PHENOMENON COLLABORATIVE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITIONAL VILLAGE KAYU BATU

This research aimed to examine the relationship between collaborative management, leadership, and customary authority by Ondoafi in their strategic decision-making process as traditional leaders and government figures. Information analysis was then conducted descriptively with an ethnographic basis and normative analysis, using representative leaders from the government, traditions, youth, women, and religion, as participants. The results showed that collaborative management and leadership have not been examined efficiently because informal leaders/Ondoafi also act as formal government figures in the village government system.


INTRODUCTION
The generation of village leaders does not understand the rural development approach that relies on the trickling down effect due to poor human resources.Consequently, the rural development programs do not focus on the community's problems, potential, and needs.
Indonesian constitutional mandate of "social justice for all " is the Governments basis to reorganize the village by improving the economic justice value chain.This can be achieved through village financial assistance policy strategy and giving the village head the responsibility to prepare, plan, and budget according to the respective needs.
A 2015 to 2019 report showed that 260 trillion funds flowed to 74,957 villages.The goal was to reduce poverty and the gap between cities and villages.In general, the governance of village funds is affected by corruption, which increases annually.For instance, the Indonesia Corruption Watch reported that 141 village heads were suspects until the 2018 first quarter with 40.6 billion state losses.
Case findings from 2015 to the first quarter of 2018 showed an annual increase in corruption in village funds.Specifically, there were 181 cases and 184 corruption suspects with 17, 41, and 96 cases in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively.Additionally, there were 27 cases for the first quarter of 2018, making the village budget the object of corruption.The village heads are mostly involved in corruption, especially during the planning and disbursement of funds.The corruption is attributed to a lack of competent village officials, transparency, government and community supervision, and superiors ignoring the plans.
The Village Fund Task Force collected 932 complaint allegations of state administration violations since 2016, with 200 cases submitted to the corruption eradication commission, 167 to the police, and the rest were administrative errors.However, only 67 cases went to court with 1,371 village fund violation complaints by April 2018.
There were 14,291 village funds complaints received through the Village Fund Task Force from 2015 to the end of 2018.Some complaints were incomplete and clear, leading to processing of only 5,067.The action was carried out by letter writing, visiting the village of incidence, telephone, and SMS (Short Message Service).However, several monitoring efforts have been taken, including the formation of the Village Fund Task Force, the saber extortion team (cooperation with the police, prosecutors, Ombudsman, and the Corruption Eradication Commission).Additionally, there is a complaint handling unit through the SMS center and call center 1500040, social media, and increasing the role of village assistants in funds supervision.
According to the village financial management issue published by online media, village finance included limited budget, low responsibility, and lack of empowerment support.The report also highlighted other problems, including regulatory limitations, technical implementation incentives, and limited human resources and personnel.
Adisasmita R (2005) stated that there are three neglected essential aspects in the implementation and institutionalization of the rural development concept.First, the community receives less attention from most development programs.Secondly, the social values and cultural environment might be incompatible with the implemented development programs.Third, the social and cultural life, which solely emphasizes the physical and economic aspects of physical ecology might be negatively affected by most development programs.Wiwik & Santoso (2018) examined the village financial management highlighting the human resources competence, community participation, organizational commitment, and stakeholder trust.The results showed that the four variables studied had a positive relationship with trust stakeholders.Amalia Diamantina (2017) affirmed that village financial allocations only focus on management, distribution, and redemption.The village did not fulfill the three variables due to lack of preparation, which can be addressed by harmonizing laws, improving coordination, accelerating compliance, and increasing the village officials' capacity.
Zhang, Jia-Wei, Wang & Guang-ming (2017) highlighted the following in writing village financial management, New Rural Construction, Village-level Financial Management Model, Accountant Appointment System.Generally, this study only examined how the three variables formed a village financial management model.Nurhakim, Irman;Yudianto, and Ivan (2018) testified that the village financial management involves financing, planning, administration, reporting, and accountability.The implementation of fund management involved planning, administration, reporting, and accountability of the three villages and followed the Village Financial Management Regulation (Minister of Home Affairs Regulation, 2014).

RESEARCH METHODS
The research framework recommended analytical procedures and interpretations (B.Miles & A. Michael Hubermen, 1992).This approach was combined with an ethnographic due to the nature of the problem and conducted in two stages.The first stage analyzed the internal control, examined the process and the "current state" environment of village financial management, and identified several descriptively relevant key factors.The second stage was exploration because the social interaction process between actors and their impact on important aspects in studying village financial management supervision was difficult.
The process of data analysis was divided into two, specifically before and during the fieldwork.The analysis used the Miles and Hubermen model, which suggests that qualitative data analysis activities are carried out interactively and continue continuously until it is completely saturated.The process involved data reduction, display, and conclusion drawing/verification (Sugiyono, 2015), using exploratory research that usually aim to understand real-life situations.Therefore, the proposition was formulated and tested through Mc's theory.This model helped identify common main and supporting activities in various village financial management activities.

Village
This study shows that implementing the management function in an organization at the village level was either appropriate or still limited to the conversations of village government leaders.The government administration system view was divided into formal and informal structures expected to be integrated based on the village's lowest parts and customary government classes.Other records also show that the Jayapura people have a progressive and conservative culture.This is characterized by a warm, dark history, revenge, and mutual suspicion, showing each other's ability and high war strategy to fulfill a certain goal that ends with peace.These two principles are topographically balanced in the thoughts of the Jayapura people.Therefore, ondofolo's assistance is a restoration of the life principle to the environment to maintain this balance.The history of the Jayapura people indicates that the success of development lies only in policies adapted to reciprocity using progressive elements.
Research on traditional villages shows a much deeper phenomenon compared to the opinion of future Parasuraman's.The opinion previously revealed rural development problems that highlight the participation of development actors, including service providers, recipients, and the social environment.These actors participate in making decisions, formulating plans, implementing activities, and monitoring implementation to realize community welfare.Moreover, party-party around the local culture and derivatives contributed to the decision-making process that makes the village government travel clash with the value of life in the local community.This clash cannot be resolved because there are wearing formal legal fees for social participation in the customary process of local communities.
Opinions of Wilson Olua (2010) are useful as a temporary reference to explain that the village government has not optimally considered the management mechanism in line with its function.Local communities are more focused on placing ondoafi authority consistent with their values.According to Olua, these values are falling apart, implying gray existence in the current village government system.
In line with Wilson Olua (2010), concerns are seen from the advice given to the City Government through the village and District Heads of Government.Also, advice was given by the parties required to optimally establish two-way communication with the village government.The City Government was required to accommodate the positive values in customs and apply them in a formal government.This expression supports an old paper that stated ondoafi power source is a trickle of figures scrub to obtain decent endorsement and broad authority (Mansoben, 1995).It is further stated that a leader's position is inherited based on seniority.Power is exercised by implementing an agency with a clear division of tasks.Moreover, the source of power is based on heredity and religion, while power is manifested in the assignment of land, water, and people's sources of life.Community leaders double as heads of religious ceremonies.
With a functional approach related to the community's social life, Garna, H. Judistira K., (1996) stated that the community is integrating their norms and values.Normative integration is considered necessary because the realization of norm harmony is related to various human behaviors in different situations.Additionally, integration is essential in realizing high compliance between norms and the citizens' actual behavior.Therefore, agreement or consensus on values is the principle of social integration in society for the functional approach.
Garna, H. Judistira K. (1996) stated that two points indicate various agreements in establishing the rules governing common life that must be obeyed by the community.The description implies indicators of the objective dimension influencing the community.They include ensuring the preservation of nature and existing ecosystems and forming a disciplined and hard-working attitude and behavior.Other indicators include achieving a just and prosperous society and creating a safe, peaceful, and harmonious atmosphere.

Collaborative Leadership in the Leadership of the Kayu Batu Traditional Village
An illustration of the Ondoafi cultural development capital was used to examine and understand the socio-cultural potential in developing a cultural-based village.This model is an alternative to reconstructing the Tanah Tabi people in Jayapura City that are part of the Mamta land customary landowners.They have the same characteristics in the Ondoafi political leadership system.Kouzes and Posner (2007) stated that collaborative leadership is not a solo act but a team effort.Furthermore, leadership is not an activity carried out alone but is a group effort.This opinion means that the leadership carried out has been participatory, involving various parties.
The passage of time coincided with the structuring of government caused by the leakage of village financial management.However, poverty growth increased annually, exacerbated by the friction of the parties' interests in decision-making.This made participatory leadership policymakers not provide many changes in implementing village programs or activities.
Soetrisno, Loekman (1995) stated that participation in Indonesia is still developing and has not become a philosophy or approach to development.This shows that community participation in development is only a mobilization.Therefore, it is necessary to create conditions that support participation for the community to take part in development consciously and voluntarily.
Concerning participatory leadership, Bintoro, Tjokroamidjojo (1995) stated that the factors influencing participation include leadership issues, communication, and education.This shows that formal and informal leadership influence community participation in development.
Therefore, Gandolfi leadership positively influences community participation in development in the Mamta area in general and Tabi land in particular.
Wilson Olua (2010) emphasized regeneration and solving leadership problems in the Hebaeibulu Yoka Indigenous Government structure.This would improve the people's welfare through the existence of this institution.Therefore, further research on customary government is needed to increase knowledge of easy regeneration.This is because the degradation of local cultural wisdom is increasingly visible in all aspects of life.One such aspect is declined interest in learning the customs that become the identity of a people or ethnic group.Musa Yan Yowe (2011) highlighted the leadership system of the Mamta land people, as ween from the three furnace leadership model.This model examines the elements of government, adat, and religion as a participatory leadership, the ideal form of village government for the people of Jayapura that use the ondoafi system.
In managing the village government, Musa Yan Yowe (2011) stated that each element has different functions and roles needed by the community.The government is tasked with regulating the administration and village development to run according to the applicable rules.In contrast, the traditional element maintains the cultural values that develop in the community village.Furthermore, the religious element provides an understanding of spirituality for the village community.
Nur Aedah (2017) stated that the Informal Leadership in Waena Village is the Tribal Chief (Ondoafi), Religious Leader (Priest), and Youth Leader.The role of Informal Leadership highly depends on the position of each leadership in Waena Village.In contrast, Ondoafi plays the role of a traditional leader, pastors are religious leaders, while the youth have their leaders.
In the village government system, ondoafi is an informal leader serving as the head of the National Security Council.Therefore, ondoafi serves as the head of informal leadership and the National Security Council.Informal and formal leadership do not interfere but respect each other by prioritizing community interests in implementing village government.
An illustration of the cultural development capital of ondoafi's was used to understand the socio-cultural potential in developing a cultural-based village.This model is an alternative to reconstructing the Tanah Tabi people in Jayapura City that are part of the Mamta land Customary Landowners.The people share the same characteristics in the political leadership system.Mansoben JR's (1995)'s old writings regarding the source of ondoafi's power explained that the Jayapura consider themselves descendants of ancestral figures created supernaturally.Moreover, ondoafi's source of power is validated through descent, and the authority to control the land, forest, and water are under their jurisdiction.
This opinion shows that the source of ondoafi's power is a drop from a character approved by descendants and has broad authority.Concerning ondoafi's leadership, it was further explained that:

"…leadership is inherited based on seniority, and power is exercised by an implementing agency with a clear division of tasks. The source of power is based on heredity and religion, while power is manifested in the assignment of land, water, and people's sources of life, where community leaders double as heads of religious ceremonies.
This explanation means that an ondoafi has a broad authority that covers all aspects of life in the village, including religion, economy, social welfare, and justice.Mansoben JR (1995) stated the requirements to become an ondoafi leader.First, a person must come from the descendants of the mythical ancestors of the village founders.Second, they must have a broad and deep knowledge of the customs of the local community.Although an ondoafi must have an honest and polite attitude, they have always been a role model for village residents.
Third, an ondoafi leader must have a protective attitude.Fourth, they must be good at organizing to coordinating various activities carried out by their assistants.This opinion shows that to become an Ondoafi, one also needs leadership qualities besides coming from the previous Ondoafi descendants.
Ondoafi is an informal leader but applies modern organizational principles, complemented by bureaucracy.This is broadly seen from an ondoafi's organizational structure with a clear division of tasks.Ondoafi's leadership structure is divided into the small clan, village (yo), and confederation levels.Studies on traditional villages show a much deeper phenomenon compared to Future Parasuraman's opinion.The opinion previously revealed about the problem of the political leadership system.In this case, the formal and informal leadership in the government system have not revealed much about the other side of the leadership.
The increasing government focus as seen in the general provisions of the Village Law Article 1 point 9 emphasizes that Village Community Empowerment aims to develop community independence and welfare.This is achieved by increasing knowledge, attitudes, skills, behavior, abilities, awareness, and utilizing resources.It requires determining policies, programs, activities, and assistance in line with the problem and priority needs of the Village community.
When implementing the Village Law, many community-level problems directly related to village fund management are inseparable from corruption, which increases yearly.According to Indonesia Corruption Watch, 141 village heads became corruption suspects until the first semester of 2018, resulting in state losses of 40.6 billion.Furthermore, a report published in 2015 until the first semester of 2018 showed that corruption cases in village funds increased yearly.There were 181 cases of corruption in village funds, with 184 suspects.These included 17 cases in 2015, 41 cases in 2016, and more than 96 cases in 2017.
In the first semester of 2018, there were 27 cases, making the village budget the object of corruption mostly perpetrated by village heads in planning and disbursement.The causes of corruption were the lack of competent village officials, transparency, and government and community supervision.Another cause was that the intervention of superiors in conducting physical activities was contradictory to planning.
Irregularities in village finances show that the weak village leadership caused problems in managing finances.Another problem that contributed greatly to the weak participatory monitoring process is the democratic elections that make the majority clan become village heads for generations.Bhattacharyya J (1972) old writings described participation as taking part in a joint activity.Furthermore, Mubyarto (1984) defined participation as the willingness to help the success of a program according to each person's ability without sacrificing one's interests.Bhattacharyya J (1972) andMubyarto (1984) stated that development achieves optimal results through community participation.This means that community participation is a crucial element that must exist in the development process.Therefore, the community acts as the object and subject of development, fostering its independence.Soetrisno, Loekman (1995) stated that participation in Indonesia is still developing and has not become a philosophy or approach to development.This shows that community participation in development is only a mere mobilization.Therefore, it is necessary to create conditions that support participation for the community to take part in the development process consciously and voluntarily.The journey of village leadership using three elements has not provided meaningful input on village development.This is because it has not been implemented fully to incorporate formal and informal leadership in the village strategic decision-making process.

CONCLUSION
Field problem diagnosis revealed that management is quite good.The parties have been sensitive to management and reality around them, even the control function has been effective, with government figures in Jayapura City, Indonesia.Furthermore, development has been consistent with the first point of management functions.For instance, there is shortand long-term planning of village formal leadership to ensure financial usage adheres to regulations.Programs and activities are planned by government figures in decision-making based on limited human resources.
In implementing village development, local communities sometimes participate only because of their emotional closeness with government figures.Also, they participate as the dominant clan in the village area without income earned.Although this seems reasonable, it is worrying because the government has failed in providing education or knowledge transfer.This is because there must be a learning process by the local community of Jayapura Indonesia in every activity.
Problem diagnosis shows that community participation is quite well but not optimal.This is because the traditional informal leadership has not positively influenced the community.As a result, the community does not consider themselves as contributing to the village's progress.The donations could be monetary or non-monetary given for the development of the traditional village of the Jayapura Indonesian community.
Collaboration between formal and informal leadership has not distributed authority and responsibility in village development.This makes the dualism of roles and functions of a traditional leader in supervising the development process a bigger function.It is a government figure as seen from the centralization of individual property control, making collaborative leadership not optimal.This is because minority residents remain silent in the strategic decision-making process of the indigenous people of Jayapura, Indonesia.Furthermore, public supervision or government evaluation of development is still low.Many people are ignorant of the government report and only know that it is the development outcome.
The village institutional system has an organizational structure led by a village head, supported by a secretary, and assisted by several heads of government, such as Development, People's Welfare, and General Affairs.According to the government figures, the community is actively involved as the smallest administrative area of the Association Neighborhood in the decision-making process of village development strategies by deliberation or consensus.The current village government system involves both informal and formal leaders, resulting in a dual role play.The role of a traditional leader is based on life values passed in local communities for generations.The traditional leader's role is guided by set Government regulations in the Village Law.This means that The Village Consultative Assembly or other designations represent an institution domiciled in a village-like Papua.The provisions of Article 1 define traditional villages as legal community units with authorized territorial boundaries to regulate and manage government affairs, local community interests initiatives, rights origin, or traditional rights, which are recognized and respected in Indonesia's governance system.The second point in Article 1 shows that village administration is the implementation of government affairs and public interests in Indonesia's governance system.As part of the village apparatus, an ondoafi represents the organizational structure with a formal position in the current village government system.Therefore, an illustration of the ondoafi cultural development model is used to examine and understand the socio-cultural potential.This model is an alternative to the reconstruction of the land Tabi people in Jayapura City.The people are part of the Mamta land Customary Landowners with the same characteristics in the political leadership system.The impact of the success and failure of the development during the four decades of Dutch and Indonesian occupation in Mamta Land was quite difficult for the lives of the Jayapura people.According to Van der Schoot, the pacification development model results are generally not positive.The writing of Parasuraman, a student of anthropology and social culture shows that the passive attitude of the Jayapura against the Netherlands and Indonesia implies only following orders.In 1963, Father Coenen saw the development of the "progressivity" (ondofolo) model as relevant based on individual, group, socio-economic and non-economic cultural principles.
Moeljarto T (1987) explained the climate and conditions that the development strategy is directed at the poor, and a suitable leadership structure exists.Other conditions are the formation of rural-based cooperative groups, and Non-Government Organizations should play a supportive role.Nur Aedah (2017) stated that the Informal Leadership in Waena Village is the Tribal Chief (ondoafi), Religious Leaders, and Youth Leaders.The role of Informal Leadership highly depends on the position of each leadership in Waena Village.In contrast, ondoafi is a traditional leader, pastors are religious leaders, while the youth have their leaders.This study only divides informal leadership into the village head, Religious Leaders, and Youth Leaders, with their respective functions and duties as described article 1 point 2 of the Village.The article explains that Village Administration is the administration of government affairs and the local community interests in the government system of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.