Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aims to identify the human resource (HR) development strategy of village officials in Tangke Bajeng Village, Gowa Regency, and to examine its contribution to improving the performance of village officials in terms of service, administration, coordination, and work discipline. The background of this study is based on the importance of the quality of village officials as a determinant of the effectiveness of public services, administrative order, and professional as well as responsive village governance. This study employed a qualitative approach with a descriptive type and a case study strategy. The research was conducted at the Tangke Bajeng Village Office, Bajeng District, Gowa Regency, from February to April 2026. The research informants were selected purposively and included the village head, village secretary, heads of affairs/sections, village facilitator, and community representatives. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, observation, and documentation, while data analysis used the interactive model of Miles and Huberman, consisting of data collection, data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing. The results show that the HR development strategy in Tangke Bajeng Village was implemented through needs identification, program planning, training and technical guidance, job rotation, preparation of standard operating procedures, evaluation, and follow-up in the form of mentoring and monitoring. This strategy was proven to support the improvement of village officials’ performance, as reflected in better service quality, more orderly administration, more effective coordination, and stronger work discipline. However, its implementation still faced several obstacles, including limited budget, time constraints, and the unstable motivation of some officials. Therefore, HR development needs to be strengthened continuously so that its impact on the performance of village officials can become more optimal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nurlita et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: