The governance of village-owned enterprises (BUMKp) in Indonesia often encounters challenges of patronage, weak institutional capacity, and cultural disconnect. This study introduces the Neo-Institutional Sitilik Governance Model, derived from the indigenous principles of Sidik–Tilik–Bidik (Sitilik), which reframe recruitment not merely as a human resource mechanism but as a governance filter. Drawing on neo-institutional theory, Sitilik operationalizes three institutional pressures—coercive (state regulation), normative (adat and religious legitimacy), and mimetic (community replication)—to produce competent, legitimate, and trusted BUMKp staff. The research employed a mixed-method design. Quantitative data were obtained from 120 household surveys across 12 villages in Gayo Lues, capturing socioeconomic profiles and perceptions of BUMKp. Qualitative insights were generated through in-depth interviews, focus group discussions with adat leaders, and policy document analysis. Data triangulation enabled the construction and empirical validation of Sitilik as a governance model. Results show that applying Sitilik reduced nepotistic recruitment and enhanced alignment between local enterprises and village economic potential. Statistical evidence revealed that villages implementing Sitilik had significantly higher enterprise transparency and financial accountability scores. Qualitative findings further demonstrated how cultural and religious norms reinforced legitimacy and trust in BUMKp leadership. This study contributes a novel theoretical and practical framework: Sitilik as a neo-institutional village governance model. It expands institutional theory by illustrating how coercive, normative, and mimetic isomorphism adapt to micro-level village governance. Policy implications include integrating Sitilik into local regulations, scaling its use across Indonesian villages, and embedding cultural legitimacy into rural economic governance.
Mayasari et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: