Employee’ Innovative Work Behavior

. The purpose of this study was to analyze the innovative work behavior of employees at Manado State University. Using qualitative research with the case study method. Key informants are assigned as section heads and subdivision heads. In-depth interviews and observation data collection techniques as well as focus group discussions. Data were analyzed using the Miles and Huberman model. The results showed that innovative work behavior did not appear to be evenly carried out by employees. Still limited to section heads and subsection heads. Innovative work behavior can contribute to job effectiveness. Most of the implementing staff have not shown innovative work behavior.


Introduction
In Revolution 4.0, all parties, government agencies, the private sector, entrepreneurs, and business actors both small and large scale adapt to the fairly rapid changes. Many changes have been made by various organizations and research shows that by making changes, organizational performance can improve. Human resources must be able to adapt to changing demands to achieve maximum performance. Several changes in the business environment, such as the increasing importance of services, knowledge, creativity, developments in information technology, digitalization, globalization, and the wave of intellectual property, have created a new type of economy [1]. this also applies to public organizations and higher education.
The role of the individual is highly expected by the organization in providing the best service. This can be realized by demonstrating innovative work behavior. Innovative work behavior is "individual behavior aimed at achieving the initiation and intentional recognition (in a work role, group or organization) of a new and useful idea, process, product or procedure" [2]. The ability, creativity, and work attitude absolutely must be possessed by individuals in carrying out their work duties.
Innovative work behavior has recently been widely discussed and researched, especially in companies or creative industries [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]. There is not much research on innovative work behavior that focuses on higher education institutions. This research was conducted on employees both at the leadership level and at the executive level. We examine three aspects of * Corresponding author : gracesoputan@unima.ac.id innovative work behavior and whether it has been applied by every individual at Manado State University.

Research Methods
This research uses qualitative research with the case study method, by focusing on innovative work behavior. This research was conducted at Manado State University, especially in the Bureau of Public Administration and Personnel and the Faculty of Economics. The focus of this research is as follows: 1. Idea Generation Idea generation can relate to new products, services, or processes, entry to new markets, improvements in current work processes, or in general, and solutions to identified problems. [2] Idea generation includes problem detection and development of innovative and generally acceptable solutions, identification and categorization of opportunities and idea combinations, and their testing and evaluation [8].

Idea Promotion
Promotion of ideas is a coalition and gaining the necessary strength within the organization to implement proposed ideas; efforts to gain support and commitment from effective authorities within the organization to accept new ideas; and gain support from other members to pay attention to proposed ideas and spread their resistance [8].

Idea Implementation
The implementation of the idea consists of two parts: trying to turn the proposed idea into a practical solution, model, product, or program, which can be implemented effectively, and implementing the idea [8]. Sufficient effort and a results-oriented attitude are required to bring ideas to fruition. Implementing an idea also includes making innovation part of the regular work process and testing and modifying it.
Key informants appointed by the division heads and sub-section heads at the Bureau of Personnel and Finance, Manado State University who know about the focus of the research. Additional informants are appointed by employees who know about innovative work behavior. Data collection techniques are carried out by: 1. Interview, to obtain data about the extent to which innovative work behavior has been carried out by employees. 2. Observation, to complete data on innovative work behavior. Observations have been made eight times in the personnel and finance department as well as the general department.
The results of the interviews will be analyzed and presented in the form of transcripts and analyzed qualitatively using interactive model analysis in the perspective of Miles Huberman [9]. Through the following stages: a) Reduction of data, b) Presentation of data, and c) Drawing conclusions and verification. The study was conducted for six months: March to September 2020.

Result and Discussion
The results of the study of the three dimensions of innovative work behavior studied are as follows:

Idea Generation
Based on the results of employee work behavior interviews shown through idea generation, not all employees have creative ideas as concepts in doing work. Idea generation is the concept of new ideas created by individuals in carrying out their work. According to the informant, the majority of employees in each sub-section carry out their work according to their job descriptions. Routinely carry out tasks according to their duties but new ways that can speed up work have not been seen. Some employees have new ideas that can solve their problems in carrying out their work. For example, in the personnel department whose job is to manage personnel administration, especially educational staff. If there is a request from the head office to complete the data but the data is not sent from the faculty, the management staff has the initiative to contact the faculty or they collect the data from the faculty. Such behavior is not shared by all employees. There are also other causes, such as the issuance of committee decisions or others. The process is relatively long because it waits for approval from superiors such as the head of the bureau or the assistant rector or rector. During the waiting period, there was no initiative from the employee to find out where the letter process had stopped. Why does this happen, one of which is that the employees do not yet have the concept of ideas that are part of innovative work behavior. The concept of an idea can be an idea or the idea that if a product or process runs with obstacles, what should be done. Before that happens, the employee already has a concept or idea or idea to solve the problem. They should have been able to anticipate if there was a delay in the process, taking the initiative to check what caused the delay. According to the data obtained, the concept of the idea is in the leadership at the level of the head of the section and subsection. Employees are waiting for instructions from the leadership which is a creative idea to move employees to do work faster. In general, individual employees do not yet have a written or planned idea generation dimension, but if they are driven by the leadership, they carry out the idea to speed up the work process. 1. Introducing the Idea (promotion of new idea) Promotion of ideas or introducing ideas has not been seen by implementing employees. The case in the staffing section of implementing employees who have ideas without promoting them to other friends immediately implements their ideas in solving problems. The form of idea recognition according to informants when the leadership will solve the problem they immediately instruct and at the same time provide examples to implementing employees. The introduction of ideas is not discussed beforehand to get support from other employees. On the other hand, the introduction of ideas is when the leader gives instructions to be carried out to anticipate delays in the file management process or service process to lecturers or staff at the faculty level.

Implementation of ideas.
At this stage, the ideas generated by the leadership are directly implemented by the implementers. According to the informant, sometimes there are obstacles in implementing the idea because the implementers in other parts, in this case, the faculty are less responsive. As a result, work at the head office level cannot be carried out quickly. According to the researcher's observations, there are still many employees who have not shown work behavior such as implementing ideas from leaders or colleagues. An example of an incoming letter in the general section via email, with to make for incoming mail to speed up the process from the agenda to the disposition for a reply to a letter or a response to the letter. The letter that has been sent has not been responded to for a week because the letter reception officer did not open the email. Finally, the chancellor or assistant rector found the letter after the meeting agenda was finished. Even though the letter was from the Ministry. When the researcher asked why this happened, the answer was simply that the internet network was problematic.
Other data in the financial management section still shows a long bureaucracy. According to the informant, ideas to speed up the work process have been communicated but are slow to be executed because the required documents are slow to receive. Another obstacle in the finance department is that when other work units take advances for activities, the duration of time for submitting accountability documents is relatively long, even after being given new sanctions the accountability documents are completed. This will hinder the process of taking stock money at KPN. Information in the legal and administrative department whose job is to process the decision letters of both the committee and other decision letters. If an employee in the general department has an innovative job, The person concerned immediately directs anyone who will take care of the decision letter (committee) to bring a photocopy of the application letter to the legal and administrative department to anticipate that the process will be fast while waiting for the disposition of the university leadership, in this case, the chancellor and assistant rector. So, before the letter was processed, the officers in the management section had already processed the decree. After being approved by the university leadership, the letter is immediately executed and then reprocessed to obtain legality from the rector or assistant rector. The process of making SK can run quickly when it has been anticipated by the implementing employee. There is no need to wait for the disposition of the implementing rector to make the concept on the computer. Why don't other implementing staff do things that speed up the work process, because they only wait for orders from their superiors when they work even though there are job descriptions for each employee. This may be due to a lack of work motivation, resulting in an indifferent attitude. Several times the researchers made observations, it turned out that if their superiors gave instructions to process a product as soon as possible, then they moved quickly. If there is a pile of incoming mail, it can't be resolved quickly because the available computers and printers are limited, so you have to wait for the others to finish using the equipment.
Information in the equipment section is only a small number of employees who have innovative work behavior in terms of implementing ideas from their superiors. They are just used to the daily routine of work. There is nothing new that speeds up work or anticipates solutions to problems. For example, when asked how many state-owned goods are held by Unima, there is no complete data. Every time there is an event that involves the equipment section, there is still a delay in arranging the room, and providing the equipment in the room so that when the event is about to start, the officers in this section have not finished arranging it. Finally, delays occur in certain events. The staff implementing the section should work earlier or one day before the day of implementation. This illustrates that less anticipatory of the employees on duty on the job. Cases like this happen again and again and there are no ideas that have been prepared to speed up the service process. Researchers see that the implementing employees are less responsive in responding to a job because they think they are used to doing such work.
Overall, the dimensions of innovative work behavior have not been seen in the work implementation of all employees at the locus of this research. Partially, the three dimensions of innovative work behavior have been implemented by most employees through instructions from their respective superiors. There are three dimensions of innovative work behavior [8]; and three dimensions [2].
Innovative work behavior has been carried out at the locus of this research, especially by leaders starting from the head of the section and the head of the sub-section.
The implementers are only one or two people in each existing sub-section. The results of the observations of the current leadership researchers when they were still implementing employees have shown innovative work behavior even though they have not been maximized. When they are in the current leadership position, this behavior is still shown. The data shows employees only implement innovative ideas from their leaders.
The consensus in the literature on conceptual explanations of innovative work behavior suggests that it consists of three forms of behavior: idea generation, idea promotion, and implementation suggestion [5]; [10], representing different stages of the innovation process.
Recently, research has underlined the need to examine aspects of innovative work behavior separately (idea generation, promotion, and realization) as they may be influenced by different antecedents' factors [5]. Wood and colleagues correlate trait theory with innovative work behavior. Using the Big Five theory found that conscience predicts innovative work behavior and the dimensions of its constituent idea generation, promotion, and realization for early tenure employees but not for longer tenures. Disclosure predicts idea generation for employees with longer tenure, but lower ratings for early tenure employees.
Woods' analysis shows that personality traits predict different dimensions of innovative work behavior in different ways depending on the employee's tenure. From the perspective of trait activation [5], we propose that the dynamic demands of the job are at different stages of employment (i.e., with increasing tenure); [11] serve to activate awareness and openness in a variety of ways, simultaneously changing the effect of traits on innovative work behavior. The results of Woods' research stated that the three components of innovative work behavior separately, they found a significant interaction between openness and tenure for generating ideas, but not for idea promotion and realization. As we discussed earlier, one possible explanation is that openness relates most readily to the creative process of innovation, but successful idea generation requires contextual knowledge complemented by work experience. Promotion of ideas and realization of otherwise can use different competencies and skills such as political skills to garner support for ideas. Such competence is unlikely to be associated with openness.
Facing the current disruptive era, employees are required to quickly adapt to existing changes. It is undeniable that employees who are not millennials find it difficult to innovate, especially when it comes to the internet of things. Phenomena in the innovative work behavior of employees according to research results can be improved through knowledge and skills. A person can behave innovatively if he has sufficient insight and adequate skills. The phenomenon of employee work behavior often directed by their superiors shows that leadership factors can direct employees to implement innovative behavior. The role of a leader who directs and provides assistance for the success of a work that is oriented towards maximum results.
The contribution of employees through innovative work behavior is important because they have capital knowledge about the process of completing work, products, and work organization. The reason is that the ability to continue to innovate on products, services, and work processes through innovative behavior can support the sustainability of the organization now and in the future.

Conclusion
In this study, we analyze how innovative work behavior is shown by employees by looking at three aspects, namely idea generation, idea promotion, and idea implementation. Our findings show that innovative work behavior has not been maximally carried out in all three aspects, but is mostly done separately. Some only carry out the process of conceptualizing the idea, and some only carry out the idea. For the promotion of ideas less done, but directly on the implementation of the idea