Applying the Organizational Centaur Theory on Boundary Spanners in Demanding Situations

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to compare the existing conceptualization of the dual nature of organizational centaurs to discover what could be found in an investigation of organizational contexts characterized by risky and life-threatening situations. The study design involved a two-step procedure. The first step was inductive in character and followed the guidelines of grounded theory regarding selection of the participants in the study (further called informants, N = 71), data collection and initial analysis. The second step consisted of an attempt to compare this conceptual model to the existing ideal-typical descriptions of the organizational centaur concept. Managing crisis, disasters and other uncertainties as a boundary spanner can be understood in terms of a typology differentiated at the organizational and individual levels. The organizational part defines the prevailing conditions in uniformed, greedy organizations for boundary spanners who contribute to the organization's foundation of competence and behavior, and also outlines the limitations this may entail. The individual part focuses on the human such as no room for mistakes and the management of asymmetrical collaborations. It was concluded that the special case of severely demanding conditions added new insights into the organizational centaur framework.

Special Issue Introduction: Boundary Spanning in the Age of Collaborative Governance – Insights From Nordic Local Governments

“…This finding adds to the body of evidence showing that the activities of boundary spanners engaged in collaborative governance also need support from bureaucratic structures to succeed (see e.g., Klindt et al 2023). This lays the groundwork for interesting discussions with the literature emphasizing the critical role of trust and openness in collaborative governance to enable boundary spanners to succeed in various policy contexts (see, e.g., Alvinius and Larsson 2018;Bentzen and Torfing 2023).…”

Lost in Transition: The Dissemination of Digitization and the Challenges of Leading in the Military Educational Organization

“…The results of this may be friction between different levels of the organization. This friction may arise if levels of command are bypassed because there is an interest in being quick to deal with issues (Alvinius, 2013). This may in turn lead to conflict between the involved parties (Danielsson et al, 2014) and may lead to a poor prioritization of the available resources (Burkle and Hayden, 2001).…”

A retrospective study of knowledge management for integrated resorts (IRs) crisis preparedness

“…From a theoretical perspective, academic knowledge of organizational crisis preparedness (OCP) can be found in various disciplines, such as leadership (Alvinius et al , 2010a, 2010b; Alvinius, 2013), gender perspectives (Mano‐Negrin and Sheaffer, 2004), education institutions (Burrell and Heiselt, 2012) and crisis communication planning (Lando, 2014). In the hospitality crisis management context, scholars have also suggested an integrated model or framework from different theoretical lens is necessary (Amore et al , 2018; Bramwell, 2015; Leta and Chan, 2021).…”