Abstract :

A robust leadership pipeline is essential for sustained success in the dynamic Indonesian banking sector. Maybank Indonesia’s Management Development Program for Mortgage, designed to cultivate future leaders in this critical business area, faces significant challenges. With a graduation rate of just 51.69% and high attrition, the program falls short of its 80% target, impacting the bank’s ability to develop internal talent and meet strategic objectives. This study employs the DMAIC methodology to diagnose the root causes of this underperformance and propose data-driven solutions. Utilizing tools such as process mapping, surveys, and statistical analysis, the research reveals key weaknesses within the program.

Analysis indicates that inconsistent mentorship practices, characterized by a lack of standardized guidance and individualized support, account for 40% of participant dissatisfaction. Furthermore, a misalignment between the training curriculum and the actual demands of on-the-job tasks contributes to 60% of performance challenges, leading to frustration and decreased participant engagement. To address these critical issues, this study recommends a three-pronged approach: 1) revising the curriculum to reflect on-the-job requirements better, incorporating real-world case studies and simulations; 2) standardizing mentorship processes, providing clear guidelines and training for mentors to ensure consistent support and guidance; and 3) implementing real-time feedback mechanisms, enabling participants to receive timely and constructive feedback on their performance. These targeted improvements are projected to increase graduation rates by 15%, reduce attrition by 10%, and significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of the MDP Mortgage program, ultimately strengthening Maybank Indonesia’s leadership pipeline and contributing to its long-term success in the competitive financial landscape.

---

Keywords :

Banking Strategy, DMAIC, leadership development, Program Optimization, Talent Retention, Workforce Adaptability.

---

References :

1. Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
2. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
3. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
4. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
5. Kepner, C. H., & Tregoe, B. B. (1981). The new rational manager: An updated edition for a new world. Princeton Research Press.
6. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
7. Singh, R., & Mittal, A. (2020). Decision-making frameworks in organizational management: An empirical review of theories and applications. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, 7(3), 255–272.
8. Smith, J., & Snell, R. S. (2009). Enhancing rational decision-making in complex organizations: A review of Kepner-Tregoe applications. Management Decision, 47(8), 1342–1356.
9. Weihrich, H. (1982). The TOWS matrix—A tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(82)90120-0

10. Wang, Greg & Wang, Jia. (2004). Toward a Theory of Human Resource Development Learning Participation. Human Resource Development Review. 3. 326-353. 10.1177/1534484304271152.