Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 11 Download : 5

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study evaluates the effectiveness of the Government Functional Valuer Position outside the Ministry of Finance in supporting state asset management. Using a quantitative approach based on a Likert scale, this research analyzes key variables such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Return on Investment (ROI), Feedback and Evaluation, Benchmarking, Productivity, and Job Satisfaction. Data was collected through questionnaires distributed to valuers and related stakeholders in regional government agencies. The results show that Feedback and Evaluation have a significant impact on Productivity (r = 0.942), emphasizing the importance of feedback mechanisms in optimizing valuer performance. Additionally, Benchmarking is closely related to Job Satisfaction (r = 0.923), indicating that implementing global standards contributes to improved motivation and work quality. However, the KPI and ROI variables, while conceptually relevant, do not show a statistically significant impact on Productivity. This study recommends strengthening feedback systems, adopting best practices through benchmarking, and enhancing training programs to improve valuers' technical competencies. These policy implementations are expected to improve efficiency and accountability in managing state assets.

Keywords

Government Valuers State Assets Productivity Benchmarking Feedback Systems

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Riyanto, E., Nurbiyanto, & Murwanto, N. Y. (2025). Feedback, Performance, and Accountability: A Quantitative Study of Government Valuers in Non-Ministry of Finance Institutions. Ilomata International Journal of Social Science, 6(3), 1066-1077. https://doi.org/10.61194/ijss.v6i3.1796

References

  1. Anastasopoulos, L. J., & Whitford, A. B. (2019). Machine learning for public administration research, with application to organizational reputation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy060
  2. Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? An empirical exploration of public service effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mup045
  3. Anggereni, N. W. E. S. (2019). Pengaruh pelatihan terhadap kinerja karyawan pada Lembaga Perkreditan Desa (LPD) Kabupaten Buleleng. Jurnal Pendidikan Ekonomi Undiksha, 10(2), 606. https://doi.org/10.23887/jjpe.v10i2.20139
  4. Audenaert, M., Vanderstraeten, A., & Buyens, D. (2021). The role of feedback quality and organizational cynicism for affective commitment through leader–member exchange. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19884116
  5. Australian Public Service Commission. (2020). State of the service report 2019–20. https://www.apsc.gov.au
  6. Barbieri, M., Micacchi, L., Vidè, F., & Valotti, G. (2023). The performance of performance appraisal systems: A theoretical framework for public organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X231192384
  7. Belle, N., Cantarelli, P., & Belardinelli, P. (2021). Cognitive biases in performance appraisal: Experimental evidence on anchoring and halo effects with public sector managers and employees. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 144–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X19879195
  8. Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x
  9. Budd, J. W., Gollan, P. J., & Wilkinson, A. (2010). New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations. Human Relations, 63(3), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709348936
  10. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  12. Daft, R. L. (2015). Organization theory and design (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  13. DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
  14. Donaldson, L., & Lorsch, J. W. (2021). Organizational design and strategy in changing environments. Routledge.
  15. Fioretto, S., Masciari, E., & Napolitano, E. V. (2024). A brief discussion on KPI development in public administration. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.05855
  16. Firmansyah, A. (2024). Optimalisasi SIMAN dan SIMAK-BMN: Solusi Teknologi untuk ransparansi dan efisiensi BMN di Indonesia. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Akuntansi, 19(2), 186–199.
  17. Fox, J. (2007). The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability. Development in Practice, 17(4–5), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520701469955
  18. García-Chas, R., Neira-Fontela, E., & Varela-Neira, C. (2016). High-performance work systems and job satisfaction: A mediating role of trust and labour unions. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12091
  19. Goh, S. C. (2020). The influence of Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline on an academic career: A research journey into the learning organization and some personal reflections. The Learning Organization, 27(6), 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-06-2020-0111
  20. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  21. Hatry, H. P. (2014). Transforming performance measurement for the 21st century. Urban Institute Press. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1102.0887
  22. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
  23. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
  24. L. Abdurrahman, A. Z. R. Langi, Suhardi and T. M. Simatupang, "Information Technology Value Engineering Model and Cost Efficiency in IT-Based Firms," IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 2925-2936, Sept. 2018, doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2017.2663418
  25. Levy, K., Chasalow, K., & Riley, S. (2021). Algorithms and decision-making in the public sector. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103.02631
  26. Lin, Y.-C., & Kellough, J. E. (2019). Performance appraisal problems in the public sector: Examining supervisors' perceptions. Public Personnel Management, 48(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018782990
  27. Loi, M., & Spielkamp, M. (2021). Towards accountability in the use of artificial intelligence for public administrations. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.10307
  28. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 5(2), 132–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422303251341
  29. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7494(00)87438-3
  30. Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2005). Testing how management matters in an era of government by performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui016
  31. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Georgetown University Press.
  32. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  33. Nurbiyanto. (2022). Peran penilai pemerintah dalam rangka pengelolaan Barang Milik Negara berupa aset tetap. Jurnal Manajemen Keuangan Publik, 6(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.31092/jmkp.v6i2.1891
  34. OECD. (2019). Government at a glance 2019. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/government-at-a-glance-2019_8ccf5c38-en.html
  35. Perry, J. L., Hondeghem, A., & Wise, L. R. (2010). Revisiting the motivational bases of public service: Twenty years of research and an agenda for the future. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 681–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02196.x
  36. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—Into the age of austerity. Oxford University Press.
  37. Pyman, A., Holland, P. J., Teicher, J., & Walpole, K. (2010). Industrial relations climate, employee voice, and managerial attitudes to unions: An Australian study. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 48(2), 460–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00765.x
  38. Umihastanti, D., & Frianto, A. (2022). Pengaruh dukungan organisasi dan employee engagement terhadap kinerja pegawai Badan Kepegawaian Daerah. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen, 10(1), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.26740/jim.v10n1.p219-232
  39. Whetsell, T. A., Kroll, A., & DeHart-Davis, L. (2020). Formal hierarchies and informal networks: How organizational structure shapes information search in local government. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.08019.