On Frontline Workers as Bureau-Political Actors: The Case of Civil–Military Crisis Management

Abstract

We focus attention on the public policy-making influence of frontline bureaucrats. They are increasingly operating in interorganizational partnerships and networks in which they develop collaborative relations with frontline workers of other public organizations. We theorize that their embeddedness in local interorganizational environments induces and enables them to defy locally inappropriate policies and to pursue locally relevant policies as policy entrepreneurs simultaneously. The case study of policy-making in Dutch civil–military crisis management demonstrates that this “frontline bureaucratic politics” bears considerably on policy outcomes. We conclude that viewing frontline workers as bureau-political actors enhances our understanding of public policy-making in interorganizational arrangements.

Crisis response team decision‐making as a bureau‐political process

“…In fact, warm precrisis relations between liaisons are likely to continue as “the best predictor of behaviour in emergencies is behaviour prior to emergencies” (Dynes, : 150). These relations may lead liaisons to pursue the common operational team goal at the cost of pursuit of home organizations’ interests (Kalkman & Groenewegen, ). As crisis response decision‐making is not necessarily centralized (see ‘t Hart et al., ), pressures to advocate organizational interests may thus have limited effects.…”

“…On the other hand, liaisons have to communicate and collaborate across organizational boundaries and thus need to consider the concerns of other crisis organizations (Curnin et al., ). Liaisons may, thus, be caught between the expectations of their organizational superiors and those of crisis response team members in the interorganizational network (Kalkman & Groenewegen, ). Facing such a “role conflict,” liaisons need to negotiate between these incongruent preferences to effectively respond to a crisis (Kalkman & Groenewegen, ; Keane & Wood, ).…”

“…Liaisons may, thus, be caught between the expectations of their organizational superiors and those of crisis response team members in the interorganizational network (Kalkman & Groenewegen, ). Facing such a “role conflict,” liaisons need to negotiate between these incongruent preferences to effectively respond to a crisis (Kalkman & Groenewegen, ; Keane & Wood, ). This research contributes to the literature by theorizing the bureau‐political processes through which interorganizational crisis response decisions are negotiated in light of such competing views and interests.…”

Who coupled which stream(s)? Policy entrepreneurship and innovation in the energy–water nexus in Gujarat, India

“…Frontline-or street-level bureaucrats can play the role of a program champion by embedding a policy innovation into practice using "intellectual, social, and political capital" (Arnold, 2015). In the process, they create contextual, implementable solutions based on their understanding of broader policy priorities (Durose, 2007;Kalkman & Groenewegen, 2018). Professional mid-and low-level bureaucrats who implement policy can also use their tacit knowledge and understanding of citizens' needs to influence policy design, especially in less hierarchical settings (Frisch-Aviram, Cohen, & Beeri, 2018).…”

Sensemaking questions in crisis response teams

“…Instead, it is important to give attention to responder identity and actions. Training exercises may thus focus on how responders can balance and shift between their multiple roles as organizational liaisons, team members and professional experts (see Kalkman and Groenewegen, 2018). Also, exercises may contribute to the construction of a team identity to facilitate collective sensemaking.…”