Praktik MSDM Berkinerja Tinggi dan Perilaku Kerja Inovatif: Peran Kepuasan Kerja Pegawai Milenial Sektor Publik

Feti Arman; Leny Rudihartati

Authors

Feti Arman Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Nusantara Lampung
Leny Rudihartati Sekolah Tinggi Teknologi Nusantara Lampung

Keywords:

praktik MSDM berkinerja tinggi, kepuasan kerja, perilaku kerja inovatif, analisis sekunder, sektor publik

Abstract

Praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia berkinerja tinggi dipandang sebagai sumber daya organisasi yang mendukung inovasi pegawai, tetapi hubungan tersebut perlu dinilai bersama kualitas pengukuran kepuasan kerja. Penelitian ini menganalisis hubungan praktik tersebut dengan perilaku kerja inovatif serta asosiasi tidak langsung melalui kepuasan kerja pada dataset terbuka pegawai milenial sektor publik Indonesia. Analisis sekunder menggunakan 260 baris respons, dengan 20 item praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia, tiga item kepuasan kerja, dan sembilan item perilaku inovatif. Skor rata-rata item dianalisis melalui regresi dengan galat baku tahan heteroskedastisitas dan bootstrap sebanyak 10.000 pengambilan sampel ulang. Praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia berhubungan positif dengan perilaku inovatif setelah memasukkan kepuasan kerja ke dalam model (koefisien = 0,504; interval kepercayaan 95%: 0,350–0,657). Kepuasan kerja juga menunjukkan hubungan positif (koefisien = 0,375; interval kepercayaan 95%: 0,211–0,540). Model menjelaskan 42,5% variasi skor perilaku inovatif. Asosiasi tidak langsung bernilai 0,259 dengan interval kepercayaan bootstrap 95% sebesar 0,142–0,392. Arah hubungan bertahan pada analisis profil unik, pengukuran kepuasan dua item, dan penyaringan respons berpengaruh. Namun, reliabilitas kepuasan kerja tiga item rendah (alfa = 0,438), dan identitas responden tidak tersedia untuk memverifikasi profil jawaban identik. Temuan mendukung keterkaitan antarvariabel pada tingkat skor teramati, dengan interpretasi mekanisme mediasi yang bersifat sementara. Kontribusi penelitian terletak pada penggabungan analisis hubungan dengan pemeriksaan pengukuran dan sensitivitas yang transparan, tanpa menggeneralisasikan hasil sebagai hubungan sebab akibat atau karakteristik seluruh pegawai milenial.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

C. Boon, D. N. Den Hartog dan D. P. Lepak, “A Systematic Review of Human Resource Management Systems and Their Measurement,” Journal of Management, vol. 45, no. 6, hlm. 2498–2537, 2019. doi: 10.1177/0149206318818718.

H. Seeck dan M. R. Diehl, “A literature review on HRM and innovation – taking stock and future directions,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, no. 6, hlm. 913–944, 2017. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1143862.

A. Bos-Nehles, M. Renkema dan M. Janssen, “HRM and innovative work behaviour: a systematic literature review,” Personnel Review, vol. 46, no. 7, hlm. 1228–1253, 2017. doi: 10.1108/PR-09-2016-0257.

S. Wood, “Human Resource Management–Performance Research: Is Everyone Really on the Same Page on Employee Involvement?,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 22, no. 4, hlm. 408–426, 2020. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12235.

K. Jiang dan J. Messersmith, “On the shoulders of giants: a meta-review of strategic human resource management,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 29, no. 1, hlm. 6–33, 2018. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1384930.

H. de Vries, V. Bekkers dan L. Tummers, “Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda,” Public Administration, vol. 94, no. 1, hlm. 146–166, 2016. doi: 10.1111/padm.12209.

E. Knies, P. Boselie, J. Gould-Williams dan W. Vandenabeele, “Strategic human resource management and public sector performance: context matters,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 35, no. 14, hlm. 2432–2444, 2024. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1407088.

A. Bos-Nehles, T. Bondarouk dan K. Nijenhuis, “Innovative work behaviour in knowledge-intensive public sector organizations: the case of supervisors in the Netherlands fire services,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, no. 2, hlm. 379–398, 2017. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1244894.

D. E. Guest, “Human resource management and employee well‐being: towards a new analytic framework,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, hlm. 22–38, 2017. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12139.

C. Ogbonnaya dan J. Messersmith, “Employee performance, well‐being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes?,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 29, no. 3, hlm. 509–526, 2019. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12203.

J. Zhang, M. N. Akhtar, P. M. Bal, Y. Zhang dan U. Talat, “How Do High-Performance Work Systems Affect Individual Outcomes: A Multilevel Perspective,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 9, artikel 586, 2018. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00586.

A. C. Bos-Nehles dan A. A. R. Veenendaal, “Perceptions of HR practices and innovative work behavior: the moderating effect of an innovative climate,” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 30, no. 18, hlm. 2661–2683, 2019. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1380680.

F. Homberg, D. McCarthy dan V. Tabvuma, “A Meta‐Analysis of the Relationship between Public Service Motivation and Job Satisfaction,” Public Administration Review, vol. 75, no. 5, hlm. 711–722, 2015. doi: 10.1111/puar.12423.

D. P. Costanza dan L. M. Finkelstein, “Generationally Based Differences in the Workplace: Is There a There There?,” Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 8, no. 3, hlm. 308–323, 2015. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.15.

C. W. Rudolph, R. S. Rauvola, D. P. Costanza dan H. Zacher, “Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward,” Journal of Business and Psychology, vol. 36, no. 6, hlm. 945–967, 2021. doi: 10.1007/s10869-020-09715-2.

Wahyuningrat, “Research on High Performance HRM Practices In Indonesian Public Sector from Millennials Perspective,” Mendeley Data, versi 1, 2023. doi: 10.17632/x8z7fm48z4.1.

P. G. Curran, “Methods for the detection of carelessly invalid responses in survey data,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 66, hlm. 4–19, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.006.

D. McNeish, “Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here,” Psychological Methods, vol. 23, no. 3, hlm. 412–433, 2018. doi: 10.1037/met0000144.

A. F. Hayes dan J. J. Coutts, “Use Omega Rather than Cronbach’s Alpha for Estimating Reliability. But…,” Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 14, no. 1, hlm. 1–24, 2020. doi: 10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629.

J. K. Flake dan E. I. Fried, “Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them,” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, vol. 3, no. 4, hlm. 456–465, 2020. doi: 10.1177/2515245920952393.

A. F. Hayes dan N. J. Rockwood, “Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 98, hlm. 39–57, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001.

J. M. Rohrer, “Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data,” Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, vol. 1, no. 1, hlm. 27–42, 2018. doi: 10.1177/2515245917745629.

R. L. Wasserstein, A. L. Schirm dan N. A. Lazar, “Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”,” The American Statistician, vol. 73, no. sup1, hlm. 1–19, 2019. doi: 10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913.