Issue

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026): December

Date Log

Submitted
8 January 2026
Accepted
13 October 2026
Published
13 October 2026

Copyright (c) 2026 Nurmal Idrus, Andi Adawiah (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

When Informal Institutions Perform: Patronage, Local Culture, and Civil Servant Performance in Indonesia

https://doi.org/10.24252/minds.v13i3.64431
Nurmal Idrus
Universitas Lamappapoleonro, Indonesia
Andi Adawiah
Universitas Lamappapoleonro, Indonesia

Corresponding Author(s) : Nurmal Idrus

[email protected]

Jurnal Minds: Manajemen Ide dan Inspirasi, Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026): December

Abstract

Indonesian bureaucratic reform presumes that merit displaces informal ties, yet local civil servants remain embedded in cultural norms and patronage networks. This study examines how local culture, patronage networks, and social embeddedness jointly shape civil servant performance. Drawing on institutional theory, we specify informal institutions as both resources and constraints on bureaucratic behavior. We surveyed 370 civil servants in four local governments in South Sulawesi Province and analyzed the data with partial least squares structural equation modeling. Local culture relates positively to performance, directly and indirectly through social embeddedness. Patronage networks show the strongest positive association with performance, and social embeddedness also predicts performance. Social embeddedness, however, weakens the patronage–performance relationship. The model explains 56.3% of the variance in performance. The findings demonstrate that informal institutions do not simply corrupt merit; they substitute for one another in enabling performance. Public managers should channel embedded relational capital into formal performance systems rather than rely on patronage-based coordination.

Keywords

Civil Servant Performance Informal Institutions Local Culture Patronage Networks Social Embeddedness
Idrus, N., & Adawiah, A. (2026). When Informal Institutions Perform: Patronage, Local Culture, and Civil Servant Performance in Indonesia. Jurnal Minds: Manajemen Ide Dan Inspirasi, 13(3), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.24252/minds.v13i3.64431
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Barbalet, J. (2023). Conceptualising informal institutions: Drawing on the case of guanxi. The British Journal of Sociology, 74(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12984
  2. Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A., & Schuberth, F. (2020). How to perform and report an impactful analysis using partial least squares: Guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory IS research. Information & Management, 57(2), Article 103168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.05.003
  3. Berenschot, W. (2018). Incumbent bureaucrats: Why elections undermine civil service reform in Indonesia. Public Administration and Development, 38(4), 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1838
  4. Brennecke, J., & Stoemmer, N. (2018). The network–performance relationship in knowledge-intensive contexts—A meta-analysis and cross-level comparison. Human Resource Management, 57(1), 11–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21823
  5. Colonnelli, E., Prem, M., & Teso, E. (2020). Patronage and selection in public sector organizations. American Economic Review, 110(10), 3071–3099. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181491
  6. Feng, B., Lu, B., Wang, Z., & Yu, D. (2025). Patronage networks and multitasking incentives: Evidence from local officials’ responses to public crises in China’s centralized bureaucracy. World Development, 190, Article 106953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2025.106953
  7. Fenizia, A. (2022). Managers and productivity in the public sector. Econometrica, 90(3), 1063–1084. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta19244
  8. Franke, G., & Sarstedt, M. (2019). Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: A comparison of four procedures. Internet Research, 29(3), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/intr-12-2017-0515
  9. Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
  10. Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
  11. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203
  12. Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., Kinicki, A. J., Choi, D., & Karam, E. P. (2019). A meta-analytic test of organizational culture’s association with elements of an organization’s system and its relative predictive validity on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(6), 832–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000380
  13. Hu, Q., Medina, A., Siciliano, M. D., & Wang, W. (2023). Network structures and network effects across management and policy contexts: A systematic review. Public Administration, 101(3), 953–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12835
  14. Jiang, J. (2018). Making bureaucracy work: Patronage networks, performance incentives, and economic development in China. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 982–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12394
  15. Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2020). Common method bias in applied settings: The dilemma of researching in organizations. Australian Journal of Management, 45(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219871976
  16. Kaufmann, W., Hooghiemstra, R., & Feeney, M. K. (2018). Formal institutions, informal institutions, and red tape: A comparative study. Public Administration, 96(2), 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12397
  17. Kock, N., & Hadaya, P. (2018). Minimum sample size estimation in PLS-SEM: The inverse square root and gamma-exponential methods. Information Systems Journal, 28(1), 227–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12131
  18. Kuipers, N. (2026). Bureaucratic selection and Weberian values: Lab-in-the-field evidence from Indonesia. The Journal of Politics, 88(1), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1086/734258
  19. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2018). Civil service management and corruption: What we know and what we don’t. Public Administration, 96(2), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12404
  20. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2019). The causal effect of public service motivation on ethical behavior in the public sector: Evidence from a large-scale survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muy071
  21. Meyer-Sahling, J.-H., Mikkelsen, K. S., & Schuster, C. (2021). Merit recruitment, tenure protections and public service motivation: Evidence from a conjoint experiment with 7,300 public servants in Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe. Public Administration, 99(4), 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12708
  22. Oliveros, V., & Schuster, C. (2018). Merit, tenure, and bureaucratic behavior: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies, 51(6), 759–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414017710268
  23. Pepinsky, T. B., Pierskalla, J. H., & Sacks, A. (2017). Bureaucracy and service delivery. Annual Review of Political Science, 20(1), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022705
  24. Podsakoff, P. M., Podsakoff, N. P., Williams, L. J., Huang, C., & Yang, J. (2024). Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 17–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030
  25. Rasul, I., & Rogger, D. (2018). Management of bureaucrats and public service delivery: Evidence from the Nigerian civil service. The Economic Journal, 128(608), 413–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12418
  26. Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
  27. Schleicher, D. J., Baumann, H. M., Sullivan, D. W., Levy, P. E., Hargrove, D. C., & Barros-Rivera, B. A. (2018). Putting the system into performance management systems: A review and agenda for performance management research. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2209–2245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318755303
  28. Schuster, C. (2017). Legal reform need not come first: Merit-based civil service management in law and practice. Public Administration, 95(3), 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12334
  29. Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing, 53(11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejm-02-2019-0189
  30. Suebvises, P. (2018). Social capital, citizen participation in public administration, and public sector performance in Thailand. World Development, 109, 236–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.007
Read More

Author Biographies

Nurmal Idrus, Universitas Lamappapoleonro

Department of Master of Management

Andi Adawiah, Universitas Lamappapoleonro

Department of Master of Management

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 0 Download : 0

Similar Articles

<< < > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.