External and Internal Institutional Value Structures (Institutional Logics) in Implementing the BerAKHLAK Civil Service Core Values: Evidence from Sorong City Government, Indonesia

Atika Rafika; Hasniati Hasniati; Muh. Akmal  Ibrahim; Didik  Iskandar

Authors

Atika Rafika Doctoral Student of Department of Administration Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science,Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indonesia
Hasniati Department of Administration Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indoensia
Muh. Akmal Ibrahim Department of Administration Science, Faculty of Social and Political Science, Hasanuddin University, Makassar, Indoensia
Didik Iskandar Department of Administration Science, Faculty of Social and Law, Makassar State University, Makassar, Indoensia

Keywords:

Institutional Logics, Berakhlak, Local Bureaucracy, Decoupling, Civil Service Reform

Abstract

The implementation of the BerAKHLAK civil service core values at Sorong City Government takes place within a plurality of competing institutional logics. Empirical indicators a 2023 Integrity Assessment Survey (SPI) of 58.20 (“vulnerable”), a cross-OPD synergy index of 57/100, digital system adoption below 50%, and 38% of civil servants not understanding BerAKHLAK signal that the internalisation problem is structural and rooted in a complex institutional-logics configuration. This study analyses the institutional value structure underlying BerAKHLAK implementation through the institutional logics framework , covering four dimensions: logic dominance, compatibility with BerAKHLAK values, inter-logic conflict, and balance strategies. A qualitative single-case study approach was employed. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 34 purposively-selected informants, participant observation across seven OPDs over 48 days, and analysis of 23 official documents. Data were analysed interactively through condensation, display, and conclusion drawing, with source, method, and member-check triangulation. Bureaucratic-hierarchical and relational logics dominate practice, while BerAKHLAK logic remains subordinate and situationally active (only 8–10% in internal decisions vs 30% in externally-monitored situations). Compatibility is low-to-partial, particularly for Accountable, Competent, Adaptive, and Collaborative. Inter-logic conflict is intense (68% of implementing staff experience >3 conflicts/week) with passive resolution patterns (69% silent compromise or passive conformity). Adaptation strategies are dominated by decoupling (71% of OPDs). The dramatic 2025 surge of the Public Service Index to the Highest Green Zone (90.2) without corresponding internal improvement confirms symbolic isomorphic response over substantive value internalisation. Weak BerAKHLAK internalisation in Sorong City results from unmanaged institutional-logics configuration, where interventions stop at the symbolic level without restructuring the logic architecture that shapes bureaucratic practice. Transformation requires a paradigm shift from value socialisation to active institutional-logics management reconfiguring incentive structures, building legitimate conflict-resolution arenas, and developing systemic leadership capacity as skilled logic mediators.

References

Almandoz, J. (“John”), & Thornton, P. H. (2025a). Understanding Institutional Environments: An Institutional Logics Model of Societal Evolution. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0056

Almandoz, J. (“John”), & Thornton, P. H. (2025b). Understanding Institutional Environments: An Institutional Logics Model of Societal Evolution. Academy of Management Review. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2023.0056

Biyikli, A. E. (2024). Organizational culture and institutionalization. A theoretical framework. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 55, 277–283. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v55i1.10619

Busscher, T., Vikstedt, E., Sinervo, L.-M., Luhtala, M., Laihonen, H., & Welinder, O. (2025). Integrating new institutional logics: sustainability and climate action in local government practices in Finland and Indonesia. Npj Climate Action, 4(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00303-9

Damayanthi, S., & Gooneratne, T. (2024a). Institutional Complexities in Organisations: A Theoretical Integration of Multiple Logics and the Locus of Paradoxical Tension. Colombo Business Journal, 15(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4038/cbj.v15i2.195

Damayanthi, S., & Gooneratne, T. (2024b). Institutional Complexities in Organisations: A Theoretical Integration of Multiple Logics and the Locus of Paradoxical Tension. Colombo Business Journal, 15(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4038/cbj.v15i2.195

Damayanthi, S., & Gooneratne, T. (2024c). Institutional Complexities in Organisations: A Theoretical Integration of Multiple Logics and the Locus of Paradoxical Tension. Colombo Business Journal, 15(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.4038/cbj.v15i2.195

de Bree, M., & Stoopendaal, A. (2020). De- and Recoupling and Public Regulation. Organization Studies, 41(5), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840618800115

Deka Kalita, B., Larson, J., Hilligoss, B., Amis, J. M., Espedal, G., Sharma, V., Flores, R. G., Kraatz, M., Block, E. S., Chandler, D., & Fioravante, R. (2025). An Open, Transparent and Practical Approach to Understanding Values and Values Practices. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.16564symposium

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

Gruszewska, E. (2025). The adaptability of informal institutions. Ekonomia i Prawo, 24(4), 513–528. https://doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2025.24

Hendra, O., Prasojo, E., & Fathurrahman, R. (2026). The Embedded Network: Institutional Constraints on Collaborative Governance in Indonesia’s Aviation Safety Program. Governance, 39(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70100

Hensel, P. G., & Guérard, S. (2020). The institutional consequences of decoupling exposure. Strategic Organization, 18(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019831023

Klausen, J. E., Askim, J., & Christensen, T. (2021). Local Government Reform: Compromise Through Cross-Cutting Cleavages. Political Studies Review, 19(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929919887649

Li, J., & Chung, K. (2020). Decomposing Isomorphism: What Drives Similarity in the Adoption of New Public Management? Administration & Society, 52(3), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718811307

Lounsbury, M., & Wang, M. S. (2023). Expanding the Scope of Institutional Logics Research. Management and Organization Review, 19(6), 1185–1188. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2023.24

Lu, N. (2025). Analytical Framework (pp. 39–68). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-3040-3_3

Mahasuar, K. (2025). Managing Competing Institutional Logics in Public-Private Hybrids: A Negotiated Order Perspective. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.21629abstract

Michel, C. L., Meza, O. D., & Cejudo, G. M. (2022). Interacting institutional logics in policy implementation. Governance, 35(2), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12596

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Mishra, A. (2023). CONFLICT, ITS MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION. ShodhKosh: Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v4.i2.2023.2343

Mota, E. C. (2022). Hybrid Logics and Organization: A Framework to Identify Conflicts Between Institutional Logics. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2022(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.17801abstract

Nengsih, S. (2024). Examining the Influence of Bureaucratic Culture on Organizational Performance in Public Agencies. Moccasin Journal De Public Perspective, 1(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.37899/mjdpp.v1i1.16

Rahman, S., Burns, P., Wolfram Cox, J., & Alam, Q. (2024). Exercising bureaucratic discretion through selective bridging: A response to institutional complexity in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Development, 44(2), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2036

Riak PhD, G. A., & Bill, D. B. A. (2022). THE ESSENTIAL OF INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE ON CONFLICT MANAGEMENT. IJRDO - Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research, 8(11), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.53555/sshr.v8i11.5371

Sandfort, J. R., & Moulton, S. (2020). Replication or Innovation? Structuration in Policy Implementation. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz029

Sarjito, A., & Mursidi, M. (2025). Decolonizing Bureaucracy in Papua: Indigenous Logics, Institutional Hybridity, and the Limits of Special Autonomy. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 4(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.57248/jishum.v4i1.665

Schumm, Z., & Denizel, M. (2025). From Linear to Circular: A Case Study on Competing Logics and the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2025(1). https://doi.org/10.5465/AMPROC.2025.18320abstract

Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.

Stevenson, L., Honingh, M., & Brandsen, T. (2024a). Putting Centrality Central in the Study of Institutional Complexity: On the relative and relational aspects of the centrality of institutional logics. Organization Theory, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241257209

Stevenson, L., Honingh, M., & Brandsen, T. (2024b). Putting Centrality Central in the Study of Institutional Complexity: On the relative and relational aspects of the centrality of institutional logics. Organization Theory, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241257209

Tjemkes, B., & Mihalache, O. (2021). Working with transformative strategies. In Transformative Strategies (pp. 198–210). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429274381-14

Vince, J., Fudge, M., Fullbrook, L., & Haward, M. (2024). Understanding policy integration through an integrative capacity framework. Policy and Society, 43(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puae027

Walter, J. M., & Veit, S. (2025). Between patronage and professionalism: Bureaucrats’ perceptions of political recruitment. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2025.2595591

Xiao, M., Zhan, X., & Cudennec, A. (2025). Coping With Competing Institutional Logics in Policy Implementation. Governance, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70036