Reassessing Indonesia’s Civil Servant Professionalism Index as a Competency Governance Framework in Land Administration Reform
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64670/jpgs.v2i2.100Keywords:
Competency Governance, Indonesia, Land Administration Reform, Public Sector, GovernanceAbstract
Background Public sector reform increasingly relies on professionalism indicators and competency measurement systems to strengthen bureaucratic capacity and institutional accountability. However, governance scholarship remains limited in explaining how professionalism measurement contributes to organizational learning and adaptive capacity in public institutions. This study aims to develop the Reflective Professionalism Governance Model (RPGM) to explain how professionalism governance operates within Indonesia’s land administration reform.
Methods The research employed a conceptual-analytical design through a systematic literature review, policy document analysis, institutional document review, and conceptual synthesis. The data were drawn from Scopus-indexed international literature, Indonesian civil service professionalism regulations, the State Civil Apparatus Professionalism Index (IPASN) policy framework, and institutional reports on land administration. The analysis integrated perspectives from competency governance, public professionalism, organizational learning, and reflective governance.
Results The findings reveal two institutional trajectories. First, administrative professionalism emerges when professionalism indicators function primarily as procedural compliance mechanisms emphasizing reporting, discipline, and numerical performance targets. Second, reflective professionalism governance develops when indicators are used for competency diagnosis, adaptive organizational learning, collaborative professionalism, and institutional capacity transformation.
Conclusion This study concludes that sustainable bureaucratic reform requires professionalism indicators to function as reflective governance infrastructure rather than merely administrative evaluation tools. RPGM contributes to governance literature by reconceptualizing professionalism measurement as an adaptive governance mechanism in public sector reform.
References
Agger, A., & Sørensen, E. (2018). Managing collaborative innovation in public bureaucracies. Planning Theory, 17(1), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216672500
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2021). Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. In Public Governance as Co-creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing the Public Sector and Rejuvenating Democracy. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108765381
Arribas-Aguila, D., Castaño, G., & Martínez-Arias, R. (2024). A Systematic Review of Evidence-based General Competency Models: Development of a General Competencies Taxonomy. Revista de Psicologia Del Trabajo y de Las Organizaciones, 40(2), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2024a6
Atobishi, T., Moh’d Abu Bakir, S., & Nosratabadi, S. (2024). How Do Digital Capabilities Affect Organizational Performance in the Public Sector? The Mediating Role of the Organizational Agility. Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020037
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2025). Future Challenges of Public Administration. Public Performance and Management Review , 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2025.2549297
Crosby, B. C., ‘t Hart, P., & Torfing, J. (2017). Public value creation through collaborative innovation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 655–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192165
Fierro, F., Andrade, J. M., & Ramírez, E. (2021). Behavioral Workplace Competencies: Analyzing a Competency Model for Private Companies. TEM Journal, 10(2), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM102-35
Homburg, V. (2017). ICT, E-government and E-governance: Bits & bytes for public administration. In The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 347–361). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55269-3_18
Khatoon, U. T., Babgi, M., Hadi, N. T., Mir, R. N., & Velidandi, A. (2025). Technology-Driven Change in Human Resource Management: Reshaping Talent Management and Organizational Design. Administrative Sciences, 15(11), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15110452
Knies, E., Boselie, P., Gould-Williams, J., & Vandenabeele, W. (2024). Strategic human resource management and public sector performance: context matters. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 35(14), 2432–2444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1407088
Masyhuri, Sudiro, A., Prabandari, S. P., & Kurniawati, D. T. (2024). The effect of human capital on organizational performance in the service industry 4.0: Mediation analysis from Indonesia. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 22(1), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.22(1).2024.34
Osborne, S. P., Powell, M., Cui, T., & Strokosch, K. (2022). Value Creation in the Public Service Ecosystem: An Integrative Framework. Public Administration Review, 82(4), 634–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13474
Prashina Mohangi, & Nyika, F. (2023). Performance Management Implementation in Local Government: Lessons from Recent International Literature. Jurnal Administrasi Publik Public Administration Journal, 13(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.31289/jap.v13i1.9520
Rabin, J., Hildreth, W. B., & Miller, G. J. (2018). Handbook of public administration, third edition. In J. Rabin, W. B. Hildreth, & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Public Administration, Third Edition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093215
Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2026). Advancing public administration research: integrating digital governance, institutional resilience, and participatory pathways for public value. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 92(2), 167–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523261433893
Turner, M., Prasojo, E., & Sumarwono, R. (2022). The challenge of reforming big bureaucracy in Indonesia. Policy Studies, 43(2), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1708301
