Advertisement

Flexibility in Border Security: A Case Study of the Dutch Border Security Team

  • E. de Waard
  • J. P. Kalkman
  • M. T. I. B. Bollen
Chapter
Part of the NL ARMS book series (NLARMS)

Abstract

Flexibility in organizations is important, especially when dealing with crises that develop in an unpredictable way. Existing management theory makes clear that organizations are confronted with different environmental dynamics and, therefore, need a mix of operational, structural and strategic flexible capabilities to remain viable. The present article uses this insight to analyze the flexibility potential of the Dutch Border Security Team Concept (BST). The BST concept has been developed by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee as a practical answer to deal with the sudden migration crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean. The findings show that the composite BST unit has the potential to be really flexible. In sum, it has proven to be a comprehensive, semi-autonomous organizational element that possesses all the necessary capabilities to cover migration-related crisis situations well. Yet, the empirical results also bring to the front that the embeddedness of the BST within the overarching Frontex constellation affects the possibility to fully reap the benefits of organizational independence. Frontex’ standardized and highly formalized routines leave too little room for a customized decentralized organizational effort.

Keywords

Uncertainty Flexibility Frontex Crisis management Organizational autonomy Border Security Team 

References

  1. Ansell C, Boin A, Keller A (2010) Managing Transboundary Crises: Identifying the Building Blocks of an Effective Response System. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 18(4), 195–207Google Scholar
  2. Bigley GA, Roberts KH (2001) The Incident Command System: High-Reliability Organizing for Complex and Volatile Task Environments. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1281–1299Google Scholar
  3. Boin A, ‘t Hart P, Stern E, Sundelius B (2005) The Politics of Crisis Management. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Caroll, JS (2015) Making Sense of Ambiguity through Dialogue and Collaborative Action. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(2), 59–65Google Scholar
  5. Castrogiovanni GJ (1991) Environmental Munificence: A Theoretical Assessment. The Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 542–565Google Scholar
  6. Comfort LK, Kapucu N (2006) Inter-organizational coordination in extreme events: The World Trade Center attacks, September 11, 2001. Natural hazards 39(2), 309–327Google Scholar
  7. Das TK, Teng BS (1998) Between Trust and Control: Developing Confidence in Partner Cooperation in Alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23 (3), 491–512Google Scholar
  8. Das TK, Teng BS (2000) Instabilities of Strategic Alliances: An Internal Tensions Perspective. Organization Science 11(1), 77–101Google Scholar
  9. De Waard EJ, Kramer EH (2008) Tailored task forces: Temporary organizations and modularity. International Journal of Project Management 26(5), 537–546Google Scholar
  10. Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 29(1), 52–73Google Scholar
  11. Dill WR (1958) Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly 2(4), 409–443Google Scholar
  12. Faraj S, Xiao Y (2006) Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science 52(8), 1155–1189Google Scholar
  13. Galbraith JR (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47(2), 209–226Google Scholar
  15. Kalkman JP (2016) Explaining the Role of the Armed Forces in the Dutch Safety Regions. In: Beeres R., Bakx G, De Waard E, Rietjens S (eds) NL ARMS: Netherlands Annual Review of Military Studies 2016: Organizing for Safety and Security in Military Organizations [185–202]. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalkman JP, De Waard EJ (2017) Inter-Organizational Disaster Management Projects: Finding the Middle Way between Trust and Control. International Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 889–899Google Scholar
  17. Kotler P (1988) Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation, and Control. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  18. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and Environment. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. McConnell A, Drennan, L (2006) Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 14(2), 59–69Google Scholar
  20. Minzberg H (1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. Osborn RN, JG Hunt (1974) Environmental and Organizational Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 19(2), 231–246Google Scholar
  22. Porter ME (1979) How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. Harvard Business Review, March–April, 137–145Google Scholar
  23. Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Stralen D, Mercer TA (2015) Ambiguity in the Operator’s Sense. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 23(2), 54–58Google Scholar
  25. Van Creveld M (1985) Command in War. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Volberda HW (1996) Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments. Organization Science 7(4), 359–374Google Scholar
  27. Weick KE (1988) Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of Management Studies, 25(4), 305–317Google Scholar
  28. Weick KE (1993) The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(4), 628–652Google Scholar
  29. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (2007) Managing the Unexpected. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  30. Wolbers JJ (2015) Drawing the line. Cross-boundary coordination processes in emergency management. Dissertation, VU AmsterdamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. de Waard
    • 1
  • J. P. Kalkman
    • 2
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. T. I. B. Bollen
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Military SciencesNetherlands Defence AcademyBredaThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Organization SciencesVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.TNO Defence, Safety and SecuritySoesterbergThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations