The Influence of Work Ethic on Public Services: Lessons from a Distant Indonesian Local Public Organization
Abstract
This research aimed to identify and analyze the principles, standards, elements, and quality of public services at the Office of Industry, Trade, and Cooperatives of Yahukimo Regency, Indonesia, located in a remote area. The research method applied was a qualitative descriptive survey with observation and interviews. The interviewees in this study were from 15 informants of different position levels. This study employed an interactive model to analyze the interview data. There were four main findings; firstly, in terms of the principle of public service transparency, the public was increasingly motivated to convey their demands, requests, and aspirations to the government. Meanwhile, accountability services were satisfactory per the provisions of laws and regulations, but public participation in public services was still lacking. Secondly, public service standards and service procedures were implemented following the stipulated provisions and competencies of officials. Those public officers had related-abilities in the form of knowledge, prowess, skill, attitude, and behavior that are required in completing their duties. Thirdly, in terms of public services, the public officers’ work ethic was a driving force for the officials to comply with the prior-set and agreed with rules and work procedures. At the same time, the facilities and infrastructure were adequate. Finally, regarding the quality of public services, the goals and targets of the service were well achieved.
Downloads
References
Barth, F. (2010). Introduction to ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference. Selected Studies in International Migration and Immigrant Incorporation, 1, 407.
Berman, E. M., Bowman, J. S., West, J. P., & Van Wart, M. R. (2019). Human resource management in public service: Paradoxes, processes, and problems. CQ Press.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co-production of public services. Public administration review, 67(5), 846–860.
Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social networks and social capital. Social science & medicine, 52(10), 1501-1516.
Dawes, S. S. (2010). Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(4), 377–383.
Debrah, E. (2011). Measuring governance institutions’ success in Ghana: the case of the electoral commission, 1993–2008. African Studies, 70(1), 25-45.
Eversole, R. (2012). Remaking participation: challenges for community development practice. Community development journal, 47(1), 29-41.
Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal-setting theory with time: An integrated approach. Academy of management Review, 29(3), 404-422.
Grout, P. A., & Stevens, M. (2003). The assessment: financing and managing public services. Oxford Review of economic policy, 19(2), 215–234.
Grubb, T. (2007). Performance appraisal reappraised: it’s not all positive. Journal of Human Resources Education, 1(1), 1–22.
Hadiyati, E. (2014). Service quality and performance of public sector: Study on immigration office in Indonesia. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(6), 104-117.
Hanis, M. H. (2012). A public asset management framework for Indonesian local governments (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology).
Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public money and management, 25(1), 27–34.
Heath, R. L., & Palenchar, M. J. (2008). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public policy challenges. Sage Publications.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?. Public administration review, 64(1), 55-65.
Jehanzeb, K., & Bashir, N. A. (2013). Training and development program and its benefits to employee and organization: A conceptual study. European Journal of business and management, 5(2), 243-252.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143–160.
Mahendra, W., Pratiwi, M., & Prawesti, R. (2014). Citizens’ Aspirations and Complaints Online System (LAPOR) in Indonesia: Making Citizens Happy. WCPA, 1–15.
Mahsyar, A. (2011). Masalah pelayanan publik di Indonesia dalam perspektif administrasi publik. Otoritas: Jurnal Ilmu Pemerintahan, 1(2).
Milakovich, M. E. (1991). Total quality management in the public sector. National Productivity Review, 10(2), 195-213.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1992). Analisis data kualitatif. UI press.
Moenir. (2006). Manajemen Pelayanan Umum di Indonesia. Jakarta: PT. Bumi Aksara.
Muñuzuri, J., Larrañeta, J., Onieva, L., & Cortés, P. (2005). Solutions applicable by local administrations for urban logistics improvement. Cities, 22(1), 15-28.
Na-Nan, K., Kanthong, S., Joungtrakul, J., & Smith, I. D. (2020). Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment between Problems with Performance Appraisal and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3), 64.
Nuriyanto, N. (2014). Penyelenggaraan Pelayanan PublikDi Indonesia, Sudahkah Berlandaskan Konsep “Welfare State”? Jurnal Konstitusi, 11(3), 428–453.
O’Boyle, I. (2013). Individual performance management: A review of current practices. APMBA (Asia Pacific Management and Business Application), 1(3), 157–170.
Prasetyo, H. (2020). A Humanistic Approach of Public Services Implementation as an Effort To Achieve Good Governance. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Administrasi Publik, 10(2), 466–473.
Rahmat, M. (2011). Sasaran Kinerja Pegawai. Pusdiklat Kepegawaian.
Rante, A., & Warokka, A. (2016). Leadership style, decentralisation and managerial performance: Does the management accounting system mediate the relationship?. Journal for Global Business Advancement, 9(1), 79-89.
Republik Indonesia. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 25 Tahun 2000 tentang Program Pembangunan Nasional (PROPENAS).
Rothstein, B. O., & Teorell, J. A. N. (2008). What is quality of government? A theory of impartial government institutions. Governance, 21(2), 165–190.
Rukayat, Y. (2018). Kualitas pelayanan publik bidang administrasi kependudukan di kecamatan pasirjambu. Jurnal Ilmiah Magister Administrasi, 11(2), 56-65.
Sasser, W. E., Olsen, R. P., & Wyckoff, D. D. (1978). Management of Service Operations: Text and Cases. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sinambela, L. P., Rochadi, S., Ghazali, R., Muksin, A., Setiabudi, D., Bima, D., & Syaifudin. (2011). Reformasi Pelayanan Publik: Teori, Kebijakan, dan Implementasi. Bumi Aksara.
Spicker, P. (2009). The nature of a public service. Intl Journal of Public Administration, 32(11), 970–991.
Székely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23(6), 628-647.
Tasca, J. E., Ensslin, L., Ensslin, S. R., & Alves, M. B. M. (2010). An approach for selecting a theoretical framework for the evaluation of training programs. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(7), 631-655. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591011070761
Wang, X. (2002). Assessing administrative accountability: Results from a national survey. The American Review of Public Administration, 32(3), 350-370.
Warokka, A. (2013). Fiscal decentralization and special local autonomy: evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Southeast Asian Research, 2013, 1.
Wihantoro, Y., Lowe, A., Cooper, S., & Manochin, M. (2015). Bureaucratic reform in post-Asian crisis Indonesia: The directorate general of tax. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 31, 44-63.
Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance–trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public administration review, 66(1), 114-126.