Corresponding Author: Lasmaida
Gultom
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Currently, the industrial revolution 4.0 is developing
vitally and massively in terms of scale, scope and complexity because every
line of life is affected by the principles of digitalization technology, artificial
intelligence and big data. Schwab, 2017 said that all lines are inseparable
from the influence of the industrial revolution 4.0, starting from science,
politics, society, economics, industry and government. In this 4.0 industrial
revolution, at least three generations are met, namely the boomer generation,
generation X and the millennial generation (which is referred to as gen Y in
this study). These three generations are still the productive workforce in the
world and Indonesia.
Gen Y has the characteristics of being confident,
independent, and result-oriented. Gen Y also has a high mastery of technology,
it seems that this makes gen Y's self-esteem increase (Meier & Crocker,
2010). The superiority of gen Y is the potential for
creativity and a way of thinking that produces innovative ideas that are beneficial
to the organization. Gen Y's way of thinking that generates innovative ideas is
not only useful for the organization but also for employees, because its role
can support the creation of a smooth work process (Birdi et al., 2016). If employees are able to display innovation and creativity
in the scope of work, then this will increase their intrinsic motivation and
psychological well-being (Amabile et al., 2005).
Y generation in the world of work according to the
data from the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) in 2019 occupies the first
position with 33.25% in terms of population composition in Indonesia, followed
by 29.23% Z generation, 25.74% X generation and finally 11.27% baby boomers. Data
shows that the key is to maximize the ability of Y and Z generation to the
future performance of the Indonesian nation in facing global competition, as
well as encouraging productivity growth that can strengthen the economy and
organization in Indonesia. Gen Y in this study is the generation born in 1980
to the end of 2000 referring to the theory of (Korn, 2010).
This study carried out in Indonesia Financial Services
Authority that has 4,022 as of 31 December 2021 which is consisting of three
generations, namely the baby boomer generation (126 or 3.13%), gen X (935 or
23.25%) and gen Y (2,635 or 65.51%) and gen Z (326 or 8.10%). This data
reflects that IFSA employees are dominated by gen Y, namely 2,635 (65.51% of
4,022 employees) with distribution at the head office and offices in the
regions as administrative employees, staff, and sub-section heads and section
heads. Previous studies were done mostly in industry. �However, this research is the first study in
IFSA as authority that respondents of the research focused on Y generation
employees.
In this study, the authors chose IFSA as the location
of research, because IFSA is the authority in charge of regulating and
supervising the financial services sector as well as protecting consumers and
the people of Indonesia. IFSA is expected to be able to carry out its duties,
functions and responsibilities in serving all parties with an interest in IFSA
through the best performance with the support of employees who have innovative
work behavior (Ayandele &
Nnamseh, 2014).
IFSA leaders have innovative work behavior, but not
yet for the gen Y employees. It is very important for leaders to motivate gen Y
employees to be innovative. The innovative work behavior is reflected in the
initiative strategy work program of the highest leaders that forwarded to the
head of the department up to the unit (Abdullatif, 2017).
This research investigated the
effect of proactive behavior and workplace spirituality on the innovative work
behavior of Y generation employees at IFSA that mediated by psychological
empowerment (Afsar & Badir, 2017). There are four variables in this research, namely
innovative work behavior (IWB), psychological empowerment (PE), proactive
behavior (PB) and workplace spirituality (WS). First, IWB refers to the theory
of (De Jong & Den
Hartog, 2010), which is a form of behavior that aims to achieve the
initiation and implementation of the introduction of new ideas, processes,
procedures and products that are useful for the organization.
Second, psychological empowerment is an intrinsic
motivation which reflects the orientation of individuals in work roles which is
manifested in four cognitions, namely meaning, competence, self-determination
and impact referred to the theory of �(Spreitzer, 2008).
Third, proactive behavior refers to the theory of �(Parker & Collins,
2010), namely motivated action, awareness, self-effort and
initiative to bring about change in the situation or oneself to achieve future-directed
goals.
Fourth, workplace spirituality defined as a pleasant
experience that has an inner attachment between workers and their work that
encourages individual to consider the workplace not only as a place to work or
earn a living but as a place that provides and fulfills personal satisfaction
according to Maslow's theory of needs (Milliman et al., 2003). This research was to determine the effect of
proactive behavior and workplace spirituality on the innovative work behavior
of Y generation employees at IFSA mediated by psychological empowerment (Arefin et al., 2015). The results of this study can be used by IFSA to
motivate Y generation to improve their innovative work behavior. These efforts
are urgent to be carried out in order to keep pace with the demands of very
rapid external developments such as those seen in the field of information
technology.
METHOD
This research used descriptive
method with correlational study approach. Descriptive research is directed to
establish the nature of a situation at the time of the investigation. This
research correlates between proactive behavior, workplace spirituality,
psychological empowerment and innovative work behavior (Bantha & Nayak, 2020).
The respondents of this study were 279 Y generation employees of IFSA. Data collection techniques are done by self report
measurement, using the scale of proactive behavior, scale of workplace
spirituality, scale of psychological empowerment and scale of innovative work
behavior. The Structural Equation Model with the help of LISREL analysis was
used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Process
Exogenous variables are proactive
behavior and workplace spirituality. The endogenous variable is innovative work
behavior. The mediator variable is psychological empowerment. The data collection
method used in this study is a psychological scale with an answer scale of 1-5.
The scale used is the Likert model scale. The Likert model scale is a method of
expressing attitudes and interests that uses the subject's response as the
basis for scoring (Erkutlu, 2014).
Validity test using Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) produced a loading factor value in accordance with the
provisions of more than 0.5 that showed all indicators are valid. For
reliability testing using VE and CR with VE is more than 0.50 and CR is more
than 0.7. It can be concluded that it has met the valid and reliable criteria.
The stages of the SEM model include
evaluation of the overall model, Goodness of Fit (GOF) is a model fit test and
evaluation of the structural model. If there is a match between the theoretical
model and the empirical data for gen Y employees at IFSA, it is possible to
test the hypothesis about the structural influence in the model.
Result
The age of the study respondents was
more in the age of 31 - 40 years as many as 140 (50.18%) gen Y employees at
IFSA compared to others. The gender of the research respondents showed that
women of gen Y at
IFSA were more dominant than men, namely
58.06% (162 employees). The last education of research respondents is more
dominant at the Bachelor level, namely 214 (76.70%) gen Y employees at IFSA
compared to others. Research respondents with a length of work of 5-10 years
are more dominant than the others, namely 56.63%. The position of research
respondents is more dominant at the staff level than others, namely k 200
(71.68%) gen Y employees at IFSA.
Confirmation Factor Analysis
The
following table 1 of CFA test results for all variables:
Table 1 of CFA Test Results
|
Variable
|
Value Standardized Loading
Factor Indicator
|
CR
|
VE
|
|
Innovative work behavior
|
0.78 � 0.97
|
0.9836
|
0.8010
|
|
Psychological empowerment
|
0.75 � 0.98
|
0.9858
|
0.8536
|
|
Proactive behavior
|
0.68 � 0.94
|
0.9745
|
0.7478
|
|
Workplace spirituality
|
0.69 � 0.94
|
0.9831
|
0.7751
|
The CFA table above describes the
validity of all indicators that have the factor loading values greater than
0.50, it showed that all indicators are valid in measuring the variables of
innovative work behavior, psychological empowerment, proactive behavior and
workplace spirituality. Reliability measurement with CR value greater than 0.70
and VE greater than 0.50 means that the reliability of all variable indicators
has been met.
Model Fit Test
Table 2 of Goodness Fit
Model
Goodness-of-Fit
|
Cut-off-Value
|
Result
|
Description
|
|
RMR
|
 �0,05 atau �0,1
|
0.0161
|
Good Fit
|
|
RMSEA
|
�0,08
|
0.010
|
Good Fit
|
|
GFI
|
 �0,90
|
0.97
|
Good Fit
|
|
AGFI
|
�0,90
|
0.96
|
Good Fit
|
|
CFI
|
�0,90
|
0.96
|
Good Fit
|
|
NFI
|
�0,90
|
0.97
|
Good Fit
|
|
NNFI
|
�0,90
|
0.97
|
Good Fit
|
|
IFI
|
�0,90
|
0.98
|
Good Fit
|
|
RFI
|
�0,90
|
0.99
|
Good Fit
|
The overall model fit test is intended
to see how well the data fits the model (goodness of fit). In SEM to test the
fit of the model not only use one test instrument and according to �(Hair, 2009) there
are three test tools, namely absolute fit test, relative fit test and parsimony
fit test. The absolute fit test is intended to determine the degree of
prediction of the overall model to the correlation and covariance matrices
consisting of the RMSEA and the GFI.
RMSEA aims to measure the deviation of
parameter values in a model with a population covariance matrix (Browne
& Cudeck, 1993), so it can be said that RMSEA is the most informative
indicator of model fit measurement. Based on the research results, the RMSEA
value of the tested model is 0.010 with a GFI value of 0.97, so overall it can
be concluded that the tested model is close to the absolute fit model test
criteria at the level of good test criteria.
The incremental fit model compatibility
test is to compare the proposed model with the basic model called the null
model or independence model, consisting of several test tools in their
suitability, namely: (a) CFI, (b) NFI, (c) NNFI, (d) IFI, (e) RFI. The results
showed the value of CFI = 0.96; NFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.97; IFI = 0.98 and RFI =
0.99, then the model is said to be good because it is at the level of good test
criteria.
Parsimonious fit model test, which is to
compare the proposed model with the basic model where all variables in the
model are independent of each other or relate the model to the estimated
coefficients to achieve a fit at that level. The principle of parsimony, or
frugality, means obtaining the highest degree of fit for each degree of freedom
which consists of several test instruments in their suitability, namely the
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and PGFI. AGFI is the same as GFI, but
has been adjusted for the effect of the degree of freedom on a model. PGFI with
almost the same size as GFI and AGFI but has been adjusted for the influence of
degrees of freedom and data complexity. The results of the study illustrate
that the AGFI value = 0.96, then the model is said to be close to good, because
it is at the level of good test criteria.
Structural Model Results
The results of the structural model to
answer the research hypothesis. The output of the structural model consists of
the standardized loading factor and t count.
Figure
1:� Standardized Loading Factor
Figure
2.� T-Calculation
Table
3 of Hypothesis Test Results
|
Hypothesis
|
Standardized Loading Factor
|
T hitung
|
Description
|
|
Proactive behavior �
Innovative work behavior
|
0.73
|
6.55
|
Significantly Positive
|
|
Workplace spirituality �
Innovative work behavior
|
0.03
|
0.22
|
Not significant
|
|
Proactive behavior �
Psychological empowerment
|
0.44
|
5.27
|
Significantly Positive
|
|
Workplace spirituality � Pemberdayaan psikologis
|
0.55
|
6.32
|
Significantly Positive
|
|
Psychological empowerment �
Innovative work behavior
|
0.21
|
2.91
|
Significantly Positive
|
The results of testing the influence of
proactive behavior on innovative work behavior has a coefficient of influence
of 0.73 and t value of 6.55. It can be concluded that proactive behavior has a
significant effect on innovative work behavior. This means that the higher the
proactive behavior of gen Y employees at IFSA, the higher the innovative work
behavior of gen Y employees at IFSA.
The effect of workplace spirituality on
innovative work behavior has a coefficient of influence of 0.03 and t value of 0.22.
It can be concluded that workplace spirituality has no significant effect on
innovative work behavior. This can be concluded that workplace spirituality of gen
Y employees at IFSA does not increase innovative work behavior of gen Y
employees at IFSA.
The influence of proactive behavior on
psychological empowerment has a coefficient of effect of 0.44 and t value is
5.23. It can be concluded that proactive behavior has a significant effect on
psychological empowerment. This means that the higher the proactive behavior of
gen Y employees at IFSA, the higher the psychological empowerment of gen Y
employees at IFSA.
The influence of workplace spirituality
on psychological empowerment has a coefficient of influence of 0.55 and t value
is 6.32. It can be concluded that workplace spirituality has a significant influence
on psychological empowerment. This can be interpreted that the higher the
workplace spirituality of gen Y employees at IFSA, the higher the psychological
empowerment of gen Y employees at IFSA.
The influence of psychological
empowerment on innovative work behavior has a coefficient of influence of 0.21
and t value is 2.91. It can be concluded that psychological empowerment has a
significant effect on innovative work behavior. It can be said that the higher
the psychological empowerment of gen Y employees at IFSA, the higher the
innovative work behavior of gen Y employees at IFSA.
Mediation Effect Test
There is an effect of proactive behavior
on innovative work behavior through psychological empowerment as a mediator for
IFSA gen Y employees.
SEM results show that the indirect
effect of proactive behavior on innovative work behavior through psychological
empowerment is 0.0924 with a t count of 1.99. The t-count value of 1.99 is
greater than t-table (1.96) then rejecting H0 means that it is proven that psychological
empowerment is significantly capable of being a mediator of the influence of
proactive behavior on innovative work behavior.
Workplace spirituality has an influence on
innovative work behavior through psychological empowerment as a mediator of gen
Y employees at IFSA.
The SEM results show that the indirect
effect of workplace spirituality on innovative work behavior through
psychological empowerment is 0.12 with a t count of 2.08. The t value of 2.08
is greater than t table (1.96), it is rejected Ho. It shows that psychological empowerment
mediates the influence of workplace spirituality on innovative work behavior.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this study shows a direct and
significant effect of proactive behavior on innovative work behavior of gen Y
employees at IFSA. There is no significant influence of workplace spirituality
on innovative work behavior of gen Y employees at IFSA. Psychological
empowerment has a significant effect on the innovative work behavior of gen Y
employees at IFSA. Proactive behavior has a significant influence on
psychological empowerment of gen Y employees at IFSA. There is a significant effect
of workplace spirituality on psychological empowerment of gen Y employees at
IFSA. Proactive behavior has a significant effect on innovative work behavior
through psychological empowerment of gen Y employees at IFSA. There is a
significant influence of workplace spirituality on innovative work behavior
through psychological empowerment of gen Y employees at IFSA
REFERENCES
Abdullatif, T. N. (2017). THE FACTORS INFLUENCING
INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR AMONG ACADEMICIANS IN IRAQ.
Afsar, B., & Badir, Y. (2017). Workplace spirituality,
perceived organizational support and innovative work behavior: The mediating
effects of person-organization fit. Journal of Workplace Learning.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B.
M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(3), 367�403.
Arefin, M. S., Arif, I., & Raquib, M. (2015).
High-performance work systems and proactive behavior: The mediating role of
psychological empowerment. International Journal of Business and Management,
10(3), 132�140.
Ayandele, I. A., & Nnamseh, M. P. (2014). Hackman and
Oldham job characteristics model (JCM) and Akwa Ibom state civil servants�
performance. Canadian Social Science, 10(2), 89�97.
Bantha, T., & Nayak, U. (2020). The relation of workplace
spirituality with employees� innovative work behaviour: the mediating role of
psychological empowerment. Journal of Indian Business Research.
Birdi, K., Leach, D., & Magadley, W. (2016). The
relationship of individual capabilities and environmental support with
different facets of designers� innovative behavior. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 33(1), 19�35.
De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring
innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(1),
23�36.
Erkutlu, H. (2014). Exploring the moderating effect of
psychological capital on the relationship between narcissism and psychological
well-being. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 150,
1148�1156.
Korn, K. J. M. (2010). A second look at generational
differences in the workforce: Implications for HR and talent management. People
and Strategy, 33(2), 50.
Meier, J., & Crocker, M. (2010). Generation Y in the
workforce: Managerial challenges. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult
Learning, 6(1), 68.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A. J., & Ferguson, J. (2003).
Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical
assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management.
Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock:
Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of
Management, 36(3), 633�662.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than
twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, 1, 54�72.
�
2022 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the
terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY SA ) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -sa / 4 .0/ ).
