Temporary Organizing: Promises, Processes, Problems

Abstract

Temporary organizing is introduced as process, form and perspective. Then key challenges and opportunities in the study of temporary organizing are discussed, including methodological issues, how to theorize time, and how to relate the temporary to the more permanent. This introductory article concludes with an overview of the special issue.

Interorganizational Interaction in Disaster Response Networks: A Government Perspective

“…Although supply networks are generally viewed as maintained through relational or market mechanisms, including trust, social capital, and contracts (Wagner, Coley, & Lindemann, 2011), the degree to which networks are organized is rarely discussed in SCM studies (see Ahrne, Aspers & Brunsson, 2015;Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011). We find that networks can also have structures and organizing elements embedded temporarily or permanently within them (Bakker et al, 2016;Choi, Dooley, & Rungtusanatham, 2001). The organizational literature suggests that the five main elements of organizing (hierarchy, membership, rules, monitoring, and sanctions) can also exist outside formal organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011;Ahrne et al, 2015).…”

“…The organizational literature suggests that the five main elements of organizing (hierarchy, membership, rules, monitoring, and sanctions) can also exist outside formal organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011;Ahrne et al, 2015). Formal organizations typically have all five elements, but fewer can also exist in interorganizational networks and other settings (Ahrne et al, 2015;Bakker et al, 2016). In our setting, for example, hierarchy and rules were used by the state during the response stage, and sanctions could be observed in the post-disaster stage.…”

“…It was considered beneficial that focal or otherwise powerful actors within a network connect others during a crisis because many actors may not know or have worked with one another beforehand: organizing structures, such as the incident command system (ICS). The ICS incorporates not only government organizations but also other key actors and responders for the purpose of shaping and enhancing interactions within the response network (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011;Bakker et al, 2016). In practice, disaster efforts start and end at the local level.…”

“…Some scholars (e.g., Beck & Plowman, 2014;McLachlin & Larson, 2011) have referred to governments (or militaries) convening or commanding other actors, but we additionally observed nuanced ways for the government to steer other actors, for example, by regulating utility firms and orchestrating nonprofit and voluntary actors. The government's use of a combination of organizing practices ensured that the network-which had started expanding post-disaster (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2011;Bakker et al, 2016)-could effectively come together and achieve a successful response effort.…”

“…In our setting, for example, hierarchy and rules were used by the state during the response stage, and sanctions could be observed in the post-disaster stage. Therefore, our study provides an example of a focal actor not only using contractual (or market) and relational mechanisms within its network but also (temporarily) relying on organizational elements to bring the various actors together (Bakker et al, 2016). We believe this approach could apply in various network settings, but more evidence is needed.…”