BUKU POLICY BRIEF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INNOVATION

ii | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation POLICY BRIEF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INNOVATION Adi Suryanto, et al. (Editors) Copyright @ 2021 The National Institute of Public Administration, The Republic of Indonesia. All Right Reserved. Copyright is protected by law. Title : Policy Brief Innovation of Public Administration Publisher : Indonesian Widyaiswara Profession Association (APWI) Place of Publication: Jakarta Year of Publication : 2021 Edition : 1st (First) Pages : 76 pages ISBN : 978-623-99129-7-0 IKAPI Member’s ID : Nomor Anggota 599/Anggota Luar Biasa/DKI/2021 Redactional: Gedung Atmodarminto, BPPK Kementerian Keuangan Jl. Purnawarman No.99, Kebayoran Baru, South Jakarta. Email : [email protected] Website : https://www.bppdapwi.com Whatsapp : 083840572182

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | iii POLICY BRIEF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION INNOVATION Editors: 1. Adi Suryanto 2. Tri Widodo W.U. 3. Agus Sudrajat Reviewers: 1. Tri Widodo W.U. 2. Agus Sudrajat 3. Widhi Novianto 4. Muhammad Syafiq 5. Ichwan Santosa 6. Haris Faozan Authors: 1. Ichwan San 2. Haris Faozan 3. Desy Fajar Lestari 4. Hidayaturahmi 5. Dewi Oktaviani 6. Yuliardi Agung Pradana 7. Putra Budi Darmawan 8. Candra Setya Nugroho 9. Sulistianingsih 10. Mohd Febrianto 11. Avrina Dwijayanti 12. Azizah Puspasari Supporting Staffs: 1. Yoga Suganda 2. Madya Putra Yaumil Ahad Cover Designers and Layout Persons: 1. Amrillah M 2. Nugroho Ario Setiawan Translators: 1. Ade Agustian 2. Ilima Fitri Azmi Publisher: Indonesian Widyaiswara Profession Association (APWI)

iv | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation PREFACE THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-RI All gratitude goes to The Almighty God, Allah SWT for Thy blessings to open our thoughts and inspiration that enables us to write a book as a legacy in life. The Public Administration Innovation Policy Brief is a legacy of LAN Functional/Professional Officials who are expected to give color to intellectual discourse and the dynamics of public administration policy to go forward. In the midst of the hustle and bustle of various problems that befell this nation, hopefully, the presence of this little book can inspire other positive things in the future which can encourage changes that can lead this nation to prosperity and glory. The issuance of this policy brief is one form of LAN commitment in creating evidencebased policy. Public policy is expected to no longer be made on the basis of intuition from the leadership but based on factual data and information. Thus, public policy can have the right targets and further increase the presence of the state in the community. This policy brief is expected to be a panacea of various public issues in the field of public administration. The challenges and problems facing the future will certainly be greater. The new normal and the disruption of innovation are two challenges that are clearly visible to all of us. The governance of public services, governance, and management of ASN is expected to adapt to these challenges or even make it an opportunity to be able to contribute optimally in building the nation and state. The highest appreciation goes to Tanoto Foundation for its support in the development of ASN capacity, especially through the writing of this Policy Brief. Confidently, the spirit of collaboration in the framework of devotion to the country can continue in many other innovative programs. Jakarta, December 22nd , 2021 Dr. Adi Suryanto, M.Si.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | v GREETINGS CEO GLOBAL TANOTO FOUNDATION Since Tanoto Foundation since its inception has special attention to the world of education. A philanthropic organization engaged in the development of human resources through quality education. Our track record has shown it, and it can be easily traced in the information technology era as it is today. Within the framework of human resource development, Tanoto Foundation provides support to the learning agenda for ASN within LAN RI entitled "LAN for the Country", one of which is realized through the writing of Policy Brief of Public Administration Innovation. Hopefully, the same cooperation that is built does not stop here but continues in various other HR development agendas to realize progress for the country. The collaboration between LAN and Tanoto Foundation further confirms that we are in the era of governance. Quadruple Helix in human resource development is really well implemented. The government is no longer the only actor in the process. Government, private sector, civil society, and academia stand together in building this beloved nation and country. We express our sincere gratitude to the National Institute of Public Administration that has realized this joint work. May it bring good and inspiration to us all, happy reading. Jakarta, December 22nd , 2021 Dr. J. Satrijo Tanudjojo

vi | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation REMARK DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION OF ASN MANAGEMENT THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-RI The Policy Brief on Public Administration Innovation is a collection of Policy Briefs written individually and in teams. Part of Policy Brief is a synthesis of LAN thought in the sphere of ASN management, bureaucratic reform, and ASN competency development. Various thoughts previously contained in research findings are relatively thick and require ample time and energy to be able to digest and enjoy them, it is now presented briefly, densely, and full of essence. This Policy Brief is compiled by functional/professional officials within LAN, with a diverse professional background, ranging from Policy Analysts, Researchers, to Lecturers. Appreciation for the writers for their contributions in such a beautiful collaboration. Michael Foucault in his phenomenal work on the theory of "power of knowledge" reveals that power does not only exist in the structure. Knowledge with solid logic and argument has the power to create subjection or compliance. The results of the research packaged in the policy brief will become powerful knowledge. Policymakers are expected to be encouraged to develop more evidence-based policies. We wish to thank Tanoto Foundation for its cooperation in the knowledge creation agenda within LAN-RI. A valuable space for LAN functional/professional officials to actualize while developing themselves in a spirit of service to the country. Jakarta, December 22nd , 2021 Dr. Agus Sudrajat, MA.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .....................................................................................................................iv GREETINGS ..................................................................................................................v REMARK..................................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ................................................................... viii THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNSHIP AND STAFF-EXCHANGE MODEL AS THE ACCELERATOR OF STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PROFESSIONALISM....................................1 OUTCOME-BASED BUREAUCRATIC REFORM CREATING AN EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE..............................................................................................................9 REWARD SYSTEM MODEL FOR HIGH-PERFORMING STATE CIVIL APPARATUS.............18 THE PREREQUISITE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES..............24 TRANSPARENT PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM OF STATE CIVIL APPARATUS UNDER THE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OF PERMENPAN-RB NO.8 YEAR 2021 ON STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM........................................30 ENHANCING STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM UNDER WFH AND WFO COMBINATION-BASED WORKING PATTERN ......................................35 CONVERSION OF NON-STATE CIVIL APPARATUS/ CONTRACT-BASED EMPLOYEES TO CONTRACT-BASED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (PPPK) IN FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES .............................................................40 STRENGTHENING PATRIOTISM VALUES (BELA NEGARA) TO PREVENT RADICALISM IN THE CIVIL-SERVICE ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................45 MODERATING AGILE BUREAUCRACY AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE .....................50

viii | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ASN (Aparatur Sipil Negara) State Civil Apparatus BKN (Badan Kepegawaian Negara) Civil Service Agency BRIN (Badan Riset dan Inovasi Nasional) National Research and Innovation Agency BUMN (Badan Usaha Milik Negara) State-Owned Enterprises GDRB (Grand Design Reformasi Birokrasi) Grand Design of Bureaucratic Reform KASN (Komisi Aparatur Sipil Negara) The Civil Service Commission KPK (Komisi Pemberantasan Korpsi) Corruption Eradication Commission LAN RI (Lembaga Administrasi Negara Republik Indonesia) The National Institute of Public Administration PERMENPAN-RB (Peraturan Menteri Pendayagunaan Aparatur Negara dan Reformasi Birokrasi) The Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform PIMBANGKOM ASN (Pusat Inovasi Manajemen Pengembangan Kompetensi Aparatur Sipil Negara) Center for Innovation of Civil State Apparatus Competency Development Management PKN (Pelatihan Kepemimpinan Nasional) National Leadership Training PKP2A(Pusat Kajian dan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Aparatur) The Center for Research and Education and Training Apparatus PPPK (Pegawai Pemerintah dengan Perjanjian Kerja) Contract-Based Government Employee RPJMN (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional) National Mid-Term Development Planning SKP (Sasaran Kinerja Pegawai) Employee Performance Objectives

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 1 Polbrief 1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNSHIP AND STAFF-EXCHANGE MODEL AS THE ACCELERATOR OF STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PROFESSIONALISM Ichwan Santosa– Junior Policy Analyst and Haris Faozan- Senior Policy Analyst Abstract Competency development of State Civil Apparatus has not made a significant impact as expected, as shown in the measurement result of National State Civil Apparatus Professionally Index, which score is very low, 56.5. One of the reasons for this ineffectiveness of competency development is because of the conventional program design. The form and route of competency development according to the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No. 10 Year 2018 on The Development of State Civil Apparatus Competency have not been optimally implemented. Considering this circumstance, a non-classical competency development is needed to be the main trigger or driving force. The options for non-classical training-based competency development are internship and staff-exchange. Unfortunately, the regulation for internship and staff-exchange is still insufficient to drive massive and effective implementation. This report describes several issues regarding the policy, model, and policy recommendation of internship and staff-exchange so that it can be implemented effectively. There are several points to be considered, such as: First, to reaffirm the definition and consideration basis of the implementation of internship and staff-exchange. Second, to reaffirm the approach of internship and staffexchange. Third, to develop the scope of internship and staff-exchange. Fourth, to formulate a clear and measurable mechanism. Consequently, there is a necessity to make an adjustment to the regulation (revision of the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No. 10 Year 2018) and to formulate technical regulation on internship and staff-exchange at national level through joint-regulation by LAN RI and the Indonesian Civil Service Agency (BKN). A. Prologue Competency development of State Civil Apparatus has not made a significant impact as expected, as shown in the measurement result of National State Civil Apparatus Professionally Index conducted by BKN in 2018, the score is very low at 56.5. However, even though there is a difference in score level between central government (low) and local government (very low), this difference is quantitatively insignificant (central 60.2 and local 52.5).

2 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation This ineffectiveness is caused by several problems, such as: selection of competency development form and route that are not relevant with State Civil Apparatus necessity, its management that tends to be too administrative, conventional program design, or the form and route are not fully explored. For the context of alternative options for the form and route of competency development, the Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus and its derivative regulations, such as Government Regulation No. 11 Year 2017 on State Civil Apparatus Management and the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No.10 Year 2018 on State Civil Apparatus Competency Development have broadened the scope of competency development of State Civil Apparatus, especially with the introduction of a nonclassical competency development. One alternative of this competency development is staff-exchange program (with private sector) and internship (between government agencies). Staff-exchange program is one of competency development models in which State Civil Apparatus can learn competencies, experience, culture and value from private companies that are perceived as more advanced and adaptive in responding to changing circumstances. Meanwhile, through internship, it is expected that transfer of knowledge, skills, and Source: Publication of Achievement of State Civil Apparatus Performance Merit System 2018 and 2019

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 3 expertise can occur quickly and evenly distributed. This policy brief will discuss the Development of Internship and Staff-Exchange Model in that context. B. Policy Problem The study result done by the Center for State Civil Apparatus Competency Development Management Innovation (PIMBANGKOM ASN) in 2020 found several policy problems related to internship and staff-exchange, as follows: 1. There is no appropriate scope formulation. The existing policies, which are the Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus, Government Regulation No. 11 Year 2017 on State Civil Apparatus Management junto Government Regulation No. 17 Year 2020, and the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No. 10 Year 2018 on State Civil Apparatus Competency Development, explain that the scope of internship is between government agencies, while the scope of staff-exchange can be performed between government agency and private sector. However, in reality the necessity for internship and staff-exchange can be intra organizational (between units inside the organization) and crosssectoral (public and private). These happen in Indonesia and in other countries. 2. There are policy inconsistencies on internship and staff exchange. For example, the term work practice used by other agencies in Central and Local Government in the Law on State Civil Apparatus is no longer used in Government Regulation on State Civil Apparatus Management (similar term used here is internship. Moreover, in the Law on State Civil Apparatus there are 2 (two) competency development routes that are coordinated by BKN and LAN RI, which are work practice in other Central and Local government agencies and Staff Exchange between State Civil Apparatus and private sector employees. Meanwhile, Government Regulation on State Civil Apparatus Management mentions only staff exchange between State Civil Apparatus and private sector employees that is coordinated by BKN and LAN RI. 3. The explanation regarding internship and staff-exchange in the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No. 10 Year 2018 on State Civil

4 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Apparatus Competency Development needs to be reaffirmed as the definition of the terms and their consideration basis are too simple and too general. For example, staff-exchange is defined as “an opportunity to take a position in the private sector”. Meanwhile, its consideration basis is too general: “the discrepancy of competency and performance”. 4. Internship and staff-exchange have been implemented depending on each agency’s policy. Therefore, there are only a few ministries/agencies/ local governments that implement them. Moreover, each agency has their own pattern or model. Those two competency development routes are also perceived differently in each agency. However, there is still an opportunity to formulate a national model through coordination between LAN RI and National Civil Service Agency. 5. There is a reflection of the problem and challenge of the policy implementation in the past. Internship and staff-exchange conducted by ministries/agencies/local governments with their own guidelines created several problems. For example, there was a difficulty in attracting private sector engagement in the staff-exchange program in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources so that the program was implemented only in one direction (private/state-owned enterprises did not send any of their staff to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Another example is the internship program in the Government of the Special Region of Yogyakarta which does not have clear objectives and outputs. Therefore, a national level internship and staff-exchange concept/model is proposed. This concept can be expanded into an international or national program design according to necessity. Internship and Staff-Exchange Model that is developed according to Law on State Civil Apparatus and its derivation can be described as follows:

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 5 Source: Project Change of PKN II Seno Hartono (2018) With consideration to the opportunity to expand the scope of internship and staff-exchange beyond what has been regulated in the existing regulations, a redefining and development of internship and staff-exchange concepts are required. This redefining is also needed to make the understanding of internship and staffexchange clearer, not only in accordance with its interaction scope (one or two directions), but also with the philosophy or main purpose, and other details that become required regulating aspects to implement this competency development approach. C. Policy Recommendation According to the aforementioned discussion in the previous section, the recommendation for Internship and Staff-Exchange to be formulated in the JointRegulation of the National Institute of Public Administration (LAN RI) and the National Civil Service Agency (BKN) with the emphasize to strengthen (reaffirm) several regulating substances, as follows:

6 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation 1. To reaffirm the definition and consideration basis for the implementation of internship and staff-exchange INTERNSHIP STAFF-EXCHANGE Definition: Placement of staff outside his/her original working unit/agency for a particular period in order to attain particular competencies that are relevant or needed to perform his/her duty and function – by actively involved in related working processes under coaching and supervision of a mentor/expert (Job shadowing). Consideration basis: 1. The necessity of having experience before taking a position / there is a risk in taking a position without previously participate in internship under supervision of expert (to minimize the risk) 2. There is a saturation in organization so new experience for new idea/ updating competency is needed 3. The necessity to acquire a solid and full competency 4. The necessity to develop empathy, to widen perspective, to understand another system outside the organization Definition: Placement of staff for a particular position in another working unit or agency is performed in two directions so that the exchange of relevant values, work culture, competency, and experience of two organizations is expected (taking a job position). Consideration basis: 1. The necessity to develop communication, understanding, and cooperation/synergy (network strengthening) with other unit/agency in the context of improving organization performance effectivity and problem solving (strategic values) 2. The necessity to mutually share the strength of each agency. 2. To reaffirm the internship and staff-exchange approach INTERNSHIP STAFF-EXCHANGE 1. Bundling model or as part of a particular classical training design (for example, Functional Position and Leadership training) 2. Independent model or as a separate training program design (flexile, can be designed according to necessity) Independent or as a separate training program design. 1. Incidental, possibly happens to 2 (two) organizations that do not have strong overlapping strategic interests but have competency, value, and experience that can be exchanged. 2. Long-term cooperation is highly expected of organizations that have overlapping sectoral interests. 3. To develop the scope of internship and staff-exchange

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 7 INTERNSHIP STAFF-EXCHANGE 1. Other unit in a government agency 2. Other government agency (Ministry/Agency/Local Government) 3. Corporation 4. Other organization (according to the competency development necessity) 1. Between units in a government agency 2. Between government agencies (Ministry/Agency/Local Government) 3. Between government agency and corporation 4. Between government agency and other organization (according to the competency development necessity) 4. To describe a clear and measurable mechanism

8 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation D. Epilogue The competency development is expected to be transformed from formaladministrative paradigm to become more strategic-substantive. Therefore, competency development management must be driven to create a precise necessity, to determine participants that represent the necessity of organization, to design effective programs, and to prepare clear and measurable targets. These efforts can be initiated through strategic competency development routes such as internship and staff-exchange programs. In order to push the ideal implementation of internship and staff-exchange, there is a necessity to revise the regulation (the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No. 20 Year 2018) and to formulate a national technical regulation on the implementation of internship and staff-exchange through joint-regulation by LAN RI and BKN. References: Laporan Kajian Model Magang dan Pertukaran Pegawai. Pusat Inovasi Manajemen Pengembangan Kompetensi ASN. Jakarta: Lembaga Administrasi Negara, 2020 The Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus Government Regulation No. 11 Year 2017 concerning State Civil Apparatus Management the National Institute of Public Administration Regulation No.10 Year 2018 on State Civil Apparatus Competency Development

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 9 Polbrief 2 OUTCOME-BASED BUREAUCRATIC REFORM CREATING AN EFFECTIVE COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE Dewi Oktaviani – Junior Researcher Abstract Grand Design of Bureaucratic reform (GDRB) 2010-2015 has a final objective of the establishment of a world-class Government of Indonesia in 2025. However, the bureaucracy reform process in Indonesia has not been progressing optimally. This can be seen from the analysis result that provide many critical inputs on the implementation of bureaucratic reform, such as: (1) the paradigm of bureaucratic reform still focuses on bureaucratic internal changes; (2) the road maps prepared by ministries/institutions/agencies are still not integrated directly with the National or Local Medium-Term PLAN or the Strategic Plan; (2) Silo mentality makes the implementation of bureaucratic reform not integrated and not well-coordinated between agencies; (4) The orientation or direction is still only for the fulfilment of output document (output-oriented) (5) Bureaucratic reform program is still perceived as project-based; (6) Low engagement of stakeholders in the bureaucratic reform program planning and evaluation; (7) Uniformity in area of changes and bureaucratic reform activities. These conditions demand paradigm change, from inward-looking to outward-looking, by prioritizing outcome-oriented bureaucratic reform implementation principles and to enable an effective collaborative governance. This paper aims to describe the concept of outcome-based bureaucratic reform. There are two distinct characteristics of the outcome-based bureaucratic reform model. First, it emphasizes the involvement of stakeholders in a broader sense for program planning and evaluation. Second, it emphasizes that the bureaucratic reform program is oriented to achieve the agency or national strategic objectives. Keywords: Reform, Bureaucracy, Outcome. A. Introduction The Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No 25 Year 2020 is expected to be the best solution for the implementation of bureaucratic reform for the last twenty years. However, we still do not see significant changes in the bureaucracy. As stated by President Jokowi and Vice President K.H. Ma’ruf Amin: “The bureaucratic reform still only happens on the surface. It does not touch the core problem, which is to create a professional and competitive bureaucracy.” Moreover, they also emphasize that bureaucracy must be agile, simple, adaptive, innovative, and

10 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation able to work effectively and efficiently. This kind of bureaucracy must be developed systematically and sustainably. The result of outcome-based bureaucratic reform study (PK2AN, LAN RI, 2020) found critical points in the implementation, such as: (1) the paradigm of reform still focuses on changes in the internal part of bureaucracy and does not consider how it impacts bureaucratic reform activities to the achievement of development objectives or what is its benefit to the improvement of public services for stakeholders; (2) Roadmaps prepared by ministries/institutions /agencies are still not integrated directly with the National or Local Medium-Term Plan or the Strategic Plan; (2) Silo mentality makes the implementation of bureaucratic reform not integrated and not wellcoordinated between agencies; (4) The direction or orientation is still in the fulfilment of output document (output-oriented) (5) Bureaucratic reform program is still perceived as project-based; (6) Low engagement of stakeholders in the bureaucratic reform program planning and evaluation; (7) Uniformity in area of changes and bureaucratic reform activities while not every ministry/institution/agency has the same problems and resources capacity. In fact, these problems of bureaucratic reform still exist in the first year of implementation of Bureaucratic Reform Road Map 2020-2024 which has not produced an optimum result. It can be seen from the declining of Indonesia’s rating in two indexes which become indicators of the implementation of Bureaucratic Reform. These two indexes are Government Effectiveness Index 2019 in which Indonesia declined 9 levels and Corruption Perception Index 2019 released by Transparency International Indonesia (TII) in 2020 in which Indonesia’s score declined from 40 to 37 (declined three points from 2019) so that it degraded Indonesia’s ranking 17 levels from 85th position to 102nd from total 180 countries. This Polbrief offers a concept of Collaborative Governance to create a synergy among agencies to achieve a more effective and sustainable development for better implementation of Bureaucratic Reform.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 11 B. Bureaucratic Reform Problem Implementation of Bureaucratic Reform is still performed only in administrative activities or just in formality fulfilment of various bureaucratic reform documents (document-oriented). The achievement of this implementation has not reached the aspect of public benefits. Moreover, the engagement of stakeholders in formulation of bureaucratic reform programs or activities and their evaluation are still very low. Bureaucratic reform implementation has been seen as project-based activities that force every agency, so that they perceive it as only to fulfil the document checklist without considering what is the benefit for public. Moreover, the uniformity in 8 area s of change has made the implementation of bureaucratic reform inflexible so that every agency tends to concentrate on fulfilling the substance of those areas of change only. Furthermore, there are only 200 from total more than 500 of Local Governments that conduct Bureaucratic Reform. This is because some local governments still do not agree on the necessity of conducting it, especially considering the regulation of bureaucratic reform that is very complicated. Local government will have questions, such as what is the consequence if they do not conduct bureaucratic reform? If they conduct bureaucracy reform, then what will they get? Is the reform for increasing their performance incentive or to create a good image perceived by public? Is the road map must be in singular form without considering each agency's needs? Moreover, there has been no change in their internal organization. Especially, they still see many corruption or other cases in the organization. By this description of conditions, we know that even though improvement of bureaucratic reform has been implemented, the impact is still not significant. There are several problems, especially regarding the perception on how the bureaucratic reform has been implemented so far. At least there are two important notes. First, 8 areas of changes in the bureaucratic reform implementation: organization, procedures, law & regulation, human resources, supervision, accountability, public service, andmindset & cultural set. Source: Presidential Regulation No. 81Year 2010

12 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation current bureaucratic reform activities in agencies have not been aimed to resolve the agency or national strategic problems, such as stated in bureaucratic reform road map and in the Strategic Planning. Second, most bureaucratic reform activities are still inward-looking which eventually only become formalities. Furthermore, according to Bureaucratic Reform Road Map 2020-204 at least there are 3 issues that can be observed, as follows: a. Bureaucratic Reform Program Performance-based organization concept that is more able to raise strategic issues which are problems in every government institution becomes the reference basis in the formulation of the bureaucratic reform road map and programs. The programs must become the solution for efforts to resolve strategic problems and to achieve development targets. However, in reality these strategic issues and development targets mentioned in National/Local Mid-Term Planning are still not directly referenced by local governments in formulating their bureaucratic reform programs. b. Bureaucratic Reform Macro Policy As stated in the Bureaucratic Reform Road Map 2020-2024 that Bureaucratic Reform Macro Policy is designed as the general guideline with minimum indicator that must be achieved by every agency. However, this macro policy seems not fully guiding the bureaucratic reform direction in accordance with the focus of reform, which is the improvement of governance. Meanwhile, if this policy is pulled to a meso level, then the leading sector has changed its objective that is limited only in ministry/agency. (For example: internalization of anti-corruption values for State Civil Apparatus (KPK, LAN RI, Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Service Commission, Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Higher Education (BRIN) and Ministry of Communication and Information Technology). Furthermore, in micro level, the change will be intra organizational (in each organization), which results in the incapacity to drive outcome-based changes. Especially, if the organization has not optimized or has minimum effort to involve non-government

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 13 stakeholders in the existing bureaucratic reform program, which will result in less support or ownership from stakeholders. c. Area of Change The improvement of area of change in Road Map 2020-2024 is still not as dynamic as expected. Changes are only done in the name of the area of change only, for example: law and regulation become policy deregulation, and cultural set becomes change management. In fact, the bureaucratic reform road map 2020- 2024 already stated that the selection of eight areas of change has already considered their relevance with current conditions. However, considering the current disruptive environment, these areas of change should be designed in more dynamics. C. Policy Recommendation of Bureaucratic Reform To resolve the problems, a paradigm shift is needed from inward-looking to outward-looking and emphasizing that the implementation of bureaucratic reform must be oriented to outcome. This outcome-based bureaucratic reform concept becomes a different method compared to the existing one. As mentioned in study result (PKAN LAN RI, 2020), “Outcome-based bureaucratic reform is a process to reorganize, to change, to make a breakthrough, to innovate the governance by thinking and acting outside the routine with extra effort which the result will provide benefit and added-value for the organization and stakeholders. Outcome in this sense refers to matters that are related to the achievement of development objectives. Therefore, bureaucratic reform is positioned as the enabling factor for the achievement of development objectives. Relation of Bureaucratic Reform and National Mid-Term Development Planning (RPJMN) 2020 - 2024

14 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Outcome-Based Bureaucratic Reform Design The design of outcome-based bureaucratic reform also has several main characteristics which emphasize that the bureaucratic reform program is oriented to the achievement of agency and national strategic objectives. This is different from the characteristics of the existing reform in which this outcome-based model emphasizes more in the involvement of stakeholders in a broader sense in the planning and evaluation of the program. Comparison of Current and Outcome-Based Bureaucratic Reform Models No. Aspect Current Bureaucratic Reform Model Outcome-Based Bureaucratic Reform Model 1. Determining performance indicators for bureaucratic reform program Determined by the agency itself Target and performance indicators are determined together with stakeholders. Citizen-based demand is applied. 2. Positioning of area of change Area of change is perceived as the target, and not as a means to achieve the objectives of bureaucratic reform. Area of change is adjusted as required to provide solutions for problems faced by the agency and to achieve strategic objectives. 3. Selecting area of change In same manner for all ministry/agency/local government Adjusted based on necessity, characteristics, and resources capability of the organization 4. Bureaucratic Reform activities in area of change Tend to be standardized as shown in many similar activities performed in every area of changes by Bureaucratic Reform activities in every area of change aim to response the need of change and to achieve strategic objectives

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 15 ministry/agency/local government 5. Bureaucratic Reform program orientation focus Inward-looking, with orientation only to the improvement of internal organization as shown by standardized bureaucratic reform activities Inward & outward-looking, with emphasize in bureaucratic reform program related to organizational problem to the achievement of agency’s strategic objectives, and to the improvement of public service 6. Implementing Strategy Uniformity based on the standard given by messo level team so that the ownership is minimum Emphasizing in creativity and innovation in fulfilling reform targets and its benefits to stakeholders 7. Measurement of success Completeness of documents Ability to provide added value to the organization, stakeholders, and the achievement of development objective 8. Role of stakeholders which are the users of agency output Ignored As a central part of the change process. Actively involved in planning to evaluation of bureaucratic reform program activities 9. Bureaucratic reform road map No relation with National/Local MediumTerm Planning or Strategic Planning Integrated with National/Local Medium-Term Planning or Strategic Planning 10. Policy control Authority-based Bureaucratic reform policy control is conducted based on knowledge through support from stakeholders in the knowledge sector (university, NGO, media) in formulating the programs. 11. Bureaucratic reform program evaluation Self-assessment and assessment from Ministry of State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform Conducted by a professional institution and stakeholders based on targets that have been determined together in advance. Source: LAN RI (2014 & 2020) There are several efforts that can be conducted in order to synchronize this outcome-based bureaucratic reform design with the Bureaucratic Reform Roadmap 2020-2004, as follows: 1. Priority program and activity that have big impact to governance can be formulated into bureaucratic reform macro policy. These programs and activities can be determined by pulling programs from messo level to macro level. This can be done by discussing it in advance in the national bureaucratic reform forum to

16 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation present direction so that the implementation in macro policy will be clear. Moreover, by emphasizing the principle of performance-based reform in the outcome-based bureaucratic reform, then strategic issues that become problems in the organization can be positioned as the reference basis to formulate Road Map and bureaucratic reform programs for the organization. Hence, the outcome can be measured more precisely, and the benefit can be directly perceived by stakeholders. In other words, the output will become a solution for problems faced by the organization. 2. Clear guidelines or indicators will help leading sector Ministries/Agencies to achieve their program objectives. Therefore, more technical guidelines are required to help bureaucratic reform program implementation to be more ontrack. This can be a solution for several agencies (especially local governments) that until now have not performed bureaucratic reform. 3. In determining areas of change, an organization can adjust according to its necessity, characteristics, and resources capability. Hence, it can provide flexible space of the agency to determine which area of change that needs to be performed so that it will no longer perceived only as administrative fulfilment (check list). D. Closing Outcome-based bureaucratic reform is defined as a process to reorganize, to change, to make a breakthrough, to innovate the governance by thinking and acting outside the routine with extra effort which the result will provide benefit and addedvalue for the organization and stakeholders. This is the new paradigm that will provide insight to the existing bureaucratic reform implementation. Especially, it means to shift the paradigm of bureaucratic reform from inward-looking to outwardlooking by emphasizing that the implementation of bureaucratic reform must be outcome-based. Outcome based bureaucratic reform will stimulate the creation of a more effective collaborative governance. By emphasizing the involvement of stakeholders to

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 17 determine targets, the organization will ease to determine its outcome for achieving development targets. Therefore, as a starting point of the implementation of this bureaucratic reform, determining what outcome the organization wants to achieve is crucial. By answering this question, the organization can more easily define inputs, activities, and outputs so that it gives impact to the achievement of development objectives, and the result can be directly perceived by stakeholders. References: Laporan Kajian Reformasi Birokrasi Berbasis Outcome. Pusat Kajian Kebijakan Administrasi Negara. Jakarta: Lembaga Administrasi Negara, 2020. Presidential Regulation No. 81 Year 2010 on Grand Design of Bureaucratic reform 2010-2025. The Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No.25 Year 2020 concerning Bureaucratic Reform Road Map 2020-2024.

18 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Polbrief 3 REWARD SYSTEM MODEL FOR HIGH-PERFORMING STATE CIVIL APPARATUS Azizah Puspasari – Junior Policy Analyst Abstract The main challenge of implementing a reward system for State Civil Apparatus is on how to formulate the composition of the reward forms for high-performing employees. This reward is a composition of financial and nonfinancial aspects and aims to motivate employees in their performance so that they can receive a very good and good rating according to the regulated performance assessment. This Policy Brief recommends a reward system model that integrates financial and nonfinancial aspects based on the mapping of other successful reward systems conducted by State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) and local governments. A. Introduction The improvement of the performance management system is a crucial aspect in creating a more objective and transparent performance assessment, and in providing a clear reward and punishment mechanism. This is important as much research stated that a good reward system will attract the best employee candidates and will retain high-performing employees in the organization. Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 on Performance Assessment of State Civil Apparatus is the government’s effort to improve the reward system by introducing a more measurable performance assessment. It is complemented by the Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2021 on Performance Management System of State Civil Apparatus. In this policy, a highperforming or a very good-rated employee will get rewards in the form of talent pool priority and competency development and other rewards that are regulated by the Law.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 19 However, in reality several government agencies are still using previous policy, therefore some weaknesses in performance assessment are still not solved. The reward given to high-performing employees is also in different variations depending on the internal policy and the assessment instrument. The focus of reward in the form of financial and nonfinancial as stated in Government Regulation No.30 Year 2018 are still not producing variation and creating a conducive working environment as needed by the employees. This policy brief will offer a Reward System Model for HighPerforming State Civil Apparatus that can generate fairness and deservedness. This model is formulated from an extraction of various reward system models that are already applied in selected agencies. B. Problem Discussion Policy in reward provision for State Civil Apparatus applied in Indonesia’s government bureaucracy has not been optimized to improve the working environment and to motivate the employees. Government Regulation No. 35 Year 1964 on Reward Provision to Extraordinary Duty-Performing State Civil Apparatus is one of the regulations that initiate the provision to motivate high-performing State Civil Apparatus who play important roles in national development. However, the dynamics and adjustments to the inflation value has made the components and mechanisms of reward provision according to the aforementioned Government Regulation irrelevant in current situations, even though the reward already consists of financial and nonfinancial aspects that should be the significant components to motivate employees. Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 that replaces Government Regulation No. 46 Year 2012 directs the whole employee assessment by looking at the performance output. The assessment is not only performed by the State Civil Apparatus Performance Assessor, but also by work colleagues in the same level and/or by direct subordinates through the 360° method. Performance assessment is based on performance measurement that can be performed every month, quarter, semester, or

20 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation annually and is documented in a performance measurement document (adjusted by the necessity of organization). The measurement result will be categorized based on scoring and labelling: 1) Very Good (score 110<x<120 and creating new idea and/or new way in improving performance that provide benefit to organization or the country); 2) Good, score 90<x<120, without new idea; 3) Average, score 70<x<90; 4) Poor, score 50<x<70; and 5) Very Poor, score <50. Reward provision regulated in Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2018 consists of two points, which are: to prioritize competency development for State Civil Apparatus who achieve good rating for 2 (two) years consecutively and to include him/her to the talent pool program in their respective agency. Whereas, according to Buhai, Cottini and Nielseny (2018), to enhance performance productivity of an organization, an improvement of the working environment physical dimension is needed. Amstrong (2009) added that the more precise way to ensure improvement in motivation, commitment, and performance of the employees is by generating a working environment that is fun, challenging, and empowering where each individual can use their ability to perform a meaningful work that reflects a recognition to them. A precise provision of nonfinancial reward becomes important as it can predict employee’s performance. The more challenging an objective is, the higher the performance of and satisfaction felt by the employees (Mondy, 2008). Several agencies from central and local governments have already implemented reward provision in financial and nonfinancial aspects. For example, in model development, there are several forms of reward that are relatively similar. However, there are interesting cases, such as in the Provincial Government of West Java in which its performance system has already been integrated with the human resources system and career system. Moreover, the provision of additional reward can reach 100% from Additional Income Incentive which really motivates the employee’s performance. Meanwhile the City Government of Yogyakarta introduces the value of mutual assistance (gotong royong) in their provision of Additional Income Incentive based on the organization performance score.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 21 To develop a reward model for high-performing State Civil Apparatus, a mapping of attainable person reward is conducted, including Salary, Religious Festivity Allowance, Housing Credit Facility, Housing, Facility, Telecommunication, Working Equipment, Tax Allowance, Social Security, Health Security, Work Accident Security, Life Insurance, Work Facility, Annual/Major Leave Allowance, Winduan Allowance, Severance Pay, Retirement Program, and Legal Assistance. Position Reward includes Take Home Pay, Expensiveness Allowance, Local Expensiveness Allowance, Vehicle, Working Environment, Job Weight, Job Facility, Official Duty Travel Facility, and PostEmployment Benefits. Performance-Based Reward consists of Production Service, Industrial Factor, Bonus, Mid-Term Incentive, Sales Incentive, Loan, Talent Pool, Talent Mobility, Performance Allowance, Career and Environmental Rewards, Career Management (talent mobility, succession management, and others), Fast Track Program (Career Opportunity), Formal Education, Development Program (training, coaching, GPD/MP, etc.), Employee Reward & Recognition, Flexible Reward (PointBased Reward), Work/Life Program (WAP, EVP, Olimpiakom, etc.), Working Environment, and Professional Membership. C. Policy Recommendation To improve the reward system for high-performing State Civil Apparatus, there are several recommendations for Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform, National Civil Service Agency, and bureau/working units that handle human resources management in every central government agency (Ministry/Agency) and Local Governments, as follows: 1. According to the mapping result, the Reward Model for High-Performing State Civil Apparatus is as follows:

22 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Type of Reward for High-performing Level (Beyond Expectation) High-performing Level (Beyond Expectation) Very Good Rating Good Rating NonFinancial Talent Pool / Promotion / Fast Track in Agency or National Level √ Prioritized for Competency Development (Scholarship, Training, Coaching, GPD/MP, etc.) √ √ Talent Mobility / Rotation / Job Enrichment √ √ Work / Life Program √ Facilities √ √ Flexible Reward (Point Based Reward) √ √ Financial Incentive / Performance Incentive / Bonus / Production Service √ Loan Facility √ 2. The mechanism of reward provision in each agency is coordinated by the working unit that handles human resource management, finance, and the direct supervisor. Technical aspect of the reward provision begins with Performance Assessment in accordance with Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 and Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2021 so that it will generate result/score associated with its labelling. High-performing employees will get rewarded financially through mechanisms conducted by working units that manage human resources and finance. Meanwhile, the mechanism for nonfinancial reward will be coordinated with the bureau/division that manages human resources and the direct supervisor. 3. As a reference in performance assessment for high-performing employees, a policy or derivative regulation of Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 is needed to regulate the assessment of high-performing employees for each agency or can be formulated generally and applicable for all agencies determined by the regulation. Reward provision in nonfinancial form that uses the National

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 23 Budget is regulated by the Minister who conducts government administration in the financial sector. D. CLOSING The setting of reward in the form of financial and nonfinancial is a significant composition to motivate employees. To create an effective implementation reward system for high-performing employees, the performance management system needs to be holistically designed and integrated with other systems in the State Civil Apparatus management cycle, which are: human resources planning, career development, competency development, and also reward and discipline. References Pusat Kajian Manajemen Aparatur Sipil Negara. 2020. Laporan Kajian Model Kesejahteraan ASN (Insentif untuk ASN Berkinerja Tinggi). Jakarta: Lembaga Administrasi Negara Armstrong, M. (2009). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (11 Ed.) Cambridge, UK: Kogan Page Limited. Buhai, S., Cottini, E., & Nielseny, N. (2008). The impact of Workplace Conditions on Firm Performance (Working Paper Number 08-13). Retrieved from http://www.hha.dk/nat/wper/08-13_sebu.pdf Mondy, R.W. (2008). Human Resource Management, International Edition, Pearson Education International, New Jersey USA. Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 (PP No.30 Year 2019) on State Civil Apparatus Performance Assessment Government Regulation No. 35 Year 1964 on Reward Provision to Extraordinary DutyPerforming State Civil Apparatus the Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2021 on Performance Management System of State Civil Apparatus

24 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Polbrief 4 THE PREREQUISITE OF TALENT MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Candra Setya Nugroho and Sulistyaningsih – Junior Policy Analysts Abstract The many cases of job-obtaining bribery are one of the problems that triggers the urgency to improve the State Civil Apparatus human resources management, especially in the selection of leaders in government agencies. One of the strategies implemented is to apply the talent management. However, some current conditions do not support the implementation of that system. As this is a new system adopted from the private sector, then government agencies should understand the prerequirement for talent management in order to be properly implemented. Those prerequirements are development mind-set, performance culture, executive sponsorship, and a good human resources information system. A. Introduction The Government through the Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus has made an effort to develop a merit system in the management of State Civil Apparatus. It is reflected in the selection of leaders in government institutions that are conducted through an open bidding system. However, the actual implementation shows that there is still a chance for job-obtaining bribery in the system. Source: Detikcom, KPK.GO.ID

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 25 Bribery cases related to jobobtaining happened from local to central government agencies, such as: Klaten Regency, Nganjuk Regency, Cirebon Regency, Jombang Regency, and Ministry of Religious Affairs (source: KPK.go.id). The cases even increased from 2015-2016. In 2015, there were 191 cases, while in 2015 it increased to 278 cases. The many cases of bribery shows that the selection system for leaders in government agencies still becomes a serious problem that needs to be resolved. The Civil Service Commission (KASN) stated that the nominal value of corruption related to job-obtaining bribery is very high, reaching Rp 35 trillion. Moreover, there are price tags for every job position, from supervisor to high official position. To create a selection system for leaders in government agencies that supports merit system, then the implementation of talent management should be encouraged in all government agencies. This Policy Brief will discuss various pre-requirements needed to implement talent management in government agencies. B. Policy Problem To encourage and provide guidelines to the implementation of talent management in government agencies, the government released the Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 3 Year 2020 on Talent Management of State Civil Apparatus. However, even though talent management already has its legal basis, the implementation has not occurred by itself. Source: Civil Service Commission, TEMPO, Ministry of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform, KOPRI, www.katadata

26 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Implementation of talent management has been performed partially by some government agencies. For example, the creation of a talent pool, the classification of employees to talent criteria (nine boxes), etc. Currently, there are 24 government agencies that are selected as the example projects of the implementation of talent management assessment (JPNN.com). The selection of these 24 government agencies is based on their very good rating achievement in the Merit System Index. These example projects are the initial step to improve talent management in those agencies. The existence of these 24 example agencies is one indication that talent management has not been implemented fully in government agencies. As a new system in managing civil service human resources, the implementation of talent management will most likely face challenges from the already institutionalized previous system. These challenges are, as follows 1. Old-School Paradigm Old-school paradigm in human resources management will be the main challenge in implementing talent management. It is because the human resource managers are still used to and comfortable with the established paradigm or system. Meanwhile, this established system still does not show the commitment to encourage the development of human resources optimally, fairly, and proportionally. There are still many government agencies that do not fulfill their obligations in providing development for their employees in minimum 20 hours/year. 2. Low-Performance Culture Non optimal performance culture performed by government agencies are indicated by the many complaint reports from the public. According to data in 2018, the Ombudsman received 8,456 complaints about public service maladministration, which has increased 6.3% from 2017. 3. No Apprenticeship System Currently, there is a very minimum or even no government agency that has planning related to mentoring from leaders or senior employees (experienced)

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 27 to their apprentices (candidates for leaders) or to junior employees. Even though some mentoring are already performed, they are not planned systematically and relevant with the necessity of the organization as a whole. 4. Non optimal Human Resources Information System Currently, the majority of government agencies already have a human resources information system. However, their conditions are not sufficient to implement talent management. The current information systems are more related only to attendance, target, and performance achievement of human resources, and still not prepared for career development planning. To implement talent management, government agencies need to resolve those challenges mentioned above and to prepare its prequirement. Therefore, the implementation of talent management can be performed properly and achieve the best result. C. Policy Recommendation According to problems description in previous section, hence pre requirements needed to optimally implement talent management in government agencies are as follows (PKP2A | LAN RI, 2015): 1. Development Mindset Government agencies must have a development mindset so that talent management programs can be successful. This mindset prioritizes the development of every employee individually in the respected agency. Therefore, government agencies must have a development mindset, which means to always consider the development of its State Civil Apparatus in order to successfully conduct talent management programs. 2. Performance Culture Government agencies must have, understand, perform the high-performance culture in the implementation of talent management. It happens when the agency always makes an effort to find performance indicators for every

28 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation position and make it as the basis to assess employee’s success and as a tool of measurement to provide compensation for every employee. Therefore, in order to successfully perform a talent management program, a government agency must have a performance culture so that the achievement of a State Civil Apparatus is based on his/her performance indicators. 3. Executive Sponsorship Government agency must have a top executive, board of director, or senior leader that becomes sponsor of the main driving force of the development of high potential employees so that they can successfully perform the talent management program. Therefore, in order to successfully conduct the talent management program, a government agency must have executive sponsorship who can commit to provide mentorship, education, and empowerment to State Civil Apparatus that are projected to be potential leaders in the future. 4. Good Human Resource Information System Government agencies must establish infrastructure, investment, and accurate human resource information systems to support the implementation of talent management programs. Agency needs to continuously maintain and update the data to record current employee position, employee historical position, and to provide options of future position and duty for the employee for his/her competency development. The Human Resources Information System also needs to include information of organizational core competencies, competency profile of employee, and competency development history of employee. Berger (2004 p. 22-33) mentioned that there are 4 (four) main steps in managing talent, which are: first, to identify organizational core competencies and to prepare tools for performing assessment. Second, to identify competency development programs that fulfil the core competencies. Third, to conduct competency assessment and forecasting for employee potential. Fourth, to prepare an

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 29 action plan for managing every talent. The human resources information system should be able to accommodate those four steps of talent management. D. Closing Talent management is a proven system to create a professional merit-based human resources management, as shown previously in private sectors. Understanding the pre-requirements for talent management implementation is one of the keys so that government agencies can prepare themselves to minimize challenges that possibly appear and distract their effort to implement talent management in the future. The necessity to improve human resource management in civil service sector will never disappear. However, progress must be pursued and one of its prerequirement is by addressing past error and to set it right. References: Berger Lance A. 2004. Four Steps to Creating a Talent Management System dalam Berger, Lance A dan Berger Dorothy R (editors). Talent Management Handbook. Creating Organizational Excellence by Identifying, Developing, and Promoting Your Best People. The McGrow-Hill Companies Laporan Kajian Manajemen talenta Dalam Pengembangan Karier Pegawai Negeri Sipil. Pusat Kajian dan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Aparatur I, Jatinangor. Lembaga Administrasi Negara, 2015. Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 3 Year 2020 on Talent Management of State Civil Apparatus JPNN.Com. 2021. Artikelberitaedisi 21 Maret 2021 berjudul “24 Instansi Pemerintah ini jadi pilot project penilaian penerapan manajemen talenta ASN, ini daftarnya” diakses dihttps://www.jpnn.com/news/24-instansi-pemerintah-ini-jadi-pilot-project-penilaianpenerapan-manajemen-talenta-asn-ini-daftarnya,

30 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Polbrief 5 TRANSPARENT PERFORMANCE RATING SYSTEM OF STATE CIVIL APPARATUS UNDER THE IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK OF PERMENPAN-RB NO.8 YEAR 2021 ON STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Yuliardi Agung Pradana and Putra Budi Darmawan– Senior Policy Analyst Abstract An objective performance assessment will create a positive working environment and encourage employees to make positive achievements. Many research show that performance assessment system until recently has not significantly reduced the leaders’ subjectivity in performing assessment for their subordinates. The Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform (PerMenPAN-RB) No. 8 Year 2021 on State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System brings a new hope for an objective State Civil Apparatus performance assessment system. This policy brief offers transparent performance model as the implementation of PerMenPAN-RB No. 8 Year 2021 on State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System. By performing this system, even without open bidding, potential candidates that belong to high performance groups in the performance assessment system will take strategic job positions. There are five characteristics in this model, which are: first, performing monthly monitoring and evaluation of the Employee Performance Objectives and Work Attitude. Second, performing 360˚ of State Civil Apparatus. Third, the performance assessment result also needs to be compiled with the State Civil Apparatus’ contribution to the achievement of their working unit strategic plan. Fourth, the assessment of Work Achievement components is transparent in a system that can be accessed by all State Civil Apparatus in the respected organization. the assessment of Work Achievement components is transparent in a system that can be accessed by all State Civil Apparatus in the respected organization. A. Introduction An objective performance assessment is the key to create a positive working environment and to encourage employees to pursue their best achievement. Therefore, the performance assessment model used has an important role in creating a positive working environment and to encourage employees to exercise their best performance. Until recently, various regulations related to performance assessment have been released to stimulate an objective State Civil Apparatus performance assessment. However, much research shows that the existing performance

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 31 assessment system has not been able to significantly reduce the subjectivity of leaders in performing assessment for their subordinates. According to BKN, the result of State Civil Apparatus Performance Management Pilot Project According to Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 shows that almost all State Civil Apparatus belong to the good category (even 20 percent of them get a very good category). Meanwhile, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia received 7,204 complaint reports from the public related to public service conduct (Annual Report of Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2020 “Guiding Public Service in the Era of Pandemic Covid-19”). It means there is still a contradiction between the employee's individual performance and the organizational performance. Regulation of Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2020 on State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System has regulated the implementation of performance assessment. The assessment is conducted by combining the Employee Performance Objectives (SKP) and Work Attitude. The SKP core is obtained by comparing the SKP realization and target. Meanwhile work attitude is obtained by comparing work attitude standard and the work attitude assessment. This brings a new hope for an objective State Civil Apparatus performance assessment system. This policy brief offers a transparent performance model as the implementation of PerMenPAN-RB No. 8 Year 2021 on the State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System. B. Problem Analysis As the massive development of information and communication technology, some government agencies have implemented IT-based performance management. However, an IT-based system is a passive instrument (not Artificial Intelligence) that needs the support of human resources to manage it, and a performance assessor team in order to implement the objective system. BKN through its Directorate of Civil Service Performance for two years (2018- 2019) has conducted evaluation of the implementation of State Civil Apparatus

32 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation performance management. The data from the evaluation result show that most agencies have not implemented proper performance management (50% of them are average and 11.7% are poor). Many research state there are 4 factors that cause subjectivity in performance assessment, as follows: 1. Objectives and workload set as employee performance indicators are not synchronized with the main duty and function according to the job position analysis result. 2. Evidence for work objectives indicators can still be manipulated because a performance information system that can lock the evidence of working objectives achievement is not available. 3. The assessment for work attitude is performed only in 90˚ by the direct supervisor so that positive and negative sentiments affect the perceived employee performance. 4. Performance assessment is performed only once a year so that it is unable to show the progress of employee performance and tends to make direct supervisor look only at the final result and ignore the process to achieve that level of performance. To resolve those problems, a performance assessment model that is transparent and sustainable is needed to determine candidates for strategic job positions in the future. A transparent rating model for State Civil Apparatus performance can be the new breakthrough. Performance rating is an alternative to evaluate State Civil Apparatus performance because it can describe the civil service performance profile in national scope. This rating model will motivate employees, so they are encouraged to improve their performance. C. Policy Recommendation There are several ideas related to the implementation of transparent performance rating model, as follows: 1. Monitoring and evaluation of Employee Performance Objectives and Work Attitude are performed monthly. Components of performance rating are filled

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 33 with Employee Performance Objectives and Work Attitude. However, Monitoring and evaluation of Employee Performance Objectives and Work Attitude need to be conducted not only at the end of the year, but every month. 2. Implementing 360˚ assessment for State Civil Apparatus. The assessment is performed not only subjectively by supervisor/leader. It is conducted by all working colleagues in one working unit. This assessment becomes percentage composition in the Work Attitude aspect. 3. Performance assessment results need to be combined with the State Civil Apparatus role/contribution in the achievement of the strategic plan of the respected working unit. State Civil Apparatus make a list of performance output in a monthly period and the result is openly/transparently published in the system for the working unit. 4. Meanwhile, State Civil Apparatus are also evaluated based on their additional performance, such as their capability and contribution to the knowledge outside their working unit. Additional performance can be in the form of development commitment and community involvement. This type of performance drives employees to contribute for the achievement of their working unit/agency objectives outside their job position main duty. Knowledge from outside the working unit becomes an additional percentage component for State Civil Apparatus. 5. Assessment of the components of the Work Achievement is transparent in a system that can be accessed by all State Civil Apparatus in the organization. For every State Civil Apparatus performance output, there will be performance grouping for every monthly and annual period, which are high performance, middle performance, and low performance. Annual performance rating used to arrange State Civil Apparatus performance profiling in one unit and/or Government Agency can be used as consideration to determine competency development priority and employee career development. Eventually, performance achievement by rating will be connected with the employee

34 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation compensation, self-development, and career. Therefore, a change in performance management is needed to synchronize individual performance achievement with the organization performance standard. The whole system must be developed by utilizing information technology. D. Closing A transparent State Civil Apparatus performance rating system is primarily needed in the human resources sector to determine the talent pool that will take the organization's strategic job positions. Therefore, even without an open bidding mechanism, potential candidates that belong to high performance groups in the performance assessment system will take strategic job positions. References Laporan Kajian Pengembangan Manajemen Talenta Bagi Pegawai Negeri Sipil di Instansi Daerah. Pusat Kajian dan Pendidikan dan Pelatihan Aparatur II, Makassar. Lembaga Administrasi Negara, 2018. Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2021 on State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System. Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 on State Civil Apparatus Performance assessment.

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 35 Polbrief 6 ENHANCING STATE CIVIL APPARATUS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM UNDER WFH AND WFO COMBINATION-BASED WORKING PATTERN Hidayaturahmi – Lecturer Abstract The result of State Civil Apparatus performance assessment in the new normal shows declining tendency in quality and quantity caused by individual factors, organizational support, and management support, which is the State Civil Apparatus working system. The Circular Letter of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 30 Year 2020 regulates the State Civil Apparatus working system in two forms, which are performing official duty at home and performing official duty at the office. This policy was revised by the Circular Letter of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 67 Year 2020 in which the implementation of both systems is adjustable according to the changing situation of Covid-19 cases in national level or in local level in which the organization is located. This change in State Civil Apparatus work pattern needs attention and follow up to respond to the possibility of policy change in the State Civil Apparatus performance assessment system. The change aims to provide objective evaluation that is appropriate with the duty, responsibility, and resources potential of the employee. This study recommends enhancing the State Civil Apparatus performance assessment system under WFH and WFO combination-based working pattern. A. Introduction Covid-19 pandemic has occurred since 2019 around the globe and it transforms the order of living for every person. People must change their lifestyle and habits to adapt with the new circumstances. Social distancing and physical distancing become the new order in human interactions. The similar change also happens in government sector organizations in which they must adjust the office hours according to the regulation. According to the Circular Letter of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 58 Year 2020 on State Civil Apparatus Working System during New Normal, there are conditions for Work from Home (WFH) and Work from Office

36 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation (WFO). These two terms then became a new order system that applied in the current working environment, either in the private or public sector. The aforementioned Circular Letter states that the WFH implementation is based on several aspects as consideration. One aspect of consideration is the employee performance assessment. The Law No 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus chapter 75 about performance assessment mentions that the State Civil Apparatus performance assessment is performed based on achievement system and career system. The question is how to ensure that both systems are conducted properly as their purpose is to maintain State Civil Apparatus development effectiveness in the new normal. The existing State Civil Apparatus performance assessment is referring to the Regulation of the Head of National Service Agency No. 1 Year 2013 on implementation provision of Government Regulation No. 46 Year 2011 on State Civil Apparatus Work Achievement Assessment and based on Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 on State Civil Apparatus performance assessment. This Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 instructs that performance assessment must be performed under the State Civil Apparatus performance management system framework, which consists of performance planning, implementation, monitoring and development, assessment, and assessment follow-up managed in a performance information system. Meanwhile, the new Regulation of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 8 Year 2021 on State Civil Apparatus Performance Management System has not clearly regulated the limitation of performance management under WFH and WFO perspectives. B. Problem Analysis Several data and studies show there are problems in the quality of State Civil Apparatus performance. The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform identifies various public complaints related to public service performance during the pandemic. Most complaints are related to civil administration service in 153 reports, electricity service in 116 reports, tax service in 40 reports, permits in 20 reports,

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 37 immigration in 11 reports, and oil and gas in 8 reports (Tempo, 2020). According to survey conducted by the research and development division of Kompas in 22-24 April 2020 there are public concern during Covid-19 pandemic of the difficulties in obtaining basic needs (38%), the absence of quality health service (23%) , the decline of civil service professionalism (9.2%), the difficulties in getting permits and legal letters that affect to the business (8%), and the difficulties in getting employment (7.3%) (Ombudsman 2020) There are three factors influencing employee performance, which are (Simanjuntak 2011): first, individual factor, the skill and ability to perform task; Second, organizational support factor as the form of organizing, providing working facilities, convenient working environment, and working condition; Third, management support factor as the managing ability of the management and leader to formulate safe and harmonic working system and industrial relation. These three factors are important in influencing employee performance. If one of those three factors is hindered, it will affect the whole total performance quality. As WFH demands an employee’s ability to perform his/her duty at home, then digital skill and ability are needed. For example, to attend a virtual meeting through Zoom online media, to prepare application-based reports, etc. In the aspect of organizational support, under normal conditions the organization has responsibility to provide facilities to support work performance. Meanwhile, under WFH conditions every employee is required to provide their supporting facilities independently. For example, in the provision of data packages or internet network service. Even if those facilities can be provided by the employee independently there is still an obstacle from a networking connection problem which is not in the capacity of the employee to solve it. Some studies also show that there is an obstacle in WFH implementation: technical problems and also limited supporting equipment in employee’s house (Ashal 2020). Third, management support factor, in how the management or leaders can create a conducive working system, which is in the form of a performance assessment system

38 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation and its indicators. The absence of an objective performance assessment for WFHWFO combination-based working pattern can potentially generate unhealthy opportunistic attitude and free-riding behaviour. Meanwhile, an objective performance assessment will improve employee performance optimally and can contribute to the optimally performed organization. The Circular Letter of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 58 Year 2020 states that the working pattern for State Civil Apparatus during pandemic conditions is WFH and WFO according to the circumstance dynamics and the specific situation in each area. This circular letter has not been responded with a new performance assessment system that is appropriated with the new changing working pattern. It has caused a public concern regarding the civil service performance. The performance has been declining according to the performance evaluation result. The reason for this decline is because the existing performance assessment system cannot be implemented in the WFH and WFO combination-based working pattern. C. Policy Recommendation Considering the situation explained in the previous section, an intervention is needed to the performance assessment system policy to ensure performance assessment objectivity. There are several steps required to enhance performance assessment process under WFO and WFH combination work pattern, as follows: 1) To formulate a clear output target for every employee. Therefore, there will be no opportunistic attitude and free-riding behaviour. WFO-WFH combined work pattern will be perceived as the actual part of flexible work arrangement concept so that it can motivate employees to improve their performances. 2) To develop a digital culture. Digitalization of work process and service in the disruption and new normal era is a necessity. There are two things that needs to be prepared, as follows: a. Digital-based work system and public service. In developing the system, digitalization should not be perceived only as transferring offline processes

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 39 to online processes, but there should be reviewing the existing business process. Data and information sharing should be facilitated. Mobile service should be prepared to facilitate employees performing their duty, function, and public service. If all these requirements are fulfilled, then the digitalization is already implemented properly (digital government phase is achieved). b. To prepare competency development programs to develop the employee competency. D. Closing A non-objective performance assessment will stimulate employee demotivation, opportunistic attitude, and free-riding behaviour. Therefore, efforts to enhance the performance assessment system must be properly conducted. Organizational performance targets must be cascaded to individual levels so that they can be evenly distributed. Consequently, WFH and WHO can generate improvement in working motivation and not degrade it. References: Ashal, R.A.,2020. Pengaruh Work from Home Terhadap Kinerja Aparatur Sipil Negara di Kantor migrasi Kelas I Khusus TPI Medan, Jurnal llmiah Kebijakan Hukum, Juli, vol.14:223-242. Muttaqin, T., 2020. Penilaian Kinerja Pegawai Berbasis WFH dan WFO, ProyekPerubahan, Jakarta: LAN. Simanjuntak, P.J., 2011. Manajemen dan Evaluasi Kinerja, Jakarta: FEUI. The Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus Government Regulation No. 30 Year 2019 on State Civil Apparatus performance assessment Circular Letter of Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform No. 58 Year 2020 on State Civil Apparatus Working System during New Normal Ombudsman Republik Indonesia, 8 Mei 2020. Evaluasi Pelayanan Publik Selama Pandemi, https://ombudsman.go.id/artikel/r/artikel--evaluasi-pelayananpublik-selama-pandemi(akses 26 Juli 2021). Tempo, 24 Juni 2020. Kinerja ASN di Era New Normal Wajib di Evaluasi, https://bisnis.tempo.co/read/1357415/kinerja-asn-di-era-new-normal-wajibdievaluasi-ini-sebabnya(akses 26 Juli 2021)

40 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation Polbrief 7 CONVERSION OF NON-STATE CIVIL APPARATUS/ CONTRACT-BASED EMPLOYEES TO CONTRACT-BASED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (PPPK) IN FULFILLING THE REQUIREMENT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Mohd Febrianto – Senior Policy Analyst Abstract Government Regulation No. 56 Year 2012 is the closure for non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employees to be appointed as State Civil Apparatus. However, according to the Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus the government has a duty to improve employment status in government agencies which currently only consists of State Civil Apparatus and PPPK (Contract-Based Government Employee). Government Regulation No. 49 Year 2018 on PPPK Management becomes a solution for government agencies to improve their human resources so that they have a clear and measurable career pattern. This Government Regulation states that every nonState Civil Apparatus/honorarium is given a 5 years transition period to be able to be converted to State Civil Apparatus Candidate or PPPK Candidate according to the applicable terms and procedures. However, until recently there are some government agencies that still recruit honorarium employees while this should be stopped after the implementation of the aforementioned Government Regulation. Therefore, the government is expected to conduct evaluation and supervision of the implication of the policy, and to issue a policy that can provide solutions to the existing problems. A. Introduction Non-State Civil Apparatus or honorarium employee management is considered inappropriate in promoting the vision of Indonesia Maju (Indonesia Moving Forward). From non-selective recruitment to unclear and unmeasurable career. Non-State Civil Apparatus employees are employed in an unclear scheme. Each working unit in an agency can recruit non-State Civil Apparatus employees without any clear legal certainty. It is no wonder that many non-State Civil Apparatus or honorarium employees do not have expertise. Therefore, the abolishment of honorarium employment has a purpose to create Indonesia Maju on the foundation of human resources with expertise (Rahma, 2020). The implementation of the Law on State Civil Apparatus in 2014 is expected to be a point of entry to improve human resources employment status in government

Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation | 41 agencies. In the Chapter 6 of the Law No. 5 Year 2014 on State Civil Apparatus, there are only 2 (two) employment statuses in government agencies which are State Civil Apparatus and Contract-Based Government Employee (PPPK). Therefore, government agencies can no longer recruit non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee to fulfil organizational necessity. However, the implementation of this policy is performed gradually. The control or the resolution for this non-State Civil Apparatus or honorarium employment has been conducted previously by the opportunity of employment status conversion to State Civil Apparatus through the Government Regulation No. 56 Year 2012 on second amendment of the Government Regulation No. 48 Year 2005. Currently, the opportunity of working for the government is still available through the PPPK course. The Government Regulation No. 49 Year2018 on PPPK Management provides 5 years transition period until 2023 for non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee to convert their employment status to become State Civil Apparatus or PPPK candidates according to the applicable terms and procedures. Therefore, after 2023 government agencies can no longer recruit. Therefore, government agencies can no longer recruit non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee to fulfil organizational necessity. In reality, several central and local government agencies still recruit and employ non-State Civil Apparatus or honorarium employee to fulfil their organizational necessity. In other words, even though the employment status in government agency is already clearly determined at the Law level, the policy to regulate the State Civil Apparatus and honorarium employee still depends on each agency independently.

42 | Policy Brief Public Administration Innovation B. Problem Description The Law on State Civil Apparatus and its derivation has not become a solution for the government to improve the human resources status in government agencies according to the vision of generating high quality human resources with international competitiveness. Currently, there are several problems identified in the policy implementation, as follows: 1. After the issuance of the Government of Regulation No. 56 Year 2012 as the closure for non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employees to be appointed as State Civil Apparatus, there is still no legal basis or clear conversion scheme to accommodate the non-categorical and K2 of non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee. 2. Human resources necessity in government agencies is still not fully determined according to the human resources necessity document. Therefore, it creates an opportunity for honorarium employment to fulfil it. 3. It has been 3 years since the Government Regulation No. 49 Year 2018 was issued, but the recruitment of non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee is still happening until today. It shows that the policy related to State Civil Apparatus has not been implemented consistently. Several agencies still perceive the non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employee recruitment as a quick solution for organizational human resources necessity. 4. Most non-State Civil Apparatus/honorarium employees are people who have long experience in government agencies, but they cannot meet the requirements to be a State Civil Apparatus candidate. The Government Regulation No. 49 Year 2018 brings hope for them to be prioritized in the status conversion to become PPPK. Meanwhile, the government also must consider the qualification of the PPPK. 5. The Presidential Regulation No. 38 Year 2020 is issued as a solution to answer what type of job position that can be taken by PPPK. However, there is a lingering