Empirical analysis shows partnership scheme improves cost efficiency and driver performance, indicating significant operational benefits.
Market behavior shifts and digital disruptions in the transportation industry over the past decades have prompted PT X Jakarta to undertake structural adjustments through the implementation of a civil-law-based partnership scheme. This strategy aims not only to reduce the rigidity of fixed labor costs but also to enhance operational flexibility in responding to fluctuating service demands. However, the effectiveness of this strategy requires empirical validation, particularly concerning its impact on cost efficiency and driver performance, two critical elements for sustaining competitive advantage and long-term business viability. This study investigates the influence of the partnership scheme implementation on cost efficiency and driver performance. The research framework is grounded in Transaction Cost Economics, Workforce Flexibility Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and Agency Theory, which collectively explain structural efficiency rationale, the importance of numerical and financial flexibility, and the role of autonomous motivation and incentive systems in non-hierarchical work arrangements. Employing a quantitative approach with an explanatory-causal design, data were collected from 200 active partner drivers using a Likert-scale questionnaire and analyzed using both simple and multiple linear regression. The results indicate that the partnership scheme significantly affects cost efficiency (? = 0.656; R² = 47.4%) and driver performance (? = 0.327; R² = 34.9%). These findings affirm that a well-structured partnership model can serve as an effective cost-efficiency strategy without compromising performance, provided it is supported by a fair compensation system and adequate operational support. The study offers practical implications for transportation organizations seeking to build adaptive, efficient, and sustainable workforce systems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Putra et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: