction. Given that Quality of Work Life (QWL) is proven to have a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, the hotel needs to consistently improve the quality of work life felt by all employees. Increasing QWL can be done through various strategies, such as providing adequate training for new employees, creating a comfortable and safe work environment, and providing work facilities that support employees' daily activities.

The findings above show that hypothesis H3 is accepted, namely Self- efficacy has a positive and significant effect on employee job satisfaction. This finding shows that the higher the level of employee confidence in their ability to complete tasks and face work challenges, the higher the level of job satisfaction they feel. These results are the same as studies by (Roro & Soemadi, 2022), and (Mubyl & Sari, 2023)which show that self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction. Meanwhile, the results of research (Prastica & Silitonga, 2022)state that self efficacy has a negative and insignificant effect on employee job satisfaction.

Referring to Social Exchange Theory, the link between self-efficacy and job satisfaction can be explained as a form of mutually beneficial social exchange. Where organizational support for individual capacity development will encourage positive responses from employees, including in the form of increased job satisfaction. The results of this study confirm the importance of self-efficacy development in creating a productive and satisfying work environment for individuals (Sepyenita et al., 2024).

The results of this study provide implications for the management of Java Heritage Hotel Purwokerto in increasing employee job satisfaction through strengthening self-efficacy. Given that self-efficacy is proven to have a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction, the hotel needs to provide programs that can encourage employees' confidence and belief in their abilities. These efforts can be in the form of continuous self-development training, as well as providing opportunities for employees to complete tasks that are in accordance with their capacity.