Advertisement

Organisations and Resilience: What Relevance for the Eastern Partnership?

  • Gilles RouetEmail author
  • Thierry Côme
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides a unique perspective on the concept of resilience of organisations in the Eastern Partnership (EaP), by paying specific attention to the impact that the variety of political and societal changes induced by the European integration process and partnership with the European Union (EU) has on them. Moreover, the current chapter offers a critical approach focusing on the main actors and stakeholders within EaP countries who have to implement, politically, the Europeanisation “project” and being, at the same time, part of more or less complex organisations. Considering the complexity and multidimensional nature of Europeanisation, apart from those specific political projects of organisations (i.e. associations, companies, administrations), issues of identity are also central for our perspective. Furthermore, in analysing the resilience of organisations, the chapter will pay specific attention to the progress of administrative institutions in the framework of democratic developments within the EaP countries. Overall, research centred on organisations in the framework of European integration and EU partnerships represents a useful approach for the current book, especially from a conceptual standpoint.

Keywords

Organisational resilience European integration Organisations Stakeholders 

References

  1. Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational Identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (pp. 263–295). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. J. (1974). Choix collectifs et préférences individuelles. Paris: Calmann-Levy.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1984). La nature et la pensée. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  4. Bendiek, A. (2017). A Paradigm Shift in the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy: From Trans-Formation to Resilience. SWP Research Paper. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik German Institute for International and Security Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/54521/ssoar-2017-bendiek-A_paradigm_shift_in_the.pdf?sequence=1.
  5. Biscop, S. (2017). A Strategy for Europe’s Neighbourhood: Keep Resilient and Carry on? Elcano Royal Institute. Retrieved from http://www.egmontinstitute.be/content/uploads/2017/01/ARI4-2017-Biscop-Strategy-Europe-neighbourhood.pdf.
  6. Blockmans, S. (2017). The Obsolescence of the European Neighbourhood Policy. Report 4. Stockholm: Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Bolzinger, A. (1982). Le concept clinique de crise. Bulletin de psychologie, 34(355), 475–480.Google Scholar
  8. Centre Risques et Performance. (2009). Résilience organisationnelle. Concepts et méthodologie d’évaluation. Québec: Presses internationales Polytechnique.Google Scholar
  9. Chevallier, J. Y. (1999). Le “Retour en Europe”… mais dans quelle Europe? In F. Fejto & J. Rupnik (Eds.), Le Printemps tchécoslovaque, 1968 (pp. 334–338). Paris: Éditions Complexe.Google Scholar
  10. Côme, T., & Rouet, G. (2015). Les innovations managériales. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  11. Cowen, E., Wyman, P., & Work, W. (1996). Resilience in High Stressed Urban Children: Concepts and Findings. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. Winter.Google Scholar
  12. Cyrulnik, B. (2001). Les vilains petits canards. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  13. Cyrulnik, B. (2002). Un merveilleux malheur. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  14. European Council. (2017). Joint Communication to the European Council and European Parliament “A Strategic Approach to Resilience in the EU’s External Action”. Retrieved from https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/27711/strategic-approach-resilience-eus-external-action_en.
  15. Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The Theory and Practice of Resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, C. A., & Tarrant, M. (2010). A ‘Conceptual Models’ Approach to Organizational Resilience. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 25(2), 6–12.Google Scholar
  18. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Redesign. Boston: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, C. F. (1963). Some Consequences of Crisis Which Limit the Viability of Organizations. Administrative Science Quaterly, 8(1), 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jeanneney, J. N. (2001). La « fin de l’histoire » faribole ou forfanterie? Vingtième Siècle. Revue d’histoire, 69(1), 95–104.Google Scholar
  21. Koninckx, G., & Teneau, G. (2010). Résilience Organisationnelle. Bruxelles: De Boeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koupernik, E. J., & Anthony, C. (1970). L’enfant dans la famille. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  23. Lagadec, P., & Guilhou, X. (2002). Les conditions de survenue des crises graves. In R. Almaberti, R. Fuchs, & C. Gilbert (Eds.), Conditions et mécanismes de production des défaillances, accidents et crises (Actes de la seconde séance du Séminaire: Le risque de défaillance et son contrôle par les individus et les organisations dans les activités à hauts risques) (pp. 157–210). Paris: CNRS-Ministère de la Recherche. Publications de la MSH-Alpes.Google Scholar
  24. Le Moigne, J. L. (1994). La théorie du système général. Théorie de la modélisation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
  25. Manciaux, M., Vanistendael, R., Lecomte, M., & Cyrulnik, B. (2001). La résilience aujourd’hui. In M. Manciaux (Ed.), La résilience; résister et se construire. Genève: Éditions Médecine et Hygiène, Collection Cahiers médicaux-sociaux.Google Scholar
  26. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The Development of Competence in Favorable and Unfavorable Environments, Lessons from Research on Successful Children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal Accidents: Living with Risk Technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Peyrefitte, A. (1995). La société de confiance, essai sur les origines du développement. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  29. Robert, B., Hémond, Y., & Yan, G. (2010). L’évaluation de la résilience organisationnelle. Télescope, 16(2), 131–153.Google Scholar
  30. Schumacher, T. (2015). Uncertainty at the EU’s Borders: Narratives of EU External Relations in the Revised European Neighbourhood Policy Towards the Southern Borderlands. European Security, 24(3), 381–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen, A. (1982). Rights and Agency. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 11(1), 3–39.Google Scholar
  32. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten Revisited: Strengthening the Concept of Organizational Identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAREQUOI, ISM-IAE of Versailles-St-Quentin-en-YvelinesParis-Saclay UniversityGuyancourtFrance
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Recherche en Management, LAREQUOI, IUTMantes-la-JolieFrance

Personalised recommendations