Methodology

The research was conducted in 2007 by using a qualitative case study approach to gain in-depth
information and understanding of HRM in sub-national governments. The study was conducted
in three geographical areas southern Sumatra, Central Java, and southern Sulawesi and
involved two district governments and one province in each area. The purpose of involving these
governments were to reflect a range of environmental conditions.
The multiple case study approach was considered more robust than a single case study; it allows
replication of findings across cases and enables distinctions to be made between cases on
dimensions that are conceptually meaningful. Furthermore, this study examined the policy and
practices of HRM within each case and subjected them to comparative analysis. They used
multiple sources of evidence in order to overcome the possibility of lack of rigour in case study
design. Sources included interviews with national and sub-national government officials,
documents from national and sub-national organisations, and government reports and other
published materials in the public domain. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either with
individuals or with small groups. Various officials in the sub-national governments were
interviewed.

Findings
From the various research locations, the researchers obtained similar results. Thus, the composite
case set out below reflects the common patterns of HRM shared by the sub-national governments
in their sample.
Recruitment and selection
Working successfully in turbulent environments to achieve the organisations goals depends in
large part on the quality of the staff. Recruiting the right people thus becomes a priority of
SHRM. An annual examination is the only entry point into the Indonesian public service for both
central and local government organisations.
The process is centrally directed and works as follows. Every year, each component
organisations of a local government proposes to the Local Government Employee Board (Badan
Kepegawaian Daerah, BKD) the required number of new employees and their expertise. The
BKD reviews the various submissions and determines an overall formasi (meaning job
vacancies or new positions) for the local government. This is forwarded to BKN in Jakarta for
considerations.
There has been much criticism of the way the process operates in practice and the results it
produces. First, it is not uncommon for sub-national government organisations to acquire new
employees with different characteristics from those originally proposed. Second, despite the
apparent rationality of the formasi determination process, there are persistent accusations of lack
of transparency and clarity in what actually happens.
The precise nature of the recruitment process has changed since the implementation of
decentralisation in 2001. At first recruitment was transferred to the sub-national governments.
But in 2004 the central government reverted to managing the process, while in 2005, provincial
governments, on behalf of the central government, assumed the coordination role.
In addition to recruitment by examination, the government has issued a regulation (48/2005) that
stipulates that, between 2005 and 2009, all contract employees (honorer) paid through local
government or national government budgets must be recruited as permanent public servants
without undergoing any selection process. The wholesale recruitment of former honorer staff
takes no account of whether the skills or qualifications of these contract workers match those
required by sub-national governments. Sub-national government officials that they interviewed
who value efficiency, effectiveness and merit-based recruitment believe that honorer
conversion is a flawed policy. A final question about the examination-based general recruitment
process concerns its ability to select people with the knowledge, skills, and attitude needed to
support decentralized government. There is doubt over the examinations efficacy, because the
questions test only general knowledge.
Promotion and advancement
Both the Weberian bureaucratic model of personnel management and SHRM agree that
promotion should be merit-based that is, the best-performing staff should be promoted. SHRM
takes matters further by integrating promotion with considerations of performance management
and HR planning.
The Indonesian system of personnel classification, which encompasses all public servants,
whether central or sub-national, is complex and has not changed under democratic
decentralisation. Civil servants occupy positions that are either structural (managerial) or
functional (technical). The non-managerial staff are initially appointed to a rank (golongan)
according to their level of education. Government regulation (12/2002) stipulates that such
advancement can be based on performance, experience, seniority, or the length of service. In
practice, duration of service is almost the sole determinant of advancement. Advancement is
automatic every four years, whether or not staff perform well, but is limited by educational
attainment, regardless of performance on the job.
Promotion takes place when a civil servant is transferred from a non-structural (non-managerial)
position to a structural (managerial) position (eslon, echelon). Central government regulations
delineate this process and make it mandatory for civil servants who will be promoted or have
been posted to structural positions to attend leadership training programs prescribed for the posts.
Regulations also require that promotion to managerial positions is determined by a team called
Baperjakat (Badan Pertimbangan Jabatan dan Kepangkatan, Board of Advisers on Position and
Rank). However, in practice the team only makes recommendations. The final decision rests with
the heads of government of sub-national regions in their role as Personnel Adviser (Pejabat
Pembina Kepegawaian) the highest authority responsible for HRM in local governments. The
highest authority provision is one of the weaknesses of the promotion system, because it opens
the door to favouritism and corruption.
To overcome the limitations of the current promotion system, especially the failure to incorporate
performance data, some local governments have experimented with a so-called fit and proper
test to select the candidates. But, sceptics believe that heads of regions have also manipulated
the fit and proper tests to legitimate their decisions on promotion. A final problem with the
promotion system from an SHRM perspective is the lack of involvement of line managers in the
process.