The findings are relevant to village governments across Indonesia because successful development is not determined only by the availability of funds. How village leaders communicate, involve residents, coordinate officials, and monitor projects can influence whether development programs respond effectively to community needs.
Siku Village has considerable potential in agriculture and trade. During Abdul Karim’s 2022–2025 term, the village government implemented a range of development programs while prioritizing community needs. The researchers focused particularly on physical development during this period to examine how the village head’s leadership contributed to implementation.
The study places this local case within Indonesia’s broader village-development framework. Under Law Number 6 of 2014 on Villages, village heads have responsibilities covering village administration, development, community development, and empowerment. Development planning is expected to involve residents through deliberative forums such as the Village Development Planning Deliberation, or Musrenbangdes.
Four Leadership Styles Examined
The researchers used Robert House’s Path–Goal Theory to examine four leadership dimensions: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented leadership. In simple terms, the framework looks at how a leader gives direction, supports people, involves them in decisions, and encourages them to achieve development targets.
The research used a descriptive qualitative approach. Information was gathered through interviews, observations, and documentation. Six people were selected as informants: the village head, village secretary, a hamlet head, members of the Village Consultative Body (BPD), and two community leaders. The researchers then compared and interpreted the information collected from these sources.
The results show that three leadership styles were already functioning relatively well, while one requires substantial improvement.
Supportive leadership stands out
The village head demonstrated supportive leadership through direct communication with village officials and residents, participation in community activities, visits to residents, and communication through both face-to-face interaction and social media.
The leadership approach was also reflected in attention to infrastructure needs, including suspension bridges, agricultural roads, and other public facilities. The researchers found that this direct engagement helped strengthen relationships between the village government and the community.
Community participation is built through deliberation
Participative leadership was mainly visible through Musrenbang and other deliberative stages, beginning with hamlet-level discussions and continuing through village deliberations.
Residents and village officials have opportunities to express their aspirations and influence development priorities. However, the researchers noted that community participation outside formal deliberation forums is still limited. Once decisions have been agreed upon in Musrenbang, opportunities to modify them can also be restricted.
Direction exists, but procedures need strengthening
The village head provides general directions based on development plans, while village officials handle many technical responsibilities. Development activities can continue because officials understand their respective roles, but the researchers found that instructions are not always delivered in a detailed and structured manner.
Another concern is the absence of formal written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Work standards are largely communicated verbally, with safety emphasized by village leadership. Supervision also relies heavily on reports, photographs, and information from field officials rather than routine direct monitoring by the village head.
The study therefore suggests that stronger communication, written procedures, and more systematic supervision could improve the effectiveness of village development.
Achievement-oriented leadership is the weakest area
The most significant gap identified by the researchers concerns achievement-oriented leadership.
Development activities generally have completion schedules, but the village head has not established specific development targets directly. Motivation for officials also does not yet include a structured reward system. Appreciation is mostly expressed through verbal thanks or recognition after tasks are completed.
As a result, officials are motivated largely by their own responsibilities rather than by a formal system designed to encourage higher performance.
The researchers conclude that directive, supportive, and participative leadership have been implemented effectively enough to support development, while achievement-oriented leadership remains less developed because specific targets and reward mechanisms are lacking.
Communication and Village Funding Become Key Strengths
The study’s SWOT analysis identifies several factors supporting development in Siku Village.
Effective communication, open leadership, community involvement, the role of the BPD, and adequate village funding were identified as important strengths. The BPD contributes through supervision and deliberation, while open communication can strengthen community trust and participation.
Siku Village also has development opportunities through government assistance, cooperation with external parties, agriculture, natural tourism, and local products. Training programs from government and other institutions could further strengthen the capabilities of village officials and residents.
The challenges, however, are substantial. The technical capacity of village officials is uneven, coordination is not yet optimal, community participation in deliberations remains limited, and several infrastructure needs have not been fully addressed.
Flooding is another major concern. Because Siku Village is located near a river stream, heavy rainfall can cause flooding that disrupts development activities and damage infrastructure. Differences in residents’ perspectives and interests can also complicate development if they are not managed through communication and deliberation.
What the Findings Mean for Village Development
For village governments, the study offers a practical message: leadership needs to combine clear direction with community participation and measurable development goals.
The researchers recommend that the Siku Village government strengthen achievement-oriented leadership by establishing clear targets and providing appreciation to village officials and residents. They also recommend improving the technical capacity of village officials, strengthening coordination, and expanding disaster-mitigation efforts.
These recommendations could be particularly relevant for villages managing infrastructure, agricultural development, tourism, and local economic programs. Clear targets can make progress easier to monitor, while stronger technical capacity can help officials translate development plans into effective implementation.
However, the researchers caution that the findings should not automatically be generalized to every village in Indonesia. The study was conducted in only one village and focused specifically on leadership through the Path–Goal framework. Future research involving several villages and broader perspectives could provide a more comprehensive picture of how leadership affects village development.
Author Profile
Nopriawan Mahriadi, Lisdiana, Arif Rahman Hakim, Femi Asteriniah, Aidil Frawiro, and Ory Kurniawan are the authors of the study. They are affiliated with Candradimuka College of Social and Political Sciences (STISIPOL). Aidil Frawiro is listed as the corresponding author. The article examines village leadership, governance, community participation, and development, with a particular focus on leadership styles based on Robert House’s Path–Goal Theory.
0 Komentar