Corresponding Author:
Lasmaida
Gultom
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Today's Industrial Revolution 4.0
developments are of great significance and magnitude in terms of scale, scope
and complexity. (Schwab,
2017)
states that not all fields – science, politics, society, economy, industry and
government – can be isolated from the impact of Industrial Revolution 4.0. In
this Industrial Revolution 4.0, at least he of the Baby Boomers, Generation X
and Millennials (referred to as Generation Y in this study) will have at least
three genes filled and these three generations of him will still be the most
productive workers. is. world and Indonesia.
According to the Central Bureau of
Statistics (BPS), the composition of the Indonesian workforce in 2019 is
divided into several generations: 33.25% Generation Y, 29.23% Generation Z,
25.74% Generation X, 11.27% Boomers is. The data shows that the key to the future
productivity of the Indonesian nation is to maximize generations Y and Z to
face global competition and promote productivity growth to strengthen
Indonesia's economy and institutions.
It indicates that Generation Y is the
master key to change in many areas, including organizations, with advances in
information, technology and communications. To be able to adapt quickly to
change, organizations need to improve various skills of their employees and
create a comfortable work environment (Carnevale,
1990).
The organization attaches great importance to the innovative work behavior of
its employees.
Confident, independent, and
result-oriented are the hallmarks of Generation Y. Generation Y also have
higher technical proficiency, further boosting their self-esteem (Meier
& Crocker, 2010). The great thing about Generation Y is their
creative potential and mindset that generates innovative ideas for
organizational progress. These innovative ideas are beneficial not only to the
organization, but also to the employees as they support the smooth flow of work
processes. Intrinsic motivation and psychological well-being are enhanced when
employees are able to demonstrate creativity and innovation in their work (Amabile
et al., 2005).
In this research, Generation Y as the
generation born between 1980 up to 2000 refers to the theory of (Singh
& Gupta, 2015). The IFSA has 4,022 employees, made up of
three generations: Boomers (126 or 3.13%), Generation X (935 or 23.25%),
Generation Y (2,635 or 65, 51%) and Generation Z (326 or 8.10%) of the total
workforce of IFSA as of 31 December 2021). This IFSA data reflects that the
IFSA workers is dominated by Generation Y, i.e. 2,635 people (65.51 from 4,022
employees), distributed across the regional headquarters and IFSA offices as
below staf, staf, sub-division head, and division head.
In this study, the authors chose IFSA as
the research site because IFSA is the agency responsible for the regulation and
supervision of the financial services sector and the protection of the
Indonesian consumer and population. IFSA will fulfill its duties, functions and
responsibilities by providing services to all parties concerned with IFSA by
demonstrating its best performance supported by employees with innovative work
behavior (Ayandele
& Nnamseh, 2014).
An IFSA official or leader may be
credited for innovative work behavior, but that is not the case for all IFSA’s
Generation Y employees below employee level. The application of innovative work
behaviors may be handed down from superiors to subordinates, or from
subordinates to superiors or managers. Innovative work behavior with leadership
down to subordinates. For example, IFSA's top her leadership will set the
direction of a strategic initiative work program to simplify the business
processes of bank supervision. This study examines the effects of affirmative
action and psychological empowerment on innovative work behavior among IFSA’s
Generation Y employees, adjusted for job characteristics.
This research was to obtain the effect
of proactive behavior and psychological empowerment on innovative work behavior
of Y generation employees at IFSA moderated by job characteristic. The results
of this study can be used by IFSA to motivate Y generation to improve their
innovative work behavior (Gultom
et al., 2022). 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.
Innovative Work Behavior (IWB) is
intended as an initiative to introduce new ideas, methods, mechanisms, products
and services that are beneficial to organizations (Jong & Hartog, 2010).
Aspects of innovative work behavior include idea exploration, idea generation,
idea promotion, and idea implementation.
(Parker
& Collins, 2010) use proactive behavior (PB) to create change
around oneself to achieve future goals in aspects such as taking
responsibility, voice, individual innovation, and prevention that motivated
behavior, awareness, self-effort, and initiative.
Psychological empowerment (PE),
according to (Spreitzer,
2008)
theory, is the essential driving force that describes the orientation of an
individual's role at work in its four dimensions of meaning, competence,
self-determination, and influence. understood to mean power.
Hackman and Oldham (Ayandele
& Nnamseh, 2014) state that job characteristic (JC) describes
the task description that enrich work and help incumbents meet their needs for
responsibility, recognition and growth. There are five key aspects that
characterize this job characteristic: skill variety, task significant, task
identity, autonomy, and feedback.
The purpose of this study was to
determine the effects of proactive behavior and psychological empowerment on
innovative work behavior of Generation Y employees at IFSA, moderated by job
characteristic. Nurjaman, et al. (2019) found that proactive behavior has a
positive impact on innovative work behavior. Job characteristics serve as moderator
that strengthen the relationship between proactive behavior and innovative work
behavior. The results of this study can be used by IFSA to motivate Generation
Y to improve innovative work behavior. These efforts are urgently needed to
keep up with the demands of the very rapid external developments seen in the
field of information technology.
METHOD
This
study uses a descriptive method with a correlative research approach.
Descriptive research aims to determine the nature of the situation at the time
of the research. This research combines proactive behavior , psychological
empowerment, innovative work behavior, and work characteristics. The sample for
this study was her 279 employees at Y IFSA. Population of this research
is the 2,199 generation Y employees of IFSA. Data
collection techniques were performed by measuring self-report using the
Aggressive Behavior Scale, the Psychological Empowerment Scale, the Innovative
Task Behavior Scale, and the Occupational Characteristics Model. Data were
analyzed using structural models using LISREL analysis.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
PROCESS
Endogenous variables are proactive
behavior and psychological empowerment. Exogenous variable is innovative work
behavior. Job characteristic is moderator. The data collection method used in
this study is a psychological scale with a 1-5 response scale. The scale used
is the Likert model scale. The Likert model scale is a way of expressing
attitudes and interests that uses respondent responses as the basis for
assessment (Welkenhuysen-Gybels
et al., 2003).
Validity checks using confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) yield loading factor values greater than 0.5 according to
regulations. This means that all indicators are valid. For reliability testing
with VE and CR above VE 0.50 and CR 0.7. From this we can conclude that it
meets valid and reliable criteria.
SEM model stages include general model
evaluation, model fit test goodness of fit (GOF), and structural model
evaluation. If there is agreement between the theoretical model and IFSA's
empirical data on Generation Y workers, then the model's hypotheses about
structural effects can be tested
RESULT
The ages of the surveyed employees were
between the ages of 31 and 40, up to 140 (50.18%) more than other employees.
This reflects the high number of IFSA employees of Generation Y in this age
group.
The gender of the study participants was
shown to be 58.06% (162 employees), with females predominating males. This can
be interpreted to mean that recruitment outcomes for IFSA's Generation Y
employees are dominated by women who meet IFSA's requirements and needs.
Survey respondents' most recent
education predominates at the bachelor's level, with 214 of her IFSA’s
Generation Y employees (76.70%) more than others. This is due to the
preponderance of Generation Y employees at IFSA with bachelor's degrees, in
line with employee hiring requirements and IFSA needs, and at least the
respondents' requirements for bachelor's degrees.
Survey respondents with her 5-10 years
of service dominated the other respondents at 56.63%. This indicates that
IFSA's Generation Y employees are more dominant, according to IFSA's current
employee demographics. Dominated by Y. The survey participant's position is
more dominant at the employee level than the other 200 employees. Employee
(71.68%). This can be interpreted to mean that her IFSA employees of Generation
Y are primarily active at the employee level. Because at IFSA I worked according
to the minimum education requirements and age based on the year of birth.
Table
1. of Goodness Fit Model
Goodness-of-Fit
|
Cut-off-Value
|
Result
|
Description
|
|
Root
Mean Square Residual (RMR)
|
 0,05
atau 0,1
|
0.0186
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Root
Mean square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
|
0,08
|
0.012
|
Good
Fit
|
|
GFI
(Goodness of Fit)
|
 0,90
|
0.99
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)
|
0,90
|
0.98
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Comparative
Fit Index (CFI)
|
0,90
|
0.99
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Normed
Fit Index (NFI)
|
0,90
|
0.98
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Non-Normed
Fit Index (NNFI)
|
0,90
|
0.99
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Incremental
Fit Index (IFI)
|
0,90
|
0.99
|
Good
Fit
|
|
Relative
Fit Index (RFI)
|
0,90
|
0.98
|
Good
Fit
|
A model fit test is designed to check
how well the data fits the model. In SEM model of model fit testing, not only
one test tool is used, but in Hair et al. (2006) has three groups of test
tools: absolute fit, relative fit and parsimonious. The absolute fit test aims
to determine the predictive degree of the overall model for the correlation and
covariance matrices (Chin
et al., 2020). The goodness of a fit model (a measure of
absolute goodness of fit) is intended to determine how well the model as a
whole (structural and measurement models) predicts the correlation and
covariance matrices composed of RMSEA and GFI.
RMSEA is the most powerful measure of
model fitness because it aims to measure the deviation of model parameter
values using the population covariance matrix (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). I
would say yes. Based on our findings, the tested model has an RMSEA value of
0.012 and a GFI value of 0.99, so overall, the tested model is close to that of
the perfect fit model at the level of good test criteria. can conclude.
A measure of the goodness of the
incremental fitting model is the comparison of the proposed model with the
baseline model. The baseline model, often called the null model or the
independence model, consists of several test tools for goodness of fit. (a)
CFI, (b) NFI, (c) NNFI, (d) IFI, (e) RFI. Based on the research results, the
CFI=0.99. NFI = 0.98; NNFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99 and RFI = 0.98. In that case, the
model is described as good because it is at the level of the good test
criteria.
A measure of fit is the parsimonious
fit, which compares a proposed model to a baseline model (a model in which all
variables in the model are independent of each other) or relates the model to
the estimated coefficients required to achieve fit. Model. this level.
According to the principle of parsimony or parsimony, achieving the highest
level of customization for each degree of freedom requires several test
instruments, each suitable for AGFI and PGFI. AGFI is the same as GFI, but
adjusted for the effects of the degrees of freedom of the model. PGFI is about
the same size as GFI and AGFI, but adapts to the effects of degrees of freedom
and data complexity. The results of the study, based on the AGFI value = 0.98,
describe the model as almost good because it meets good testing criteria.
The structural model output consists of standardized
loading factor and t-calculation.
Figure: Standardized Loading Factor
Table
2. of Direct Effect Hypothesis Test
|
Hypothesis
|
Standardized
Loading Factor
|
T-calculation
|
Descriptin
|
|
Proactive Behaviour
à Psychological
Empowerment
|
0.80
|
46.64
|
Positive & Significant
|
|
Proactive Behaviour
à Innovative Work
Behaviour
|
0.19
|
3.72
|
Positive & Significant
|
|
Psychological
Empowerment
à Innovative Work
Behaviour
|
0.68
|
17.22
|
Positive & Significant
|
Tabel
3. of
Job Characteristic Moderation Hypothesis Test
|
Hipotesis
|
Standardized
Loading Factor
|
T-calculation
|
Descriptin
|
|
Proactive
Behaviour*Job Charakteristic à
Innovative Work Behaviour
|
0.20
|
5.80
|
Positive & Significant
|
The results of model testing show that
all indicators have loading factor values above 0.50. This means that all
indicators are valid measures of latent variables. These results can
automatically generate a good confidence score.
Based on test results for the effect of
proactive behavior on innovative work behavior, the influence coefficient is
0.19 and the t-value is 3.72. It can be concluded that proactive behavior has a
positive and significant impact on innovative work behavior. This can be
interpreted to mean that the higher the proactive behavior of IFSA’s Generation
Y employees, the higher the innovative work behavior of IFSA’s Generation Y
employees. This result is consistent with the finding of Nurjaman,
at al. (2019) explained that proactive behavior influences innovative work
behavior.
The influence coefficient for the effect
of proactive behavior on psychological empowerment is 0.80 and the t-value is
46.64. It can be concluded that proactive behavior has a positive and
significant effect on psychological empowerment. This can be interpreted to
mean that the higher the proactive behavior of IFSA’s Generation Y employees,
the higher the psychological empowerment of IFSA’s Generation Y employees. This
is consistent with the results of Arefin
et al.(2015) found a positive association between proactive behavior
and psychological empowerment.
The effect of psychological empowerment
on innovative work behavior has an influence coefficient of 0.68 and a t-count
value of 17.22. It can be concluded that psychological empowerment has positive
and significant effects on innovative work behavior. This means that the higher
the psychological empowerment of IFSA’s Generation Y employees, the higher the
innovative work behavior of IFSA’s Generation Y employees. This
finding is consistent with the findings of Helmy
and Pratama (2018), who stated that psychological empowerment
is positively and significantly directly related to innovative work behavior.
Results from testing the mitigating
effects of job trait variables showed that they significantly moderated the
impact of proactive behavior on innovative work behavior (Woods
et al., 2017). The relaxation factor is 0.20 and the
t-value is 5.80. This result is consistent
with a study of Nurjaman, et al. (2019) stated that job characteristics
strengthen the relationship between positive employee behavior and innovative
work behavior.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study, proactive behavior
has a significant effect on innovative work behavior of generation Y employees
at IFSA. Psychological empowerment has a significant impact on innovative work
behavior of IFSA's generation Y employees. Proactive behavior has a positive
and important effect on the psychological empowerment of IFSA's generation Y
employees. Job characteristic reinforce the impact of proactive behavior on
innovative work behavior. That is, job characteristic play a role as moderator
of the influence of proactive behavior on innovative work behavior.
REFERENCES
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.
Carnevale,
A. P. (1990). Workplace basics: The essential skills employers want. astd
best practices series: training for a changing work force. ERIC.
Chin,
W., Cheah, J.-H., Liu, Y., Ting, H., Lim, X.-J., & Cham, T. H. (2020).
Demystifying the role of causal-predictive modeling using partial least squares
structural equation modeling in information systems research. Industrial
Management & Data Systems.
Gultom,
L., Hatiningsi, K. N., & Palindangan, L. K. (2022). The effect of proactive
behavior and workplace spirituality on the innovative work behavior of
Generation Y employees at the Indonesia Financial Services Authority is
mediated by psychological empowerment. Journal of World Science, 1(8),
570–578.
Helmy,
I., & Pratama, M. P. (2018). Pengaruh proactive personality dan
pemberdayaan psikologis terhadap perilaku inovatif melalui creative self
efficacy. Probisnis (e-Journal), 11(2), 14–21.
Meier,
J., & Crocker, M. (2010). Generation Y in the workforce: Managerial
challenges. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6(1),
68.
Nurjaman,
K., Marta, M. S., Eliyana, A., Kurniasari, D., & Kurniasari, D. (2019).
Proactive work behavior and innovative work behavior: Moderating effect of job
characteristics. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(6),
373–379.
Parker,
S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and
differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36(3),
633–662.
Schwab,
K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.
Singh,
A., & Gupta, B. (2015). Job involvement, organizational commitment,
professional commitment, and team commitment: A study of generational
diversity. Benchmarking: An International Journal.
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.
Welkenhuysen-Gybels,
J., Billiet, J., & Cambré, B. (2003). Adjustment for acquiescence in the
assessment of the construct equivalence of Likert-type score items. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6), 702–722.
Woods,
S. A., Mustafa, M. J., Anderson, N., & Sayer, B. (2017). Innovative work
behavior and personality traits: Examining the moderating effects of
organizational tenure. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
