Keywords

Human Capital, Innovation Capability, Self-efficacy, Productivity, Organization Performance

Introduction

The workforce has a very important role and position as actors and development goals (Indriani, 2016), must be qualified and productive to run the organization. Achieving productivity is the success of an organization, as well as the performance of local government organizations is inseparable from the role of the Civil Servant which is the main key pillar in the organization of local government management and national development. The number of Civil Servant in Indonesia in 2019 was 4,178,064 people, from 2011 to 2019 the growth was quite volatile and stable, the Provinces of South Sumatra had a much larger number of employees and were relatively volatile during that period (Figure 1) while the number of Civil Servant in Indonesia who completed their final Bachelor/Doctoral/Ph.D education in 2018 has reached 63.42 percent, however, the average composition of Civil Servant education in South Sumatra Province in 2017 to 2019 there has been no significant increase. As seen in Table 1, the number of Civil Servant with undergraduate education from 2017 to 2018 only increased by 1.1 per cent and from 2018 to 2019 by 0.7 per cent. Likewise, the number of Civil Servant with postgraduate education from 2017 to 2019 increased by only 0.8 from 2017-2018 and 0.4 from 2018-2019 and there is no improvement in PhD education at all. Whereas education can develop the quality or ability of employees in managing resources and technology for optimal community welfare, so they are able to achieve predetermined organizational goals (Ardani, 2017).

Table 1 Number of Civil Servant Based on Highest Education Graduated in South Sumatra Province 2017-2019
Pendidikan Terakhir	2017		2018		2019
	Number of People	%	Number of People	%	Number of People	%
Elementary School	116	0,7 %	95	0,6 %	86	0,6 %
Junior High School	146	0,9 %	128	0,8 %	112	0,7 %
Senior High School	2157	13,4 %	1836	12,0 %	1596	10,2 %
Diploma I	55	0,3 %	48	0,3 %	44	0,3 %
Diploma II	54	0,3 %	42	0,3 %	35	0,2 %
Diploma III	713	4,4 %	648	4,2 %	786	5,0 %
Diploma IV	65	0,4 %	63	0,4 %	75	0,5 %
Bachelor	10829	67,4 %	10514	68,5 %	10825	69,2 %
Magister	1904	11,9 %	1953	12,7 %	2055	13,1 %
PhD	21	0,1 %	19	0,1 %	20	0,1 %
Total	16.06	100%	15346	100%	15634	100%

According to Bernadin and Russell (2013) mastery of knowledge, skills, abilities, habits and behaviour are the factors that determine the work of an employee, the personal aspect of an Civil Servant is competence, which encourages to be productive and is a reflection of its competence. Civil Servant competencies are abilities and characteristics in the form of knowledge, skills, and behavioural attitudes, which are needed in carrying out their duties (Suprapto, 2002; Utomo et al., 2015; and Komara, 2018). Also a combination of skills, personal attributes, and knowledge that is reflected through job behaviour that can be observed, measured, and evaluated (Irawan, 2017; Sari et al., 2017; and Komara, 2017) So human capital, innovation capability and self-efficacy are important aspects in order to increase the productivity of the Civil Servant and the performance of local governments. Productive and qualified Civil Servant is an important factor to achieve development goals as well as capital in facing future challenges.

Literature Review

Human Capital

Human capital is knowledge and skills acquired through various educational activities such as schools, courses and training. The main concept of this model is that human capital is something that is obtained through the accumulation of a certain process (Alan et al, 2008). This concept assumes that human capital does not come from human experience. Meanwhile Romer (1999) views human capital through a production orientation perspective, which states that human capital is a fundamental source of economic productivity, it is also an investment made by humans to increase their productivity (Rosen, 1999).

Human capital is the knowledge, skills and abilities of individuals that have economic value for an organization (Bohlander et al., 2001) and can be interpreted as the economic value of human resources related to their abilities, knowledge, ideas, innovation, energy and commitment (Schermerhon, 2005). Human capital is also a combination of knowledge, skills, innovation and a person's ability to carry out their duties so that they can create value to achieve goals. The formation of added value contributed by human capital in carrying out its duties and jobs will provide sustainable revenue in the future for an organization (Malhotra, 2003 and Bontis, 2002).

Frank and Bemanke (2007) argue that human capital is a combination of education, experience, training, skills, habits, health, energy and initiatives that affect human productivity. Schultz (1961) states that human capital is an important factor in increasing economic productivity in a country and can be measured through the fields of education and health (Todaro, 2000). Education and training can be an added value for a human being, this can be explained if the higher a person's education or the more training he has, the higher his abilities and skills will be.

Innovation Capability

Everett M. Rogers (1983) states that innovation is an idea, practice or object that is realized and accepted as something new by a person or group to be adopted, but it is not a concept of a new idea, a new invention and is not a development of something new, but it is a combination of all these processes and is the application of an idea or discovery, while discovery is a concept of an idea (Kotler, 2002). Innovation is creating and implementing something into a single combination. With innovation, one can add value to products, services, work processes, marketing, delivery systems, and policies, not only for the company but also for stakeholders and society (John & Hartog, 2005). Innovation is the process of turning opportunities into new ideas and putting them widely into practice Tidd et al. (2001).

Luke and Ferrell (2000) stated that innovative capabilities are a set of expertise that companies use in formulating and implementing an innovative strategy that involves the creation, existence, and modification of all resources used for innovation. a set of processes within the company that are interconnected in carrying out product development, evolution and innovation (O'Cass and Sok, 2013) which are considered as valuable assets for companies to provide and maintain a competitive advantage in implementing all strategies through all company processes (Lawson & Samson, 2001). Rajapathirana and Hui (2017) defines innovation capabilities as (1) the capacity to develop new products that meet market needs; (2) the capacity to apply appropriate process technology to produce new products; (3) the capacity to develop the adoption of new products and processing technology to meet future needs; (4) and the capacity to respond to technology activities and unforeseen opportunities from competitors.

Innovation indicators from Goshwami and Mathew (2005), Julian and Michael (2008), Meyer and Garg (2005), Senge et al. (2008) in Fontana are: creating new values; generate new ideas, methods, tools; fix something that already exists; spreading new ideas; adopting something new that already exists, to create added value either directly or indirectly; fixing something that already exists / doing something in a new way; following the market, namely innovation based on market needs; make changes, namely making changes that allow for continuous improvement; attracting innovative people, recruiting and retaining leadership and human talent management to guide the course of innovation; seeing things from a different perspective.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a form of individual belief in his ability to improve achievement, is a belief that someone can control the situation and produce positive outcomes (Santroc, 2004). In line with Bandura (2006) states that self-efficacy is a feeling, way of thinking, motivation, and the desire to have something and is a person's belief about his chance to successfully a chieve a certain task. While Judge et al. (2007) defined self-efficacy as people's assessment of their ability to achieve a certain level of performance, our feelings of adequacy, efficiency, and our ability to cope with life (Schultz, 1994). Self-efficacy is the attitude of someone who has the confidence to carry out tasks at certain stages that affect personal activities towards work delivery (Luthans, 2007, Feist, 2010, and Jones et al., 2012).

Self-efficacy comes from experiences of mastery, social modelling, and social persuasion, physical and emotional conditions. Self-efficacy can be divided into several dimensions, namely: (1) Magnitude Self-Efficacy, which relates to the level of work difficulty that is believed by a person to be able to complete; (2) Generality, whether the self-efficacy belief takes place in a certain domain is related to how wide the field of behavior is believed to be achieved by a person; (3) Straight, refers to a person's weak or strong condition to the level of difficulty of the task that can be done. Jones et al. (2012) said the source or indicator of self-efficacy is the perception of being able to do work, having better abilities, being happy with a challenging job and being satisfied with work, and being able to be obtained, changed, and improved through: experience mastering an achievement, experience vicar, social persuasion and emotional generation (Alwisol, 2009). Self-efficacy in civil servant can be measured through: (1) ability to perform tasks that are believed to be completed, being competent, believing in self-potential and striving for achievement; (2) areas of behaviour that are believed to be achieved by carrying out the work according to plan and being proud of being able to complete it well; (3) Civil servant's ability to deal with task difficulties and work problems.

Productivity

Productivity is a comparison and systematic measurement of the efficiency level of a company. Production is related to quantity while productivity is related to input. So the determination of productivity is faced with the desired results (effectiveness) and the use of resources to achieve results (efficiency). So it can be interpreted that to measure labor productivity, two steps can be taken, namely: work effectiveness in the form of the number of results and the quality of work achieved, while work efficiency is related to the timeliness of completing work and more efficient use of resources.

Pritchard (1995) distinguishes three categories for the definition of productivity: (1) the techno-economic approach, namely productivity as a measure of efficiency (output / input); (2) productivity as a combination of efficiency and effectiveness (output = input); (3) a broad approach that contains everything that makes an organization functions better. According to the techno-economic approach, the concept of productivity is divided into efficiency and effectiveness, Drucker (1985) has stated the difference between efficiency and effectiveness in a very practical way: efficiency means doing something right and effectiveness means doing the right thing. In line with that Simamora (2004) states that the factors used to measure labour productivity include: quantity of work, quality of work, and timeliness. According to Sulistyani and Rosidah (2003), factors that affect labor productivity include: knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitude.

Organizational Performance

Performance is the result achieved from the behaviour of organizational members (Gibson, 1988). The results an organization wants from the behaviour of the people involved are known as organizational performance. In line with Richard et al. (2009) which defines work results or organizational performance "is one of the most important constructs in management research", similar to Robbins et al. (2012) states organizational performance "is the accumulated result of all the work. Activities in the organization”. Bastian in Hessel Nogi (2005) provides a definition of organizational performance as an illustration of the achievement level of task implementation within an organization, in realizing the goals, objectives, mission and vision of the organization.

Bisbe and Otley (2004) use the financial and customer perspective dimensions in measuring organizational performance, in contrast to Kaplan and Norton (1992) who use the Ballanced Scorecard approach and non-financial perspectives in measuring performance, namely: Financial or Stewardship, Customer / Stakeholder, Internal Process, Organizational Capacity or Learning and Growth. Meanwhile, Lenvine (1990) uses three concepts in measuring the performance of public organizations, such as: responsiveness, responsibility, and accountability.

Research Model and Hypotheses

Aspects of knowledge and skills are abilities and work skills possessed by employees so they can carry out work effectively and efficiently according to the desired target related to self-efficacy (Soeprihanto, 2001), caused self-efficacy and capability have a positive effect on productivity, the greater and higher the self-efficacy and capabilities, the greater productivity produced (Berliana & Tutuk, 2018). There is a significant positive effect of self-efficacy on satisfaction and employee's job perception that impact on the work-related performance (Machmud, 2018).

The Influence of Human Capital on Productivity

The higher a person's education level, the higher level of labour productivity (Simanjuntak, 2001); Employee's performance depends on various factors but the most important factor is training, which enhances the capabilities of employees (Raja et al., 2011). People who have higher formal and informal education will have broader insights caused he high awareness of the importance of productivity will encourage the workforce to take productive actions (Kurniawan, 2010).

H1. Human capital positively affects productivity

The Influence of Innovation Capabilities on Productivity

A workforce with maximum capabilities will create an optimal work system that can increase labour productivity (Samad, 2009; Gunawan & Benty, 2017). Slater et al., (2010) find that Innovation capability leads organization to develop innovations in continuously responding to the changing market environment. Samson et al. (2017) stated that innovation capability embedded with all the strategies, systems and structure that support innovation in an organization. According to Lawson and Samson (2001), Innovation capability is considered as the valuable assets for the firms to provide and sustaining competitive advantage and in the implementation of the entire strategy. It is composed through the main process within the firm. The capability of innovation facilitates firms to introduce new product quickly and adopt new systems rather it is important to factor for feeding the on-going competition (Sen & Egelhoff, 2000).

H2. Innovation Capability positively affects productivity

The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Productivity

Workers with high self-efficacy can increase strong self-confidence about task achievement (Peng et al., 2013), and are able to overcome obstacles in their tasks (Judge et al., 2003). This shows that the higher self-efficacy, more capable the workforce is to complete tasks and productive (Donald et al., 2005). Partially and simultaneously self-efficacy has a significant effect on productivity (Sebayang & Sembiring, 2017) and there is a positive influence (Mukrodi & Reza, 2016).

H3. Self-Efficacy positively affects productivity

The Influence of Human Capital on Organizational Performance

Human capital represents the individual knowledge stock of an organization that is represented by its employees (Bontis et al., 2000), because human capital is a combination of knowledge, skills, innovation and a person's ability to carry out their duties so as to create value to achieve goals. The formation of added value contributed by human capital in carrying out its duties and jobs will provide sustainable revenue in the future for an organization (Malhotra, 2003 and Bontis, 2002).

Human capital is a characteristic of human resources (HR) determined by the knowledge that is used to create value for the organization (Collin & Clark, 2003). The five components of human capital (personal capabilities, individual motivation, the organization climate, workgroup effectiveness and leadership) have different roles in creating corporate human capital which ultimately determines the value of a company (Mayo, 2000).

H4. Human capital positively affects organizational performance

The Influence of Innovation Capabilities on Organizational Performance

The innovation capability is proven to have a positive and significant effect on performance, it means that the higher innovation capability, the higher productivity. With its ability to innovate, the workforce creates something new and diverse. Innovation development (packaging, markets, products and processes) is carried out in order to attract consumers so they can help to increase company performance (Tatik, 2009).

Innovation capability has a significant effect on company performance. The ability to think creatively and act innovatively is an added value and is an advantage of the workforce so as to encourage increased productivity. The ability to innovate (products, markets, services and technology) is able to increase work efficiency and effectiveness (Mulyana, 2014).

H5. Innovation capability positively affects organizational performance

The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Organizational Performance

The achievement of goals is important in organizations, and always depends on the ability of the individual to identify the abilities of other individuals and utilize these abilities to achieve common goals. In self-efficacy theory, this is known as "collective efficacy", namely the group's shared belief in the collective ability to organize and carry out the actions needed to produce a certain level of achievement. Personal and collective efficacy go hand in hand because "the self-doubtful crowd is not malleable into a collectively effective force" (Bandura, 1997; Zaccaro et al., 1995).

H6. Self-efficacy positively affects organizational performance

Productivity as a Mediator Variable

The actor behind the company's success is its human resources (Livia & Melanie, 2015) because performance is the result of behavior of organizational members (Gibson, 1988). A productive workforce will improve organizational performance and the success of an organization is greatly influenced by labor productivity (Sukoco, 2017). Therefore civil servant productivity has a positive and significant effect on organizational performance (Ladianto, 2018).

H7. Productivity positively affect organizational performance

Research Model

This research was built with the following model concept:

Q = f ( K, L) ………………………………. (1.1)

L = EP or L = FP or L= GP ………………………………. (1.2)

Q = f (K, EP, FP, GP) ………………...…………….. (1.3)

Q/P = f ( K/P, EP/P, FP/P, GP/P ) ……………….……………… (1.4)

q = f (k, E, F, G) ……………………………… (1.5)

Where:

P = working population

L = effective population

E = Individual efficiency or productivity due to technological advances

F = Individual efficiency or productivity due to education level

G = Individual efficiency or productivity due to self-efficacy

Assuming K/P and P are constant, the following equation is obtained:

Δ (Q/P) = Δq = dƒe ΔE + dƒf ΔF + dƒg ΔG ……………………… (1.6)

Human Capital is knowledge and skills that will generate returns in the future. Increased education in the workforce can promote productivity and growth (Schultz, 1961). Through human capital, other organizational capital can be pursued to achieve organizational goals effectively and efficiently. Meanwhile, Capabilities are the process of applying the capabilities, knowledge, and experience possessed by Human Resource to carry out work strategies that have been determined and can provide value to an organization (Day, 1994). Whereas, self-efficacy is the belief of the workforce in their own ability to successfully carry out their duties in order to get the desired results. Self-efficacy is one of the factors that can explain labor productivity as stated by Saugus (2016), namely self-efficacy is very necessary in developing productivity. Capabilities are one of the benchmarks for the success of the workforce in increasing creativity in order to achieve the success of an organization. Workers who have high self-efficacy with a strong capability orientation supported by high education can increase their productivity and provide the best results (Aggarwal, 1997). Organizational success is a comprehensive integration of organizational activities (Porter & Tanner, 2004) where the role of human capital, innovation capability and workforce self-efficacy greatly affects productivity which can ultimately improve performance.

KO = g(q) ……………………………………………………………(1.7)

insert equation (1.5) into equation (1.7) so the equation is obtained:

KO = g(f(k, E, F, G)) .……………………………………………… (1.8)

Organizational performance is a function of productivity, while productivity is a function of capital per capita (k) individual efficiency or productivity due to technological advances (E), individual efficiency or productivity due to education level (F), and individual efficiency or productivity due to self-efficacy (G). The function also shows the direct effect of variables k, E, F, and G on organizational performance.

Based on the formulated hypothesis, the influence between variables can be described in the form of a research model as follows Figure 2:

Method

This study uses primary data with questionnaires from 400 State Civil Servants with at least a bachelor's degree, has a minimum position as section head, works in Regional Government Organizations in ten selected districts / cities in South Sumatra Province. Data were analyzed using multiple linear regression with the following research model:

PR = α0+α1HC+α2KI+α3SE+ε

KO = β0+ β1HC+ β2KI+ β3SE+ β4PR+ε

Where: PR= Productivity; HC=Human Capital; KI=Innovation Capability; SE= Self-Efficacy; KO= Organization Performance

Dimensions and variable indicators are listed in table 2 below:

Table 2 Summary of Variables and Measurement
Variables	Dimensions	Indicator
Human Capital ( HC )	1. Education 2. Training	Ideal  level of competence
		Training programs
		Increasing the ability of employees
Inovation Capability (KI)	1. Creator 2. Innovator	Take the initiative to make new improvements
		Encourage and motivate creativity
		Thinking new things
		Trying new things
		Generating unique ideas
Self Efficacy (SE)	1. Magnitude 2. Strength 3. Generality	Believe in your potential
		Efforts to achieve the best
		Task difficulty solving
		Handling task problems
Labor Productivity (PR)	1. Quantity 2. Quality 3. Punctuality	Quantity of work
		Quality of work
		Suitability of working time
Organization Performance  (KO)	1. Financial 2. Customer 3. Internal Process 4. Learning & Growth	Effectiveness
		Efficiency
		Quality of service
		Operational capabilities
		Accountability
		Environmental support

Findings

Validity and Reliability Test

The results of the instrument validity test for the dependent and independent variables have a valid status because the r count exceeds the r Table 3 of 0.349, and the instrument reliability coefficient test results are positive and greater than 0.7. The results of the instrument reliability test for each variable in this study are as follows:

Table 3 Reliability Test Result
Variables	Indicator	Cronbach Alpha Value
Human Capital	5	0,871
Inovation Capability	10	0,918
Self-Efficacy	7	0,854
Productivity	4	0,942
Organization Performance	13	0,906

Analysis of Multiple Linear Regression Model Results of Estimation of Ordinary Least Square (OLS)

The estimation results of the civil servant productivity model show that the model is quite good with an R2 value of 0.185 or an Adjusted R2 of 0.179, which means that the model can explain the variation in the Civil Servant Productivity variable by 18 percent, the rest is explained by other variables outside the model. The variables specified in the model have a significant effect as indicated by the F-statistic value of 30.038 and the significance level is less than 0.05. In the model, the variables HC, KI, and SE have a positive and significant effect on the civil servant Productivity (PR) variable. This can be seen from the sign and probability of the HC variable of 0.0040, the probability of the KI variable of 0.001 and the probability of the SE variable of 0.001, all of which are less than the 5 percent significance level (Table 4).

Table 4 OLS Estimation Results for the Civil Servant Productivity
Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	T-stat	Probability
Constant	6.912	0.846	8.165	0
HC	0.092	0.044	2.065	0.04
KI	0.092	0.026	3.472	0.001
SE	0.123	0.035	3.5	0.001
R-squared	0.185	Middle value dependent variable		14.643192
R-squared adjusted	0.179	S.D. Dependent Variable		0
F-Stat	30.038	Durbin-Watson		1.818
Probability (F-stat)	0

The estimation results of the organizational performance model (KO) also show that the model is quite good with an R2 value of 0.372 or an Adjusted R2 of 0.366, meaning that the model can explain variations in organizational performance variables by 36.6 percent, the variables specified in the model have a significant effect on the variables. Organizational performance indicated by the F-statistic value of 58.522 with a probability smaller than 0.05. This shows that the HC, KI, SE and PR variables have a direct influence on the organizational performance variable (KO), seen from the HC probability of 0,000, KI of 0.003, SE of 0,000 and the probability of PR of 0,000, all of which are less than 5. percent (0.05) (Table 5)

Table 5 OLS Estimation Results for the Organization Performance
Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	T-stat	Probability
Constant	14.428	2.297	6.281	0
HC	0.407	0.067	3.636	0
KI	0.199	0.067	2.954	0.003
SE	0.534	0.089	5.969	0
PR	0.466	0.126	3.691	0
R-squared	0.372	Middle value dependent variable		48.425508
R-squared adjusted	0.366	S.D. Dependent Variable		0
F-Stat	58.522	Durbin-Watson		1.413
Probability (F-stat)	0	-	-	-

Classic assumption test

Normality, residuals (data) have shown curves that are normally distributed for both the Civil Servant Productivity (PR) model and the Organizational Performance (KO) model.

Multicollinearity, based on the results of the multicollinearity test using the Variant Inflation Factor (VIF) on both models, namely the Productivity model and the Organizational Performance Model, multicollinearity does not occur because the VIF value for all independent variables in the model is less than 10. For the Productivity model the VIF value between 1,251 - 1,760 while for the Organizational Performance model the VIF value is between 1,228 - 1,814.

Autocorrelation, for the Productivity model the results show that there is no autocorrelation (DW = 1.818), but for the Organizational Performance model there is a positive autocorrelation between error term one and the previous error term with value (DW = 1.413). Because the data used is cross-section, this problem can be ignored.

Heteroscedasticity, based on the results of observations on the scatter plot and several tests used, the results show that there are no symptoms of heteroscedasticity in the two models. This can ensure that the analysis can be continued in accordance with the estimation results.

Hypothesis testing

Coefficient of Determination (R2):

The estimation results for the Productivity model show that R2 is 0.1853 or Adjusted R2 is 0.1792. This shows that approximately 18 percent of the variation in the dependent variable can be explained by variations in the independent variables specified in the model, and for the Organizational Performance model the estimation results show that R2 is 0.3721 or Adjusted R2 is 0.357. This indicates that approximately 37 percent of the variation in the dependent variable can be explained by variations in the independent variables specified in the Organizational Performance model.

F test:

The test results on both the Productivity model and the Organizational Performance model, the calculated F value is greater than the F table, namely 30.0379 and 58.6223, respectively, with the F table of 3.78 and 3.22. This means that the independent variable simultaneously affects the dependent variable; in the productivity model it means that human capital, innovation capabilities and self-efficacy simultaneously affect the productivity of Civil Servant. In the Organizational Performance model it is stated that human capital, innovation capabilities and self-efficacy simultaneously affect organizational performance through Civil Servant productivity.

t test:

The independent variables contained in Productivity and in the Organizational Performance model indicate that all independent variables in both models are significant using a 5 percent significance level and all have a positive sign.

Sobel test:

Testing the mediation hypothesis is done by testing the strength of the indirect effect of independent variable (Xi) on dependent variable (Y2) through mediating variable (Y1). In this study, the variables HC, KI, and SE were assigned to the Organizational Performance (KO) through the Productivity (PR) variable. The Sobel test shows that the HC variable does not have an indirect effect on the Organizational Performance variable, while the KI and SE variables have an indirect effect on Organizational Performance. This can be seen by comparing the calculated Z value with the Z table 6 values at the 5 per cent significance level.

Table 6 Direct and Indirect effect to Organization Performance
Variable	Direct Effect		Indirrect Effect			Total Effect
	Koefisien	t-stat	Koefisien	Z Count	Z table
HC	0,4067	36,356	0,0426	1,78	1,96	0,4067
KI	0,1986	29,535	0,0426	2,58	1,96	0,2412
SE	0,5339	59,685	0,0571	2,54	1,96	0,5910

Discussion

The Influence of Human Capital, Innovation Capability, and Self-Efficacy on Civil Servant Productivity

The variables considered in this study that can affect the productivity of Civil Servant are Human Capital, Innovation Capability, and Self-Efficacy. Based on the estimation results of the Productivity model, it shows that the three variables have a positive and significant effect at the 5 percent significance level. The estimation results also show that the dominant variable that has an effect on Civil Servant Productivity is Innovation Capability, followed by Self-efficacy and Human Capital, respectively. These results reflect that the ability to innovate followed by high confidence and supported by adequate knowledge and skills will have a positive influence on Civil Servants in carrying out their duties so as to increase productivity.

High capability can have an impact on high productivity. Therefore, a strategy to increase capabilities that can support productivity is needed (Menon et al, 1999). Workers with a high level of education will continue to learn to develop their capabilities, become more skilled and can affect their productivity. Moreover, coupled with high self-efficacy, workers with high self-efficacy can help them complete the work given. In other words, the higher the self-efficacy of the workforce, the higher the productivity (Saugus, 2016).

The Influence of Human Capital, Innovation Capability, Self-Efficacy and Civil Servant Productivity on Organizational Performance

Organizational performance in this study is the Local Goverment Organization influenced by four factors, namely Human Capital, Innovation Capability, Self-Efficacy and Civil Servant Productivity. Based on the model estimation results, all variables are statistically significant and in a positive direction. This means that changes or increases in each of these factors will increase Organization performance. The estimation results also show that the dominant factor affecting Organization performance is Self-Efficacy, followed by Human Capital, Civil Servant Productivity, and Innovation Capability, respectively. This is supported by previous research (Bandura, 1997, Zaccaro et al., 1995) that the achievement of organizational goals depends on the individual's ability to identify other individual abilities and utilize that ability to achieve common goals, in self-efficacy theory in call "collective efficacy": "the group's shared belief in the shared ability to organize and carry out the actions needed to produce a level of organizational achievement". Collective action is widely recognized as a positive force for teamwork in any organization or institution for success (Agarwal & Adjirackor, 2016).

Capability is one of the benchmarks for the success of the workforce in increasing creativity in order to achieve the success of an organization. Workers who have high self-efficacy with a strong capability orientation supported by high education can increase their productivity and provide the best results (Aggarwal, 1997). Therefore, organizations need to identify the key workforce abilities that lead to success. Thus, the workforce in the organization will have added value that is valuable for the organization (Calantone et al, 2002; Neely & Hii, 1998; Palangkaraya et al, 2010; Salaman & Storey, 2002; Thornhill, 2006). Organizational success is a comprehensive integration of organizational activities (Porter & Tanner, 2004) where the role of human capital, innovation capabilities and workforce self-efficacy greatly affect productivity which in turn can improve performance.

Direct, Indirect, and Total Influence on Organizational Performance

Variables Human Capital, Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy have a direct and significant effect on organizational performance with a positive sign. This means that with an increase in the Human Capital variable, Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy, it will be able to improve organizational performance, in this case Local Government Organization in districts / cities in the province of South Sumatra. The magnitude of the direct influence of these variables is 0.4067 for the Human Capital variable, 0.1986 for Innovation Capability and 0.5339 for Self-Efficacy. As for the indirect effect of each of these variables, it shows that only the Human Capital variable does not have a significant effect on Organizational Performance, for the other two variables, namely Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy, have a significant effect on Organizational Performance through Civil Servant Productivity based on the Sobel test. At the 5 percent significance level.

The indirect effect of the Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy variables is 0.0426 and 0.0571, respectively. Thus the total effect of each of these variables on Organizational Performance, namely for Human Capital is 0.4067, for the Innovation Capability of 0.2412, and for the Self-Efficacy variable it is 0.5910. This means that if there is an increase in Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy, the increase in Organizational Performance will not only have a direct effect but also have an additional effect, namely indirect influence through increased Civil Servant Productivity. Meanwhile, Human Capital only has a direct effect on Organizational Performance, which means that an increase in Human Capital does not have an indirect impact on Organizational Performance by increasing the productivity of Civil Servant.

Conclusion

In the discussion chapter, descriptive and quantitative analysis of the effect of human capital, innovation capabilities and self-efficacy has been presented on the productivity of Civil Servant and Organizational Performance in districts and cities in South Sumatra Province. The discussion also includes the direct and indirect effects of using Civil Servant Productivity as the mediating variable.

1. The three variables considered in this study that can affect the productivity of Civil Servant, namely Human Capital, Innovation Capability, and Self-Efficacy have a positive and significant effect on Civil Servant productivity, with the estimation results that the dominant variable has the greatest influence, namely innovation capability.

2. Organizational performance in this study is the Local Government Organization influenced by four variables, namely Human Capital, Innovation Capability, Self-Efficacy and Civil Servant Productivity, all statistically significant in a positive direction and Self-efficacy is the most dominant influencing variable.

3. Human Capital, Innovation Capability, and Self-Efficacy variables can have two kinds of influence on Organizational Performance, namely direct influence and indirect influence through the Civil Servant Productivity variable as a mediating variable. The estimation and calculation results show that the variables Human Capital, Innovation Capability and Self-Efficacy have a direct and significant effect on the Performance of Local Government Organizations with a positive sign. Meanwhile, the indirect effect of each of these variables shows that only the Human Capital variable does not have a significant effect on Organizational Performance.

Recommendation

1. Rigidity, hierarchy, and routines that exist in the government bureaucracy are one of the obstacles to innovation, where innovation must be faced with creativity and the ability to quickly adapt to change. For this reason, the government needs to provide information technology education and training in order to develop innovation and improve Civil Servant capabilities in dealing with risks and changes.

2. Measurement of Civil Servant work productivity can consider the preparation of the Civil Servant professionalism index efficiently and effectively, so it is necessary to develop an instrument using digital applications.

3. The behavioral aspect can be used as a measurement of Civil Servant productivity considering that the main task of Civil Servant is to serve the community because improving service performance will have a broad impact, especially in the level of public trust in the government.

References

1. Alan, K.M.A., Altman, Y., & Roussel, J. (2008). Employee Training Needs and Perceived Value of Training in the Pearl River Delta of China: A Human Capital Development Approach. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(1), 19-31.
2. Ambar T. Sulistiyani dn Rosidah. (2003). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Cetakan  Pertama.
3. Bandura, A. (2006). Article of guide for Contructing Self Efficacy Scales. by Information Age Publishing
4. Berliana, Vera., dan Tutuk Ari Arsanti. (2018). Analisis Pengaruh Self-efficacy, Kapabilitas,            dan Perilaku Kerja Inovatif terhadap Kinerja. Jurnal Maksipreneur Vol.7 No.2: 149-161.
5. Bernardin, H.J dan Russell, J.E.A. (2013), Human Resource Management, Sixth Edition. New York: McGrawHill
6. Bisbe, J., Otley, D. (2004). The Effects of The Interactive Use Of Management Control Systems On Product Innovation, Accounting, Organizations and Society,   European Accounting Review Vol. 29 No.8, pp 709-737
7. Bohlander, George., and Snell, Scott. (2010). Principles of Human Resource. Management, 15th ed. Mason, OH: South Western – Cengage Learning
8. Bontis, N., Chua, Chong Keow, & Richardson, S. (2000), Intellectual Capital and Business Performance in Malaysian Industries, Journal of Intellectual Capital Vol 1 (1),
9. Collin, CJ., & Clark, K.D. (2003). Strategic Human Resource Practices, Top Management Team Social Networks, And Firm Performance: The Role Of Human Resource In Creating Organizational Competitive Advantage. Acad Manage Journal, 46(6), pp:. 740-751.
10. Donald, I., Taylor, P., Johnson, S., Cooper, C., Cartwright, S., and Robertson, S. (2005). Work environments, stress, and productivity: An examination using ASSET.  International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4): 409-423.
11. Drucker, Peter F. (1985) Inovasi dan Kewiraswastaan: Praktek & Dasar-Dasar, Jakarta:Erlangga,
12. Everett M. Rogers. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. London: The Free Press.
13. Feist, J. & Gregory J. Feist. (2010). Teori Kepribadian (Edisi ketujuh). Jakarta: Penerbit Salemba Humanika.
14. Fontana, A. (2011). Innovate We Can: Manajemen Inovasi Dan Penciptaan Nilai Individu, Organisasi, Masyarakat. Jakarta: Cipta Inovasi Sejahtera.
15. Frank, R.H., & Bernanke, B.S. (2007). Principles of Microeconomics (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
16. Gibson, (1988). Organisasi dan Manajemen Perilaku, Struktur dan Proses. Edisi ke 4, Erlangga, Jakarta
17. Gomes, Faustino Cardoso. (2003). Manajemen  Sumber Daya Manusia. Jakarta: Andi Offset.
18. Gunawan, I., & Benty, D.D.N. (2017). Manajemen Pendidikan: Suatu Pengantar Praktik. Bandung: Alfabeta.
19. Hessel, Nogi. (2005). Manajemen Publik. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana.
20. Indriani, Maulida. (2016). "Peran Tenaga Kerja Indonesia dalam Pembangunan Ekonomi Nasional," Gema Keadilan, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 74-85
21. Irawan, Mochammad Rudy. (2017). “Bukan Aparatur Biasa: Asesmen Kompetensi Aparatur”;
22. John & Hartog. (2005). Innovative and Work Behavior : Measurement and Validation. Amsterdam: EIM Bussiness
23. Jones, Garet R and George, Jennifer. (2012). Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior. Pearson Education, Inc, New Jersey.
24. Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A., & Rich, B.L. (2007). Self-Efficacy and Work-Related Performance: The Integral Role of Individual Differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 107-127.
25. Komara, Endang. (2018). “Kompetensi Profesional Pegawai ASN”.
26. Kurniawan, G. (2010). Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Produktivitas Tenaga Kerja Pada PT.Kalimantan Steel (PT.Kalisco) Pontianak. Jurnal Ekonomi. Vol. 2. No. 12. Hal. 41-58
27. L, Livia. Melanie B., et al,. (2015). Global Managers: An Analysis Of The Impact Of Cultural Intelligence On Job Satisfaction And Performance. International Journal of Emerging Markets, Vol. 10 Iss 4 p
28. Lawson, B. & Samson, D. (2001). Developing Innovation Capability in Organisations: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 5(3): 377-400
29. Lenvine Lenvine, (1990). Public Administration: Chalenges, Choices, Consequences. Illionis. : Scot Foreman.
30. Long, Richard, (2009). Strategic Compensation in Canada. Nelson Education Limited, 2009
31. Lukas, Bryan A dan O.C Ferrell, (2000), "The Effect of Market Orientation om Product Innovation" Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, vol 28, 239-247.
32. Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. & Avolio, B.J. (2007). Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. New York: Oxford University Press.
33. Machmud, Senen. (2018). The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Satisfaction and Work-Related Performance. International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration Volume 4, Issue 4, May 2018, pp: 43-47
34. Malhotra, Y. (2000), Knowledge Assets in a Global Economy: Assesment of a National Intellectual Capital, Journal of Global Information Management, July-Sep 2000, pp: 5-15
35. Mayo, A., (2000). “The Role of Employee Development in The Growth of Intellectual Capital”, Personal Review, Vol. 29, No. 4.
36. Mukrodi, & Reza, M. (2016). Pengaruh Efikasi Diri Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan PT. Express Kencana Lestari (Express Group) Depok. Jumal Kreatif: Pemasaran Sumber Daya Manusia dan Keuangan,
37. Mulyana, S (2014). Peningkatan Kapabilitas Inovatif, Keunggulan Bersaing dan Kinerja melalui Pendekatan Quadruple Helix: Studi Pada Industri Kreatif Sektor Fashion. Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana.
38. O'Cass, A., & P. Sok. (2013). "The Role of intellectual Resources, Product Innovation Capability, Reputational Resources and Marketing Capability Combinations in Firm Growth." International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 996-1018.
39. Penerbit Graha Ilmu. Yogyakarta. Alwisol. (2009). Psikologi Kepribadian edisi revisi. Malang : UMM Press.
40. Peng, J. (2013). "The Impact Of Psychological Capital On Job Burnout Of Chinese Nurses: The Mediator Role Of Organizational Commitment." Plos One 8(12): E84193.
41. Philip Kotler, (2002), Manajemen Pemasaran, Edisi Millenium, Jilid 2, PT Prenhallindo, Jakarta
42. Pritchard, D.C. (1995). Lighting 5th.ed., Longman Group Ltd., England.
43. R.S. Kaplan and D.P. Norton, (1992)“The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance, ”Harvard Business Review, January–February 1992, 71–79.
44. Rajapathirana, R.P.J., & Hui, Y. (2017). Relationship between innovation capability,  innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1-16.
45. Robbins, Stephen P. and Mary Coulter. (2012). Management, Eleventh Edition, (United States of America: Pearson Education Limited).
46. Romer, (1996) Model Teoritis Peran Human Capital Dan Teknologi “The New Growth Theory.
47. Rosen, H.S. (1999). Public Finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
48. Samad, D. (2013). Upaya Kepala Sekolah dalam Meningkatkan Produktivitas Kerja Guru di Madrasah Tsanawiyah Al-Islam Rumbio Kecamatan Kampar Kabupaten Kampar. Tesis diterbitkan. Riau: Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau
49. Samson, D., Gloet, M., & Singh, P. (2017). Systematic innovation capability: Evidence from case studies and a large survey. International Journal of innovation Management, 21(07), 1750058.
50. Sari, Dewi Listina, Siti Rochana & Amril Muhammad. (2017). “Manajemen Program Standarisasi dan Sertifikasi Kompetensi di Badan Pengembangan SDM Kementerian Dalam Negeri”  Jurnal Improvement, Vol.4, No.2 [Desember], hlm.223-237
51. Schultz, D.P., & Schultz, S.E. (1994). Psychology anda Work Today: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (6th Ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company
52. Schultz, T.W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review, 51, 1-17.
53. Sebayang, S., & Sembin'ng, J. (2017). Pengaruh Self Esteem dan Self Efficacy Terhadap Kinerja Karyawan. EMBA, 4, 562-572.
54. Sen, F., & Egelhoff, W. (2000). Innovative capabilities of a firm and the use of technical alliances. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 47, 174-183.
55. Simamora, Henry. (2004). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Yogyakarta: STIE YKPN.
56. Slater, S.F., Hult, G.T. & Olson, E.M, (2010), Factors Influencing The Relative Importance of Marketing Strategy Creativity and Marketing Strategy Implementation Effectiveness. Industrial Marketing Management 39, pg. 551-559.
57. Soeprihanto, J. (2001). Penilaian Kinerja dan Pengembangan Karyawan. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
58. Suprapto. (2002). Pengantar Ilmu Komunikasi dan Peran. Yogyakarta: Buku Seru. “Survey PERC Jadi Cermin Perbaikan Birokrasi di Indonesia”
59. Tatik, N. (2009). Orientasi entrepreneur dan Modal Sosial : Strategi Peningkatan Kinerja Organisasi, (Disertasi), UNDIP, Semarang
60. Tidd, Joe., John Bessant and Keith Pavitt (2001). Managing Innovation: Integrating technological, market and organization change, 2nded Chichester, John Wiley.
61. Todaro, Michael. P. (2000). Pembangunan Ekonomi di Dunia Ketiga. Edisi Ketujuh, Terjemahan Haris Munandar. Jakarta : Penerbit Erlangga
62. Utomo, Widodo Dwi, Suryanto Suryanto & Falih Suaedi. (2015). “Pemetaan Kompetensi untuk Pengembangan Penilaian Kinerja Berbasis Kompetensi di Unit Kerja Perawatan Intensif (ICU) Rumah Sakit Adi Husada Kapasari Surabaya” BISMA: Bisnis dan Manajemen, Vol.8, No.1.;
63. Zaccaro, S.J., Blair, V., Peterson, C. and Zazanis, M. (1995) Collective efficacy. In: Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. Ed: Maddux J.E. New York, USA: Plenum Press.