Al-Islam and Kemuhammadiyahan Faculty Management as Discretionary Talent
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37680/scaffolding.v8i2.10518Keywords:
Discretionary Talent, Talent Management, Street-Level Bureaucracy, AIK Faculty, Muhammadiyah and 'Aisyiyah Higher Education, Multi-Site StudyAbstract
This study examines the management of Al-Islam and Kemuhammadiyahan (AIK) faculty at Muhammadiyah and ‘Aisyiyah higher education institutions (PTMA), focusing on how frontline discretion emerges, the institutional factors underlying convergence and divergence across institutions, and the role of organizational affiliation in shaping such variation. The study employed a qualitative comparative multiple-case design involving four PTMAs in Central Java and the Special Region of Yogyakarta, anonymized as PTMA A, B, C, and D. Cases were purposively selected, and data were collected during 2025–2026 through twelve in-depth semi-structured interviews with seven informants across structural levels. Secondary data included official institutional documents related to recruitment, AIK management, cadre formation, organizational structures, evaluation, curriculum, and mentoring. Data were analyzed using a layered multiple-case approach combined with Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis, supported by cross-source and cross-site triangulation. The findings reveal convergence in areas shaped by national structural constraints, particularly the limited involvement of AIK faculty in thesis supervision due to functional-position linearity regulations. In contrast, substantial divergence occurs in areas where institutional policy discretion is greater, particularly recruitment systems and the structural positioning of AIK units. Organizational affiliation explains variation primarily in recruitment and staffing practices. Frontline discretion becomes most visible when AIK faculty encounter situations not covered by formal regulations or policy voids. Based on these findings, the study proposes the concept of discretionary talent, referring to institutional talent whose strategic value derives from its capacity for autonomous, value-aligned judgment. The study theoretically connects strategic talent management with street-level discretion and offers a discretionary talent management model for strengthening AIK faculty management in PTMA.
References
Abiwu, L., & Martins, I. (2024). Does Integrated Talent Management Foster Competitive Advantage in Higher Education Institutions? SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2669
Alsharefeen, R. (2025). Faculty as Street-Level Bureaucrats: Discretionary Decision-Making in the Era of Generative AI. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1662657. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1662657
As, S., Usman, H., & Sjamsir, H. (2020). Manajemen Mutu Dosen. BEduManageRs Journal Borneo Educational Management and Research Journal, 1(1).
Barnes, C. Y., & Henly, J. R. (2018). “They are Underpaid and Understaffed”: How Clients Interpret Encounters with Street-Level Bureaucrats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(2), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy008
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bulut-Sahin, B. (2023). International Office Professionals: An Example of Street-Level Bureaucrats in Higher Education. Education Sciences, 13(9), 890. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090890
Cai, Y., & Mountford, N. (2022). Institutional Logics Analysis in Higher Education Research. Studies in Higher Education, 47(8), 1627–1651. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1946032
Chang, A., & Brewer, G. A. (2023). Street-Level Bureaucracy in Public Administration: A Systematic Literature Review. Public Management Review, 25(11), 2191–2211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2065517
Collings, D., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic Talent Management: A Review and Research Agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.04.001
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=gX1ZDwAAQBAJ
Darodjat & Wahyudiana, M. (2015). Model Evaluasi Program Pendidikan. Islamadina, 14(1), 1–28. http://jurnalnasional.ump.ac.id/index.php/Islamadina/article/view/1665
Dewi, I. C., Agustiana, Lady, & Arifianto, D. (2023). Pedoman Pembelajaran PTMA (1st ed.). Universitas Muhammadiyah Jember.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258557
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. University of Chicago Press.
Habibi, I., Bashith, A., & Nurdiana, I. (2021). Respon Mahasiswa Kualifikasi Akademik Guru Madrasah Diniyah Terhadap Pembelajaran Al-Islam dan Kemuhammadiyahan. Jurnal Pendidikan Edutama, 8(1), 125. https://doi.org/10.30734/jpe.v8i1.1211
Harris, M. (1995). The Organization of Religious Congregations: Tackling the Issues. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 5(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130050305
Hendri, M. I., Tasbita, Y. E., Rusmita, S., & Syahbandi, S. (2023). Model Penerapan Manajemen Talenta Aparatur Sipil Negara dalam Pengembangan Karier Tenaga Kependidikan di Perguruan Tinggi. JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia), 9(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.29210/020221856
Hidayah, N., & Ma’arif, S. (2023). Diagnosis Tata Kelola Perguruan Tinggi berbasis Good University Governance. Edudeena : Journal of Islamic Religious Education, 7(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.30762/ed.v7i2.864
Jaenudin, J., & Victorynie, I. (2026). Hybrid Governance of Religious-Based Higher Education with Limited Autonomy and Dual Meritocracy of the University of Muhammadiyah in Indonesia. Scaffolding: Jurnal Pendidikan Islam Dan Multikulturalisme, 8(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.37680/scaffolding.v8i2.9429
Kraus, W., & Nakamura, M. (1986). The Crescent Arises over the Banyan Tree. In Die Welt des Islams (Vol. 26, Issue 1/4). https://doi.org/10.2307/1570797
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=2oA9aWlNeooC
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610447713
Lovell, D. (2024). Rethinking Faculty as Street-Level Bureaucrats: Exploring the Role of Ethics and Administrative Discretion in Contemporary Higher Education. Public Integrity, 26(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2022.2148985
Majelis Diktilitbang PP Muhammadiyah. (2016). Pedoman Tentang Perguruan Tinggi Muhammadiyah. 1–42.
Majelis Diktilitbang PP Muhammadiyah. (2020). Standar Mutu Al-Islam dan Kemuhammadiyahan (AIK) PTMA.
Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2022). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Stories from the Front Lines of Public Service, Second Edition, New and expanded edition. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12247078
McCarthy, A., Garavan, T., Holland, D., Bohle Carbonell, K., Virtanen, T., O'Kane, P., & Van Wart, M. (2024). Talent Management in Public Science Funding Organizations: Institutional Logics, Paradoxical Tensions and HR Actor Responses. Public Management Review, 26(5), 1156–1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2133160
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2018). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=lCh_DwAAQBAJ
Nothdurfter, U., & Hermans, K. (2018). Meeting (or not) at the street level? A Literature Review on Street‐Level Research in Public Management, Social Policy, and Social Work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 27(3), 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12308
Pache, A.-C., Battilana, J., & Spencer, C. (2024). An Integrative Model of Hybrid Governance: The Role of Boards in Helping Sustain Organizational Hybridity. Academy of Management Journal, 67(2), 437–467. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.0966
Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside The Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling As A Response To Competing Institutional Logics. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43589202
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Pikuła, N. G. (2024). Talent Management in Educational Institutions. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 60(1), 162–169. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijcm-2024-0009
Ramaditya, M., Maarif, M. S., Affandi, J., & Sukmawati, A. (2022). Reinventing Talent Management: How to Maximize Performance In Higher Education. Frontiers in Education, 7, 929697. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.929697
Razali, R., Arifin, M. A., Shafie, L. A., Azizan, F. L., & Ishak, M. A. M. (2024). Mapping the Landscape of Talent Management Research In Higher Education: A Bibliometric Analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), 2298300. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2298300
Smagina, O., & Stich, J.-F. (2026). Talent Development in Higher Education Institutions: Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 25(3), 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/15344843251381389
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=uX1ZDwAAQBAJ
Zacka, B. (2017). When the State Meets the Street: Public Service and Moral Agency. Belknap Press.
Zwierżdżyński, M. K., & Szklarczyk, D. (2026). Navigating Multiple Institutional Logics: Unveiling Organizational Identity of Polish Catholic Universities Through Strategic Documents Analysis. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2026.2685021
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bayu Cahyono, Suyadi Suyadi, Nina Mariani Noor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
