EXPLORING THE EXISTANCE OF INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOR AMONG GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE: HAVE BEEN THERE?

Abstract

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study aims to determine the existence of innovative work behavior ecosystems for Indonesia's government employees Background problems: The quality of individual employees partially determines the quality of the organization. The abilities of the different employees who work in the same system will undoubtedly deliver the government employee and possibly produce results which are less than were expected. Novelty: The previous studies have examined innovative work behavior, focusing on the external factors and ignoring the internal factors of individual traits. This study focused on investigating the interrelationship among the factors that will be affected by innovative behavior, especially in government employees in Indonesia. Methods: This study examines the relationship among these variables using structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL 8.8 as the statistical tool. Finding/Result: This study found that transformational leadership and work engagement positively influence innovative work behavior. Unexpectedly, this research indicates an insignificant relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior among government employees. Besides, this study also found that transformational leadership and organizational justice have an impact on work engagement. Conclusion: These findings provide managerial implications about the need to strengthen employees' innovative work behavior to ensure the organization's continuity. Additionally, the results prove that innovative work behavior by government employees is supported by government's role such as the style of leadership and work engagement.

Headnote

ABSTRACT

Introduction/Main Objectives: This study aims to determine the existence of innovative work behavior ecosystems for Indonesia's government employees Background problems: The quality of individual employees partially determines the quality of the organization. The abilities of the different employees who work in the same system will undoubtedly deliver the government employee and possibly produce results which are less than were expected. Novelty: The previous studies have examined innovative work behavior, focusing on the external factors and ignoring the internal factors of individual traits. This study focused on investigating the interrelationship among the factors that will be affected by innovative behavior, especially in government employees in Indonesia. Methods: This study examines the relationship among these variables using structural equation modeling (SEM) with LISREL 8.8 as the statistical tool. Finding/Result: This study found that transformational leadership and work engagement positively influence innovative work behavior. Unexpectedly, this research indicates an insignificant relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior among government employees. Besides, this study also found that transformational leadership and organizational justice have an impact on work engagement. Conclusion: These findings provide managerial implications about the need to strengthen employees' innovative work behavior to ensure the organization's continuity. Additionally, the results prove that innovative work behavior by government employees is supported by government's role such as the style of leadership and work engagement.

Keywords:

Innovative work behavior, organizational justice, transformational leadership, work engagement, government employee

JEL Code:

D23, J24, O15

INTRODUCTION

Government employees are the people who work in government institutions and deliver services to the public. In Indonesia, government employees are divided into two types: civil servants and honorary staff (UU No 5 of 2014). Based on the Civil Servant Statistics Book (2019), there were 4,189,121 civil servants as per December 2019, dominated by 46 years and over. This data only covers civil servants, but does not include non-civil servants/honorary staff who also work in the government sector. One government employee regulation is the Republic of Indonesia Government Regulation Number 30 of 2019, also called Peraturan Pemerintah (PP). This regulation concerns the performance evaluation of civil servants, or Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PNS), and is intended to improve the management of the civil servants' performance. To support this regulation, the government has established a national worker monitoring system.

Government employees have a performance indicator; this is to ensure that they perform well. Based on the State Civil Apparatus Performance Report issued by the Civil Service Board in 2019, the civil servants' graphs show great results, only a few graphs have moderate or bad results. The performance of the Ministry of State's Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform identifies the performance level which must be achieved by the employees, according to the function of the planned targets. From 2014 to 2015, the accountability of the ministries and institutions performance was considered to be good and sufficient (Civil Servant Board, 2019). Based on the assessments of the evaluation of the implementation of performance management for civil servants by the State Civil Service Agency (2018 to 2019), 3.3% were classed as very good, 35% of the agencies were good, 50% were sufficient, and 11.7% were classed as worse at implementing performance management among government employees. According to the government's assessment, the performance of government employees is seen as being slow, because of the amount of government bureaucracy. Indonesia's bureaucracy is often connoted as a long process, plagued by indiscipline, corruption, and other bad perceptions. This means the general public has a bad perception about government employees. Another indicator is that many government companies have not been able to compete successfully in the market for their sector, compared to private companies.

Innovation is an important factor for organizational success, so it is widely accepted (Janssen et al., 2004). Innovative organizations can be realized by encouraging innovative work behavior by their employees (Agarwal, 2014). The best way to become an innovative organization is to develop innovative employees for the long-term effectiveness and sustainability of the organization (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2010). Innovative employee behavior, by generating, promoting and implementing new ideas, can contribute to organizational success through improving the quality of work procedures, products and services (Janssen, 2000). Innovative work behavior is very important for the sustainability and effectiveness of the organization, as well as the sustainable development of the organization (Choi at al., 2016).

Government employees have opportunities for organizational development. The competency of government employees determines how a government company is run in the future. One type of government employee behavior that will impact the government's system is innovative employee behavior. Innovative work behavior is explained as being "the conscious creation, preface and implementation of new ideas within team intervention through benefit role work, the group, or the organization" (Janssen, 2000; Kim and Park, 2017). The current condition shows that the government employee of public service have not yet been well integrated into the government. The power of innovation has not yet become the real power for bettering the implementation of good governance. Integrating the whole of the power in the government sector can lead to better public services. Working up an innovative public service model can inspire another industry to work up the same model.

Previous research found the importance and the role of innovative work for organizations. Saeed et al. (2018) explained that innovation is the most critical form of job behavior. Transformational leadership affects innovative work behavior (IWB), based on employee factors which simultaneously act as mediating mechanisms (Carmeli et al., 2006). Employers with excellent domain knowledge could provide creative solutions for their related-problems. A direct work engagement could also build a commitment to, and implementation of, employers' ideas and expertise to keep on working innovatively. In a previous study conducted by Khaola and Coldwell (2019), numerous uncertainties existed about the correlation between organizational justice and innovative work behavior. It stated that all of the organizational justice parts were having a positive relationship with innovative work behavior; while the statement of Almansour & Minai (2012) said that instructional justice was the only organizational justice component which had an impact on innovative work behavior.

This research will contribute to enlarge the literature about justice and employee behavior among government employees. The context of this study is to focus on government employees to seek an answer to the paradigm about government employees. However, many previous studies only justify general employees. Our study focuses on the government employees' context, with all their characteristics. We will examine the factors which increase the innovative work behavior of government employees, with all the ethical issues. Moreover, not only do we look at the civil servants, but we also measure up all the other people who work in government institutions. This research explains that innovative behavior is a nonmandatory extra-role performance behavior but people have to engage in it. Finally, the research result is analyzed and discussed to confirm the theory and phenomena that exist in this field.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Development

1.The effect of transformational leadership on work engagement

The perception of transformational leadership was made known and describes the reasons why leaders are capable of influencing society, or not. It was also intended to make them perform to the best of their abilities, inspire their followers, cope with their self-interest, struggle to attain above average objectives, and produce results which are beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Eisenbeiß and Boerner, 2013). The theoretical framework for transformational leadership is found in the social exchange theory, which explains relationships in the context of mutualism and how to influence people to get some benefit (Blau, 1964). This theory explains human relationships, such as those between leaders and employees. This style of leadership could also be known as the style which gives positive moral values to others, while also providing a clear organizational vision, helping the employees achieve their potential, and it sets up connections with the employees (Fitzgerald and Schutte, 2010, p. 495). Moreover, it can be a way of helping individuals to mature, which gives them the will to reach their goals and objectives, which also leads to organizational development. The methods of this leadership style are more important than the achievements themselves. This is what makes this leadership style quite different from other leadership approaches (Rao, 2014). Another study verified that this style of leadership has always been symbolized by its capability in recognizing and articulating the vision, providing worthy models, strengthening the acceptance of the group's goals, being cooperative about their high hopes of performing well, developing individual support, and having an extraordinary level of charisma. Research related to the effect of transformational leadership on work engagement was conducted by Hayati, Charkhabi, and Naami (2014). This study indicated that transformational leadership significantly influenced work engagement. Transformational leaders show energetic and enthusiastic behavior that is imitated by their subordinates. The idealized influence of leaders, shown through their attributes and behavior, makes employees more confident about their leaders.

H1: Transformational leadership has a positive effect toward government employees ' work engagement.

2.The effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior

Transformational leaders used these characteristics with the intention of increasing the employees' performance and turned their values to be a better level of necessity. A number of previous studies examined this type of leadership and found it has a positive impact on job execution, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior (Masa'deh et al., 2016; Bacha, 2014). Research conducted by Choi, Kim, Ebrahim and Kang (2016) showed that transformational leadership had a positive effect on innovative work behavior. Transformational leadership is an important predictor of innovative work behavior at the individual level. The results of this study are in line with the previous studies which showed that transformational leadership has a positive influence on organizational innovation (Jung, 2003; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Afsar et al., 2014). Transformational leadership encourages innovative behavior in employees and increases their intention to undertake learning activities, to share their knowledge and stimulating them intellectually to develop alternative solutions to existing problems (Choi, Kim, Ebrahim and Kang, 2016).

H2: Transformational leadership has a positive effect toward government employees' innovative work behavior.

3.The effect of work engagement on innovative work behavior

Work engagement was explained by Schaufeli et al (2006) as the condition where the mind of the work-related feels incredibly positive and fulfilled. It has also been defined as the condition where workers see themselves as being able to handle all the requirements of their jobs. Vigor, contribution, and knowledge absorption are the characteristics of work engagement. However, several analysts assume vigor and dedication to be the main components and absorption the secondary component of work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, 2013; Taris et al., 2017). Vigor is defined as the mental endurance, power and willingness to work to a person's maximum ability (Schaufeli et al., 2007: 74). Mauno et al. (2017) explained that vigor is also thought of as a perception which could allow employees to work beyond expectations. The clearest evidence of this is when an employee handles a task with a lot of effort (Sonnentag, 2017: 14). Moreover, Dedication is defined as having a solid defense in every work and suffering curiosity savor, delight, idea, and job test. Lastly, absorption is referred to as having the utmost concentration on one's work (Schaufeli et al., 2002: 74). The theoretical framework of work engagement is positive organizational behavior (POB) which explains how human relationships can strength and increase a person's psychological capacities, which if he/she is an employee can then improve his/her performance at work (Luthans, 2002; p. 59). In addition, Khan (1990) stated that there are three psychological conditions related with work engagement: meaningfulness, security, and availability. Moreover, another study found that work engagement has an effect on employees' faithfulness, job satisfaction, dedication to the organization, preparedness to adapt to change in the organization, and being innovative in their work behavior. From all these arguments we purpose the following hypothesis:

H3: Work engagement has a positive effect toward government employees ' innovative work behavior.

4.The effect of organizational justice on work engagement

Nadiri and Tanova (2010) defined organizational justice as the personal perception of equality in the services obtained from an organization (company) and the behavioral response to such perceptions. Shalhoop (2003) also expressed the definition of organizational justice as being the perception of equal treatment by an organization. In addition, organizational justice represents the equality in every decision which is made by the manager of the organization, in accordance with the employees' rights, and the procedure to make these decisions fair for all the employees (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Leventhal, 1976). Moreover, a previous study also proved that organizational justice has a significant impact on work engagement (Kim & Park, 2017). Organizational procedural justice directly and indirectly has an impact and positively influences employees' work engagement (Biswas et al., 2013; He et al., 2014; Inoue et al., 2010; Karatepe, 2011). Organizational justice increases the level of trust and confidence of the employees, this would enable the employees to show a more positive performance and behavior at their work (Biswas et al., 2013; He et al., 2014). Based on the opinions from previous studies we offer the following hypothesis:

H4: Organizational justice has a positive effect toward government employees' work engagement.

5. The effect of organizational justice on innovative work behavior

A previous study examined the relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior and found that organizational justice had a positive impact toward innovative work behavior (Akramat al., 2019). Therefore, this study tries to investigate the relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior among Indonesian government employees. In addition, the study conducted by Almansour and Minai (2012) in Jordan's studies confirmed the direct and significant relationship between instructional justice and innovative work behavior, whereas distributive and procedural justice have an insignificant relationship with innovative work behavior. Kim and Lee (2013) also found the effect of organizational justice on innovative work behavior.

H5: Organizational justice has a positive effect toward government employees' innovative work behavior.

6. Transformational leadership, work engagement, and innovative work behavior

Transformational leadership's style is able to make followers believe that collective goals have meaning and can be achieved by working together, so they present themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally in the workplace (Lai et al., 2020). The work engagement can be shaped by building its intrinsic value and the belief that the collective goals are meaningful. The characteristics of transformational leaders who encourage knowledge diffusion and assign challenging tasks can be positively related to IWB (Afsar et al., 2014). Transformational leadership increases the participation of employees in the decision-making process and the delegation of the authority to implement their ideas (Draft, 2001). When employees feel that they are involved in decision making, and they have freedom, flexibility, meaningful work, and inspiration, they feel motivated, competent, and make the effort needed for them to be more creative (Afsarat al., 2014). Previous research agreed that work engagement is able to have an indirect effect on innovative work behavior (IWB), this indicates that work engagement is able to contribute to the existence of IWB among workers (Kim, 2017). The study by Bass (2015) found that transformational leadership also affects the employees' performance in their organization, and it motivates them. Work engagement is able to strengthen the employees' productivity, positive work behavior, and increase the innovative work behavior among the employees. The positive relationship can affect the development of the employees' innovative work behavior, such as pro-active behavior or sharing with another employee.

H6: Work engagement positively mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

METHOD, DATA, AND ANALYSIS

1. Research Method

1.1. Sample and Procedure.

This study examined the structural relationship between innovative work behavior, work engagement, the style of leadership, and organizational justice on Indonesian government employees. Researchers used an online questionnaire that was sent to the respondents from March 3, 2020, until April 6, 2020. In the process of determining the sample, the researchers used a purposive sampling method where the researchers set the criteria for determining the target respondents. The criteria were: (1) the respondents must be between 17 and 37 years old, (2) they must be employed by government institutions, and (3) they must come from Indonesia. The determination of these criteria was based on the research's context (e.g with government employees being essential subjects). The questionnaire was written in Indonesian. This research used structural equation modeling (SEM); this method can also validate the model being used in this study. Structural equation modeling can be used to confirm a hypothesis or idea, and explain the lack of latent variables. Following the use of SEM, the result will confirm the relationship among the latent variables. The total number of respondents to the questionnaire was 383, but only 345 of them met the criteria to be included in the sample.

1.2. Measurement.

All the items, variables, and dimensions in this study were adapted from the previous research. To measure the leadership style, there were 20 items in this research using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire which was developed from the one used by Bass and Avolio (2004). The measurement of innovative work behavior had nine items from Janssen (2000), a sample question was "I create new ideas to solve difficult problems in the organizationWork engagement was measured by items from Schaufeli (2006) or the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), a sample question was "While I work, I feel strong and enthusiasticOrganizational justice used the scale from Colquitt (2001) with 18 items for measuring the perception of organizational justice in the organization. This variable consisted of four dimensions: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. All the items from innovative work behavior (IWB), transformational leadership (TL), work engagement (WE), and organizational justice (OJ) used a 6-point Likert scale.

2. Data Analysis

The demographic respondent in this research received about 383 respondents and just 345 confirming as research criteria. Most of the respondents were female. There were 41,16% males and 58.84% females.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics, the construct reliability (CR), and the VE test. The descriptive statistics show the mean, maximum, minimum, and standard deviation for all the variables in this study. In Table 1, organizational justice has the highest mean score (5.029) and innovative work behavior has the lowest mean score (4.127). Table 1 shows that all the variables have a mean ranging from 4.1 to 5.02. This result can be classified as being in the "high category" for all the variables. The maximum value was in the range of 6.00, and the minimum value was 1.00. It should be noted that organizational justice (OJ) has the highest mean, and innovative work behavior (IWB) has the lowest mean. For the standard deviation, innovative work behavior has the highest value with 1.06587.

The researcher used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the validity of the construct. For the CFA analysis, the researcher only used the CFA 1st order on the variables: innovative work behavior, transformational leadership, and work engagement. For organizational justice, the researcher used the CFA 2nd order because of the dimension of the variables. Hair et al. (1998) stated that an item would be significant if the loading factor was higher than 0.5. In Table 2, the loading factor of all the items ranges from 0.6 to 0.92 which confirms them as being valid (except TL1 and WE8) because all the items fulfilled the loading factor standard (>0.5). All the construct reliability (CR) coefficients ranged between 0.89 and 0.94, and fulfilled the CR of being >0.7, suggesting that all the variables in this test were valid and reliable (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).

Table 2 also presents the construct of validity for organizational justice for the CFA 1st and 2nd orders. The purpose of the CFA 1st order is to measure, one by one, the dimensions of organizational justice. To find the latent variable of organizational justice, the researcher decided to test the validity using the 2nd order CFA process. Based on Table 3, the loading factor of the 1st order CFA ranged from 0.63 to 0.94. In the 2nd order test of the CFA, the loading factor ranged from 0.59 to 0.92. According to Hair et al. (1998), all items in the 1st and 2nd orders fulfilled the CFA standard (>0.5) and were also significant. The 1st and 2nd order reliability tests show significant values, indicating all the constructs' reliability were above 0.7 as per the CR standard, and the VE were also above 0.5 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). This condition also found in VE in the first and second-order of travel motivation was acceptable.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) for testing the hypotheses. First, the researcher measured the model's goodness of fit. The fit indices suggested that the model fitted the data reasonably well (the model achieved at least four or five indicators for its goodness of fit) The x2 of the hypothesized, %2 (df=734) = 2,617.95, p=0.00, indicates that the model fitted the data well. The remaining fit statistics were also excellent (NFI=0.96; TLI=0.97; CFI=0.97; IFI=0.97), thus further confirming a well-fitting model. The researcher used path analysis to measure the sixhypothesis including mediation hypothesis. The result of the data process is shown in Table 2.

Table 3 shows four hypotheses were supported and one hypothesis was not supported and thus rejected (the result was under the path analysis standard). The result (Table 2) indicates that transformational leadership (ß= 0.38, t-value (6.77) > 1.645) had a positive effect on work engagement. This condition also occurred in organizational justice (ß= 0.38, t-value (6.65) > 1.645) and was statically significant. According to the data analysis, H1 and H4 were accepted. As the researcher expected that transformational leadership (ß= 0.31, t-value (4.30) > 1.645) and work engagement (ß= 0.23, t-value (3.23) > 1.645) positively affected innovative work behavior, H2 and H3 were accepted. However, there was no relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior (ß= 0.03, tvalue (0.40) < 1645), causing H5 to be rejected.

For examining Hypothesis H6, which is an intervening hypothesis, the researcher used a mediation test. Testing the role of work engagement as a mediator can also be done using the Sobel test, which is a test to find out whether the relationship through a mediating variable is significantly capable of being a mediator of the relationship. Based on the results of the Sobel test, by comparing the calculated Zvalue and the Z-table with a significance level of 0.05 (Z table = 1.96), Hypothesis H6 was accepted because the Z-value was higher than the Z-table (2.91>1.96) (Table 4). The study confirmed that the role of work engagement can strengthen the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

In mediation effect test, this study was also conducted by bootstrapping method based on Hayes (2013). For processing the data, the researcher used SPSS software with plugin PROCESS v4 by Adrew F Hayes. Based on the results in Table 5, work engagement was also found to be a mediator variable on the relationship between leadership and innovative work behavior (p-value > 0.05), so Hypothesis H6 was accepted. The confidence interval (CI) from the bootstrap results is written BootLLCI (lower level for CI) = 0.0585 and BootULCI (upper level for CI) = 0.2112.

This study aimed to determine the existence of innovative work behavior in Indonesian government employees. In this study, the researcher focused on the roles played by the style of leadership, organizational justice, and work engagement on employees' work behavior, and especially on government employees' innovation perceptions. This study finds that transformational leadership positively influences innovative work behavior. Related studies from Edelbroek et al. (2019) also found that leadership can influence innovative work behavior. The role of leadership can improve employees' effectiveness and behavior (Brown and Leigh, 1996) because the leader is a mobilizer and directs the employees; leaders who have transformational thinking can increase a person's initiative. The concept of the social exchange theory explains the mutualism and the positive feedback in the relationship. The existence of a transformational leadership style can provide a more innovative work ecosystem and stimulate innovative employees (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

The subsequent findings were outside the expectations of the researcher. This research found that no matter how high the organization's level of justice in the government employees' climate was, this did not affect the government employees' innovative behavior. This is because of the employees' well-being, ranges, wages, insurance, and retirement provisions, which all make government employees not very highly thought of, in terms of their self-initiative for the organization. The rules tied and the work division that makes government employees do not question its organizational justice are focused on their respective working part. The high level of organizational justice in the government companies does not make for innovative working conditions. Surprisingly, this study shows that there is no relationship between organizational justice and innovative work behavior for government employees.

This result is different from the results of previous studies which found that organizational justice in an organization will increase the level of innovative work (Dundar & Tabancali, 2012; Agarwal, 2014; Silva & Caetano, 2014; Akram at. al, 2019). The previous research conducted by Almansour and Minai (2012) found an insignificant effect for distributive and procedural justice on innovative work behavior. Although the results of this study did not find an effect between organizational justice and innovative work behavior, some researchers still believe in the role organizational justice has in encouraging employees to be more innovative. With positive perceptions of distributive, procedural, interactional, temporal and spatial justice, employees will tend to be encouraged to be more involved in generating new ideas, and discussing and implementing these ideas in the organization (Akramat al., 2019).

Similar to the previous studies, this study also found that organizational justice had an influence on work engagement. It defines that the workplace circle has a big impact of productivity. Previous studies show that the teamwork factor has an association between employees' motivation and productivity (Irfan and Lodhi, 2015). Like the prevailing reciprocal law, Indonesian people's habits when getting something useful and return to provide positive energy. Otherwise, when they feel uncomfortable, they will be lazy and ignorant. Perceptions about the organization/place of work will also affect the involvement of the employees. The higher the perception is of the fairness of the employees, the more comfortable they will feel about working to increase their participation in each work activity and thus improving their productivity at work. The findings as supported by earlier research from Saks (2006), and Parzefall et al. (2008) into the concept in the social exchange theory that psychology, behavior, and justice all follow the employees' engagement.

This phenomenon makes it undeniable that the leader's role is crucial for an organization's sustainability, especially regarding the effect on the employees' performance. The right leadership style can improve the conducive and productive ecosystem (Afsar et al., 2019). In line with the social exchange theory on the feedback of human relations, the better the relationship, the better will be the return received. The study found that the transformational leadership style could improve work engagement. This indicates that the existence of a transformational leadership style can strengthen the working relationship between the employees and the government. Earlier research found that the leadership style can increase engagement toward an organization (Kim, 2017); a transformational style is capable of providing positive energy, motivation, and a clear organizational vision (Fitzgerald and Schutte, 2010, p. 49).

Work engagement plays a considerable role in the continuity of a group or company. Work engagement is believed to increase the loyalty and productivity levels of the employees. Work engagement which allows employees to have a role in the organization can enhance individual creativity. If workers feel that they are essential, they are more likely to involve themselves in every activity of the organization. This provides positive energy to encourage the workers to increase the innovative perception they will gain from their involvement with their company. This study found that work engagement was able to increase the innovative work behavior among government workers. In line with the positive organizational behavior theory's idea that human relationships can strength people's capabilities, this indicates that the existence of engagement among government workers is able to provide employee improvement. Previous research stated that work engagement is an active play to change employees' behavior and environmental work (Agarwal, 2014; Lin & Tsai, 2020).

This study contributes to the concept of justice, engagement, and the behavior literature, with an approach to government employees who behave differently from other employees. Not only does this study enlarge the literature on innovative work behavior with the specific case of government employee, it also includes internal personal traits. Government employees have behavior that impressed "comfort-zone" and challenging to develop its competence. However, the results in this study will confirm the perception in public about government employee innovative work. First, this study expanded the study into the organizational justice relations of government employees with innovative work behavior, and the research found something different from the previous research. Our result differs from the result of the previous study about justice and innovative work behavior, but this result indicates that organizational justice does not affect the respondents' profiles. Second, this research also confirms the existence of innovative work behavior in the government employees' environment. This research stated that innovative work behavior was supported by the intervention of such things as the leadership style and work engagement of government employees. Thus, this research provides an overview of the different perspectives of the effectiveness of innovative work behavior by Indonesia's government employees.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

Government employees display dissimilar behavior to other employees. Giving different treatments to the government workers would result in the growth of their innovative work behavior. This finding proved that innovative work behavior in government workers was supported by inventions, such as leadership and work engagement. Conversely, organizational justice did not affect innovative work behavior. So, organizational justice insignificantly influenced the increase of innovative work behavior among government employees. This condition happened because of many factors. One of the factors is the good status or characteristics of government employees. In this study, the role of the leadership's style can influence the relationship and behavior among government employees. This indicates that transformational leadership positively influences work engagement. Transformational leadership positively influences innovative work behavior, leadership with a transformational style, and innovative behavior among government employees. Besides that, organizational justice shows a positive influence on work engagement. The role of work engagement has a positive impact toward innovative work behavior. This study also verified work engagement as the mediator between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. The findings also showed that work engagement could strengthen the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative work behavior.

IMPLICATION. LIMITATION AND SUGGESTIONS

In this study, the sample of respondents comprises of the employees of many government institutions, so the research result was not applicable to each government institution. Future research can use a specific government institution as the research object, enabling the result to be more specific and more significant to a particular institution. This study only focused on transformational leadership as a predictor of innovative work behavior. Any future research can try other leadership styles such as entrepreneurial leadership or transactional leadership. This could broaden the literature study about behavior or justice in the specifics of the research's objects. Furthermore, our finding gives a new view that has a managerial implication, to strengthen employees' innovative work behavior to ensure the organization's continuity. The leadership style and work engagement positively impact the innovative work behavior of government employees. It needs the best way and strategy to build a good leadership style and work engagement to obtain the best output from the employees.

Sidebar

ARTICLE INFO

Article information:

Received 6 January 2021. Received in revised version 30 Augustus 2021. Received in revised version 10 September 2021. Accepted 13 September 2021

Footnote

* Corresponding Author at Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Negeri Malang, Jl. Semarang No.5, Sumbersari, Kec. Lowokwaru, Kota Malang 65145, Indonesia.

E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

References

REFERENCE

7 Types of Leadership: Leveraging Your Strengths to Find Your Style | Fairygodboss. (n.d.). Retrieved July 5, 2020, from https://fairygodboss.com/articles/types-ofleadership-leveraging-your-qualities-tofind-an-effective-style-for-you

Abstein, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). Exploring HRM meta-features that foster employees' innovative work behaviour in times of increasing work-life conflict. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 211-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12053

Afsar, B., Badir, Y.F., Saeed, B.B. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 114(8), 1270-1300.

Afsar, B., Masood, M., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). The role of job crafting and knowledge sharing on the effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior. Personnel Review, 48(5), 1186-1208. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2018-0133

Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43(1), 4173.

Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2019). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. doi:10.1016/jjik.2019.10.001

Almansour, Y. M., & Minai, M. S. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice components and innovative behavior in arab society. Evidence from government department in Jordan. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2012.12. 1.1620

Bacha, E. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, task performance and job characteristics. Journal of Management Development, 33(4), 410-420. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2013-0025

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 16 (1), 74-94.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Transformational leadership, organizational culture. International Journal of Public Administration, 17(3-4), 541-554. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069940852490 7

Batra, S., & Vohra, N. (2016). Exploring the linkages of cognitive style and individual innovativeness. Management Research Review, 39(7), 768-785. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2014-0047

Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1570-1587. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.725 072

Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NY

Choi, S.B., Kim, K., Ebrahim Ullah, S.M., Kang, S.W. (2016). How transformational leadership facilitates innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Review, 45(3).doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2014-0058

Cummings, R. G., Martinez-Vazquez, J., McKee, M., & Torgler, B. (2009). Tax morale affects tax compliance: Evidence from surveys and an artefactual field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 70(3), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjebo.2008.02.010

Daft, R.L. (2001). The Leadership Experience, Harcourt College Publishers, Fort Worth, TX

De Jong, J. P. J., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2007). How leaders influence employees' innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(1), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/1460106071072054 6

De Jong, J. and Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management 19 (1), 23-36. Deloitte Indonesia Perspectives. (2019). Generasi Milenial dalam Industri 4.0: Berkah Bagi Sumber Daya Manusia Indonesia atau Ancaman?

Deloitte Indonesia Perspectives. (2019). Generasi Milenial dalam Industri 4.0: Berkah Bagi Sumber Daya Manusia Indonesia atau Ancaman?

Deputy of Civil Service Information System. (2019). BukuStatistik ASN. Jakarta: Civil Service Board

Dundar, T., & Tabancali, E. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice perceptions and job satisfaction levels. Procedia-Social and Behavioral, 46, 57775781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.5 13

Eisenbeiß, S. A., & Boerner, S. (2013). A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 5468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678551.2011.00786.x

Fitzgerald, S., & Schutte, N. S. (2010). Increasing transformational leadership through enhancing self-efficacy. Journal of Management Development, 29(5), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1108/0262171101103924 0

Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Foundations for organizational science. Organizational justice and human resource management. Sage Publications, Inc.Hoelscher, M., & Schubert, J. (2015). Potential and Problems of Existing Creativity and Innovation Indices. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2015.992 656

Geldenhuys, M., Łaba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement and organisational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v40i1.1098

Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation. Journal of Business Research 62, 461-473

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Haryanti, A. (2019). Dicipline of Civil Servants. Civil Service Board

Hayati, D., Charkhabi, M., & Naami, A. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement in governmental hospitals nurses: a survey study. SpringerPlus, 3(1): 25.

Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?. Psychological science, 24(10), 1918-1927.

Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Ishizaki, M., Shimazu, A., Tsuchiya, M., Tabata, M., Akiyama, M., Kitazume, A., & Kuroda, M. (2010). Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 53(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-009-0485-7

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work behaviour", Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73 (3), 287-302.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: a special issue introduction.Journal of Organizational Behavior 25 (2), 129-145.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary findings.The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-44.

Karatepe, O. M. (2011). Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 20(8), 855878. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2011.577 688

Khaola, P., & Coldwell, D. (2019). Explaining how leadership and justice influence employee innovative behaviours. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-082017-0103

Kim, Y., & Lee, B. G. (2013). An analysis for the mediating effect of organizational justice on the performance in the virtual organization. International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications, 7(1), 201-210.

Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining structural relationships between work engagement, organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for sustainable organizations. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020205

Lai, F.-Y., Tang, H.-C., Lu, S.-C., Lee, Y.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2020). Transformational Leadership and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement. SAGE Open, 10(1), 215824401989908. doi: 10.1177/2158244019899085

Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812442747

Lin, C. P., & Tsai, M. K. (2020). Strengthening long-term job performance: The moderating roles of sense of responsibility and leader's support. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219842629

Longshore, J. M., & Bass, B. M. (1987). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. The Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 756. https://doi.org/10.2307/258081

Masa'deh, R., Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681-705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2015-0134

Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., &Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(1), 149-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjvb.2006.09.002

Momeni, M., Ebrahimpour, H., & Ajirloo, M. B. (2014). Surveying the Impact of Inferential Organizational Justice on Innovative Work Behavior. Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies, 2(9), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.12816/0003900

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/jijhm.2009.05.001

Onne Janssen. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness nd innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 287-302. http s: //doi .org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.0 1.018

Rao, M. S. (2014). Transformational leadership - an academic case study. Industrial and Commercial Training, 46(3), 150-154. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/ICT-07-2013-0043

Raykov, M. (2014). Employer support for innovative work and employees' job satisfaction and job-related stress. Journal of Occupational Health, 56(4), 244-251. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.12-0192-OA

Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21 (7), 600-619.

Suryatman, H. (2015). Journal of Empowerment of State Apparatus Bureaucratic Reform Towards World-Class Government. Legal bureau and public information communication he ministry of management of state employees and bureaucracy reform. 5(5), 177-189.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Shalhoop, J. H. (2004). Social-exchange as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and workplace outcomes. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(10-B), 5264.

Shortell, S. M., & Kaluzny, A. D. (2006). Health care management: Organization, design, and behavior. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson Delmar Learning.

Silva, M.R., & Caetano, A. (2014). Organizational justice: What changes, what remains the same? Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(1), 23-40.

Sonnentag, S. (2017). A task-level perspective on work engagement: A new approach that helps to differentiate the concepts of engagement and burnout. Burnout Research, 5, 12-20.

Stamenkovic, S., Ratkovic Njegovan, B., & Vukadinovic, M. S. (2018). Intra-national diversity: Perception of organizational justice and ethical climate in organizations in Serbia. Cross Cultural and Strategic Management, 25(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-05-20170061

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248

Taris, T. W., Ybema, J. F., & Beek, I. van. (2017). Burnout and engagement: Identical twins or just close relatives? Burnout Research, 5, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.05.002

Tribunnews. (2017). Retrieved 28 July 2020, from<https://www.tribunnews.com/bisnis/2017/08 /30/sri-mulyani-ungkap>- 10-bumn-yangrugi-karena-kalah-bersaing

Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D., & Chang, T. (2010). The impact of organizational justice on work performance: Mediating effects of organizational commitment and leadermember exchange. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 660-677. https://doi.org/10.1108/0143772101107336 4

Wojtczuk-Turek, A., & Turek, D. (2016). The significance of perceived social-organization climate for creating employees' innovativeness: The mediating role of person-organization fit. Management Research Review, 39(2), 167-195. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2015-0268

Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 486493.

Zafar Iqbal, M., Rehan, M., Fatima, A., & Nawab, S. (2017). The Impact of Organizational Justice on Employee Performance in Public Sector Organization of Pakistan. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences, 06(03). https://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000431