Mechanistic and Organic Tensions in Government Digital Transformation: Managing Cascading Paradoxes
Main Article Content
Government digital transformation faces ongoing challenges because it must balance rigid organizational systems focused on efficiency and control with flexible systems that support innovation. This research develops a conceptual framework to analyze these fundamental tensions within Indonesia's multi-ministerial digital government programs. The study employs a conceptual theory-development approach, combining philosophical evaluation with a review of organizational theory, paradox theory, public administration, and cultural studies, illustrated through the case of Indonesia's Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs (Komdigi) transformation. The research establishes a paradox framework encompassing five fundamental tensions: control versus autonomy, efficiency versus adaptability, accountability versus experimentation, standardization versus customization, and short-term versus long-term perspectives. The findings demonstrate how organizational contradictions cascade across multiple levels—from individuals to inter-ministerial coordination—with tensions becoming more complex at inter-ministerial levels due to differing structures, goals, and coordination mechanisms. The distribution of authority leads to decision-making fragmentation, temporal misalignment occurs when different teams operate at different times, and lack of clear attribution between ministries prevents collaborative experimentation. Indonesian cultural aspects, including high power distance, collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and face-saving norms (jaga muka), determine how these contradictions appear and are managed, with local practices such as gotong royong offering culturally appropriate management mechanisms. The framework advances paradox theory by extending it to inter-organizational government settings where conventional resolution mechanisms fall short, while providing practical diagnostic tools for public-sector leaders to address tensions in complex bureaucratic environments undergoing digital transformation.
Bertalanffy, L. von. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann.
Bygstad, B., & Øvrelid, E. (2020). Architectural alignment of process innovation and digital infrastructure in a high-tech hospital. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 220–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1728201
Dzhengiz, T. (2020). A literature review of inter organizational sustainability learning.
Sustainability, 12(12), 4876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124876
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. Wiley.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. Pitman.
Hestad, D., Tàbara, J. D., & Thornton, T. F. (2021). The three logics of sustainability oriented hybrid organisations, a multi disciplinary review. Sustainability Science, 16(3), 647–661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00883-x
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280.
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280.
Jimenez, D., Franco, I. B., & Smith, T. (2021). A review of corporate purpose, an approach to actioning the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 13(7), 3899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073899
Kantabutra, S. (2022). Toward a system theory of corporate sustainability, an interim struggle. Sustainability, 14(23), 15931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315931
Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital Republik Indonesia. (2025). Peraturan Menteri Komunikasi dan Digital Nomor 1 Tahun 2025 tentang Organisasi dan Tata Kerja Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital. Berita Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 2025 Nomor 17. JDIH Komdigi.
Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y.-H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public-private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67-79.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Magnusson, J., Koutsikouri, D., & Päivärinta, T. (2020). Enacting ambidextrous IT governance in the public sector: Efficiency creep and shadow innovation. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2020.1740617
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall.
Miron-Spektor, E., Ingram, A., Keller, J., Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how individuals think about competing demands. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0244
Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization (Updated ed.). Sage Publications.
OECD. (2017). Digital government review of Mexico: Towards the digital transformation of the public sector. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en
OECD. (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Presidential Regulation 82/2023. Peraturan Presiden Nomor 82 Tahun 2023 tentang
Badan Penyelenggara Teknologi Pemerintahan. Republik Indonesia.
Presidential Regulation 95/2018. Peraturan Presiden Nomor 95 Tahun 2018 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik. Republik Indonesia.
Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058
Republik Indonesia. (2019). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 39 Tahun 2019 tentang Sistem Pemerintahan Berbasis Elektronik.
Republik Indonesia. (2024). Peraturan Presiden Nomor 174 Tahun 2024 tentang Kementerian Komunikasi dan Digital. Sekretariat Negara.
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S., & Smith, W. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Revised ed.). Doubleday.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Stein, V., Wiedemann, A., & Bouten, C. (2019). Framing risk governance. Management Research Review, 42(11), 1224–1242. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-01-2019-0042
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. Harper & Brothers.
van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public organizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1050796
van Vulpen, P., & Jansen, S. (2025). Dissected, tamed, or unchallenged, towards a research agenda for digital platform decentralization in information systems. SSRN Working Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5160239
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization (A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons, Trans.). Free Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
Weiser, A. K., & Laamanen, T. (2022). Extending the dynamic equilibrium model of paradox, unveiling dissipative dynamics in organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090317
Zheng, S., & Chen, X. (2025). Informatization, digitalization, and intellectualization, which integration mode will determine the development of strategic emerging industries. SAGE Open, 15(2), Article 21582440251346362. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440251346362
