168
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ICoMS 2017 March 22, UMY, Indonesia
168
ARE WE DOWNGRADING THE ROLE OF TEACHERS? AN EVALUATION OF TEACHER WORK PERFORMANCE INDICATORS IN INDONESIA
Punang Amaripuja
1
1
Lecturer, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business
1
Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta p_amaripujayahoo.com
ABSTRACT
This paper evaluates the indicators used in the appraisal of teachers work performance in Indonesia in the light of work performance. The evaluation will be used to investigate whether the required role of teachers is still relevant with the
current demands of education in the 21st century. Work performance is first described in its traditional view as behaviors or actions that are relevant to the goals of the organization, and its evolution into a four dimensional concept
is then exposited. The role of teachers in the Indonesian education system is presented together with work performance indicators used in the teachers appraisal system. It is concluded that the teacher competency appraisal system used in
Indonesia mostly addresses task performance and contextual performance, while adaptive performance is only related to two competency components. In effect, this will mainly enforce the traditional role of teachers, while downplaying
the role of teachers as innovators and active stakeholders. The use of an integrated job context model will require further improvement in the teacher work performance appraisal system in Indonesia, as well as other related systems
such as welfare and career planning. Such an endeavor will hopefully pave the way for the emergence of teachers that are better prepared to equip students with 21
st
century skills, and more aligned with their actual role as a vital component of the school system, and on a larger scale, the education system.
1. The Traditional View of Work Performance
Without a clear understanding of work performance itself, discussions on the matter would
seem like aiming at a moving target. Griffin et.al. 2007 observed that the meaning of work performance
in the field of organizational behavior has changed over the last 40 years, which shifted from a focus on
jobs and their fixed tasks to a broader understanding of work roles in dynamic organizational contexts. Work
performance was traditionally defined as “behaviors or actions that are relevant to the goals of the
organization” Campbell, 1990, in Koopmans et.al, 2011. Thus, work performance is defined in terms of
behaviors or actions of employees, rather than the results of these actions, and is generally evaluated in
terms of the proficiency with which an individual carried out the tasks that were specified in his or her
job description. A “well-specified job” was thus one in which all of the behaviors that contributed to
organizational goal attainment were captured in an individual’s job description Murphy Jackson, 1999,
in Griffin et.al., 2007.
2. Work Performance as a Multidimensional Concept
Campbell 1990, in Koopmans et.al, 2011 expands the traditional view of work performance by
describing three notions accompanying its definition: 1 work performance should be defined in terms of
behavior rather than results, 2 work performance includes only those behaviors that are relevant to the
organization’s goals, and 3 work performance is multidimensional. As it is can be difficult to distinguish
between behavior and results, results has been included in some definitions of work performance. However,
Koopmans et.al. 2011 noted that work performance is an abstract, latent construct that cannot be pointed to or
measured directly, but is made up of multiple components or dimensions. These dimensions may
generalize across jobs, while they are in turn, are made up of indicators that can be measured directly and can
differ between jobs. To conceptualize and operationalize individual work performance,
researchers should explicate the construct domain of work performance and identify its dimensions and
indicators.
169
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ICoMS 2017 March 22, UMY, Indonesia
169 The latest advancements in the concept of
work performance was chronicled by Koopmans et.al. 2013 which was divided into 4 dimensions. The first
dimension, task performance, refers to the proficiency with which an employee performs central job tasks
Campbell, 1990, in Koopmans et.al., 2013. The second dimension, contextual performance, refers to
employee behaviors that support the organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the
central job tasks are performed Borman and Motowidlo, 1993, in Koopmans et.al., 2013. The third
dimension, adaptive performance, refers to an employee’s proficiency in adapting to changes in work
roles or environment Griffin et.al., 2007. The fourth dimension, counterproductive work behavior, refers to
behavior that is harmful to the well-being of the organization Rotundo and Sackett, 2002, in Koopmans
et.al., 2013.
From a multi-disciplinary, systematic literature review of the research found in PubMed,
Embase.com, PsycINFO, and ABI Inform, Koopmans et.al 2011 developed a heuristic framework of
individual work performance Figure 1 which consisted of four broad and generic dimensions.
Figure 1. Heuristic framework of individual work performance Koopmans et.al., 2011. The highest level of the framework shows the
latent, general factor of individual work performance. The existence of this general factor accounts for
substantial variation in job performance ratings. The second level situates the four dimensions of individual
work performance, while the the third level locates the individual measures corresponding to each dimension.
The importance of these dimensions, and the exact indicators associated with each dimension, may differ
depending on the context involved. Task performance first dimension refers to the proficiency with which
central job tasks are performed; contextual performance second dimension refers to behaviors
that support the organizational, social, and psychological environment in which the technical core
must function; and adaptive performance third dimension includes new advances such as creative
performance which are not included in the previous dimensions.
170
The 2017 International Conference on Management Sciences ICoMS 2017 March 22, UMY, Indonesia
170 Figure 2. Integrated Job Context Model Folami and Jacobs, 2005
Folami and Jacobs 2005 took a different approach by combining findings on task design from
the organizational behavior literature with research findings on organizational context from organizational
theory to develop an integrated task characteristicsorganizational context model.
As shown in Figure 2, factors other than task characteristics that may impact performance include
individual, economic, and organizational context variables. Individual factors that may affect
performance include ambition, education, ability, professional experience, and occupational level.
Employee growth need strength GNS has been used to proxy for ambition and individual differences
between employees, which is supported by previous research which support GNS as mediating the
relationship between job characteristics and affective outcomes Hackman Lawler, 1971; Hackman
Oldham, 1976; Hackman, Oldham, and Pearce, 1976, in Folami and Jacobs, 2005. Individual differences are
used in the task characteristic model to capture how employee motivation can be enhanced through the
design of jobs. As described by theory, workers who desire higher order need satisfactions are more likely to
obtain satisfaction when they work on jobs that are meaningful and that provide feedback on the adequacy
of their personal work activities Hackman Lawler, 1971, in Folami and Jacobs, 2005. Meanwhile, GNS is
used to proxy and control for ambition and individual differences between employees.
3. The Role of Teachers
