APAKAH BEKERJA SECARA FLEXTIME MENDUKUNG CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE KARYAWAN?

Lilies Nuraini, P. Tommy Y.S. Suyasa, P. Tommy Y.S. Suyasa
| Abstract views: 32 | views: 27

Abstract

Semakin majunya teknologi telekomunikasi dan digital memungkinkan karyawan untuk dapat bekerja secara flextime. Pilihan ini disikapi secara pro dan kontra di banyak perusahaan karena studi tentang dampak dari bekerja secara flextime masih jarang ditemukan dan menjadi perdebatan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melanjutkan penelitian sebelumnya tentang benefit penggunaan flextime terhadap affective well-being dan untuk melihat peran lebih lanjut pada contextual performance (CP) karyawan di PT A. Penggunaan flextime didefinisikan sebagai sejauh mana karyawan memiliki kontrol untuk mengatur jam kedatangan, kepulangan, frekuensi istirahat dan durasi waktu istirahat dalam 1 (satu) hari kerja. Contextual performance adalah frekuensi karyawan melakukan perilaku yang mendukung organisasi secara sosial dan psikologis dalam pelaksanaan fungsi utama perusahaan. Affective well-being mengacu pada frekuensi dan intensitas emosi positif/ negatif dan mood partisipan dalam 1 (satu) bulan terakhir. Work-nonwork boundaries mengacu pada perilaku yang selama ini dilakukan untuk memisahkan mental (psikologis) karyawan antara peran di pekerjaan dan di rumah. Partisipan pada studi ini sebanyak 323 orang karyawan. Hasil pengujian dengan path analysis menggunakan SPSS menyatakan bahwa penggunaan flextime memiliki peran terhadap CP karyawan. Hal ini berarti semakin sering karyawan bekerja dalam mekanisme flextime, CP karyawan akan lebih baik, dan begitu pula sebaliknya. Beberapa temuan penting dan perbedaan dengan penelitian sebelumnya dijelaskan dalam kesimpulan, termasuk menyoroti perbedaan budaya responden. Untuk penelitian lebih lanjut, dapat menggunakan sampel dengan unit kerja yang lebih spesifik, dan/ atau menganalisa berdasar bentuk lain fleksibilitas kerja (flexplace dan temporal flexibility).

 

The advancement of telecommunication and digital technology allows employees to work flextime. This option is still perceived differently by many companies because studies of the effects of working flextime are scarce and still being debated. This study aims to continue previous research on the benefits of using flextime for affective well-being and to further see its role in the contextual performance (CP) of employees of PT A. The use of flextime is defined as the extent to which employees can alter their starting and finish times, break frequency and break time duration in 1 (one) working day. Contextual performance is the frequency of employees performing behaviors that support the organization socially and psychologically in the implementation of the company's main functions. Affective well-being refers to the frequency and intensity of positive / negative emotions and moods of participants in the past 1 (one) month. Work-nonwork boundaries refer to behaviors done to separate employees' mental (psychological) state between roles at work and at home. Participants in this study were 323 employees. Path analysis test results using SPSS states that the implementation of flextime plays a role in employee CP. This means that the more often employees work flextime, the better their CP will be, and vice versa. Some important findings and differences with previous research are explained in the conclusions, including a highlight on the cultural differences of respondents. Further research can utilize samples with more specific work units, and / or analyze based on other forms of work flexibility (flexplace and temporal flexibility).

Keywords

contextual performance; affective well-being; work-non work boundaries; flextime

Full Text:

PDF

References

Asforth, Blake A., Kreiner, Glen E., Fugate, Mel. (2000). All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions. The Academy of Management Review, 25(3). 472-491.

Borman, Walter C., Motowidlo, Stephan J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: the meaning for personnel selection research. Journal Human Performance, 10(2). 99-109.

Daniels, Kevin. (2000). Measures of five aspects of affective well-being at work. Human Relations Journal. 53(2). 275-294.

Ghozali, Imam. (2011). Aplikasi analisis multivariate dengan program ibm spss 19 (edisi kelima). Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro.

Heine, Steven J. (2016). Cultural Psychology, Third Edition. New York: W W Norton & Company Inc.

Hill, E Jeffrey., Grzywacz, Joseph G., Allen, Sarah., Blanchard, Victoria L., Matz-Costa, Christina., Shulkin, Sandee., Pitt-Catsouphes, Marcie. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing workplace flexibility. Journal Community, Work & Family, 11(2), 149-163.

Kopmans, Linda., Bernaards, Claire M., Hildebrandth,Vincent H., Chaufeli, Wilmar B., de Vet H.C.W., van der Beek, Allard. (2011) conceptual frameworks of individual work performance. JOEM, 53(6).

Lepley, Meredith W., Thelen, Luke A. Swanberg, Jennifer. (2015). Supervisors’ use of flexibikity as a strategic management tool: prevalence and predictors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 18(1). 31-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000027

Luhmann, Maike., Hawkley, Louise C., Eid, Michael., Cacioppo, John T. (2012). Time frames and the distinction between affective and cognitive well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 46. 431-441.

Meier, Laurenz L., Cho, Eunae. (2018). Work stressors and partner social undermining: Comparing negative affect and psychological detachment as mechanisms. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000120

Motowidlo, Stephan J., Borman, Walter C., Schmit, Mark J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2). 71-83.

Organ, Dennis W. (2015). Organizational citizenship behavior. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Science, 2nd Edition, Vol.17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/8978-0-08-097086-8.22031-X.

Organ, Dennis W. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior: recent trends and developments. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 80. 17.1-17.12. https://doi.or/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104536.

Purwanto, Erwan., Sulistyastuti, Dyah. (2017). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Gava Media.

Sanz-Vergel, Ana., Demerouti, Evangelina., Bakker, Arnold., Jimenez, Bernardo. (2011). Daily detachment from work and home: The moderating effect of role salience. Human Relations Journal. 64(6) 775–799.

Schulz, Anika D., Schöllgen, Ina., Fay, Doris. (2018). The role of resources in the stressor–detachment model. International Journal of Stress Management. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000100

Spieler, Ines., Scheibe, Susanne., Robnagel, Christian., Kappas, Arvid. (2017) help or hindrance? Day-level relationships between flextime use, work–nonwork boundaries, and affective well-being. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 201(1). 67-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000153.

Stout, Marianne S., Awad, Germine. Guzman, Michele. (2013). Exploring manager’s attitudes toward work/family programs in the private sector. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 16(3). 176-195. DOI: 10.1037/mgr0000005.

Watson, David., Clark, Lee., Tellegen, Auke. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 54(6). 1063-1070.

Yang, Liu-Qin., Simon, Lauren S., Wang, Lei., Zheng, Xiaoming. (2016). To branch put or stay focused? Affective shifts differently predict organizationl citizenship behavior and task performance. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 101(6). 831-845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ap10000088.

Copyright (c) 2019 Jurnal Muara Ilmu Sosial, Humaniora, dan Seni
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.