Public Organization Review

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 519–539 | Cite as

New Frontline Actors Emerging from Cross-Sector Collaboration: Examples from the Fire and Rescue Service Sector

  • Lisa HanssonEmail author
  • Åsa Weinholt


Using the fire and rescue service (FRS) sector in Sweden as a case, this paper examines actors who engage in tasks that go beyond their traditional policy areas, and considers how their roles are shaped when interacting in new structures. This paper addresses two cross-sector collaborative practices: a) collaboration between the FRS and homecare nurses; and b) collaboration between the FRS and private security firms. The results show that discretion, occupational identity, expert-role expectations, and personal motivation are central to understanding how new frontline actor roles emerge and how they act within these collaborative arrangements.


Collaboration Frontline actors Local government Identity Occupational differences Fire and rescue services 



This research was financed by the Swedish Civil Contingency Agency (MSB). The authors would like to thank the Editor of the PORJ and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for the careful review and constructive suggestions on the paper.


  1. Adams, T. M., & Stewart, L. D. (2015). Chaos theory and organizational crisis: a theoretical analysis of the challenges faced by the New Orleans police department during hurricane Katrina. Public Organization Review, 15(3), 415–431.Google Scholar
  2. Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 56–65.Google Scholar
  3. Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Andranovich, G. (1995). Achieving consensus in public decision making: applying interest-based problem solving to the challenges of intergovernmental collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(4), 429–445.Google Scholar
  6. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.Google Scholar
  7. Apfel, J. (2013). Understanding motivations of sector switchers. Public Organization Review, 13(3), 291–304.Google Scholar
  8. Berlin, J. M., & Carlström, E. D. (2011). Why is collaboration minimised at the accident scene? A critical study of a hidden phenomenon. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 20(2), 159–171.Google Scholar
  9. Bingham, L. B., & O’Leary, R. (2006). Conclusion: Parallel play, not collaboration: missing questions, missing connections. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 161–167.Google Scholar
  10. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 647–663.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2013). Wicked problems and the challenge of transboundary coordination: The case of emergency preparedness and crisis management in Norway. COCOPS Working Paper No. 11. European Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Coble, J. V., & Crothers, L. (1998). Street-level leadership: Discretion and legitimacy in front-line public service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, T. (2015). Empirical research on inter-organizational relations within a National Disaster Management Network in the Caribbean. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Corrêa d’Almeida, A., & Klingner, D. E. (2008). FEMA and the Witt revolution: testing the hypothesis of “bureaucratic autonomy”. Public Organization Review, 8(4), 291–305.Google Scholar
  15. Eriksson, L. (2016). Policy integration for sustainable transport development: Case studies of two Swedish regions. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies.Google Scholar
  16. Farazmand, A. (2007). Learning from the Katrina crisis: a global and international perspective with implications for future crisis management. Public Administration Review, 67, 149–159.Google Scholar
  17. Farazmand, A. (2009). Hurricane Katrina, the crisis of leadership, and chaos management: time for trying the ‘surprise management theory in action’. Public Organization Review, 9(4), 399–412.Google Scholar
  18. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Ghin, E. M. (2017). New uses of outcomes measures under austerity: the case of Danish municipalities. Public Organization Review. Google Scholar
  20. Graaf, G. d., & Wal, Z. v. d. (2008). On value differences experienced by sector switchers. Administration and Society, 40(1), 79–103.Google Scholar
  21. Hansson, L. (2011). The tactics behind public transport procurements: an integrated actor approach. European Transport Research Review, 3(4), 197–209.Google Scholar
  22. Hansson, L., & Longva, F. (2014). Contracting accountability in network governance structures. Journal of Qualitative Research of Accounting and Management, 11(2), 92–110.Google Scholar
  23. Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2014). Prevention at the front line: how home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions on special efforts. Public Management Review, 16(4), 447–480.Google Scholar
  24. Henderson, K. (2002). Alternative service delivery in developing countries: NGOs and other non-profits in urban areas. Public Organization Review, 2(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
  25. Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (Eds.). (2005). The challenge of public–private partnerships: Learning from international experience. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Holmgren, J., & Weinholt, Å. (2016). The influence of organizational changes in cost efficiency in fire and rescue services. International Journal of Emergency Management, 12(4), 343–365.Google Scholar
  27. Hulst, R., van Montfort, A., Haveri, A., Airaksinen, J., & Kelly, J. (2009). Institutional shifts in inter-municipal service delivery. Public Organization Review, 9(3), 263–285.Google Scholar
  28. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96–109.Google Scholar
  29. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Lowton, K., Laybourne, A. H., Whiting, D. G., & Martin, F. C. (2010). Can Fire and Rescue Services and the National Health Service work together to improve the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable older people? Design of a proof of concept study. BMC Health Services Research, 10(1), 327.Google Scholar
  31. Lundquist, L. (1987). Implementation steering: An actor–structure approach. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  32. MacManus, S. A., & Caruson, K. (2011). Emergency management: gauging the extensiveness and quality of public- and private-sector collaboration at the local level. Urban Affairs Review, 47(2), 280–299.Google Scholar
  33. Mainardes, E. W., & dos Cerqueira, A. S. (2016). Measuring the internal-market orientation in the public sector. Public Organization Review, 16(2), 179–197.Google Scholar
  34. McGuire, M., & Silvia, C. (2010). The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review, 70(2), 279–288.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, J. F. (2006). Opportunities and obstacles for good work in nursing. Nursing Ethics, 13(5), 471–487.Google Scholar
  36. O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Taking networks seriously: practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.Google Scholar
  37. Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production (pp. 361–380). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Pilemalm, S., Stenberg, R., & Granberg, T. A. (2013). Emergency response in rural areas. International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (IJISCRAM), 5(2), 19–31.Google Scholar
  39. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1991). Institutional-level norms and organizational involvement in a service-implementation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 1(4), 391–417.Google Scholar
  40. Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: a comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  41. Robinson, S. E., & Gaddis, B. S. (2012). Seeing past parallel play: survey measures of collaboration in disaster situations. Policy Studies Journal, 40(2), 256–273.Google Scholar
  42. Robinson, C. C., Anderson, G. T., Porter, C. L., Hart, C. H., & Wouden-Miller, M. (2003). Sequential transition patterns of preschoolers’ social interactions during child-initiated play: is parallel-aware play a bidirectional bridge to other play states? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 3–21.Google Scholar
  43. Robinson, S. E., Berrett, B., & Stone, K. (2006). The development of collaboration of response to Hurricane Katrina in the Dallas area. Public Works Management & Policy, 10(4), 315–327.Google Scholar
  44. Sager, F., Thomann, E., Zollinger, C., van der Heiden, N., & Mavrot, C. (2014). Street-level bureaucrats and new modes of governance: how conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss Ordinance on Veterinary Medicinal Products. Public Management Review, 16(4), 481–502.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  46. SFS 2003:778 Lag om skydd mot olyckor (2003) Swedish legal act: Law on protection against accidents.
  47. Smith, K. L., Peeters, A., & McNeil, J. J. (2001). Results from the first 12 months of a fire first-responder program in Australia. Resuscitation, 49(2), 143–150.Google Scholar
  48. Span, K. C., Luijkx, K. G., Schols, J. M., & Schalk, R. (2012). The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public interorganizational networks: a conceptual analysis. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 186–201.Google Scholar
  49. Stinchcomb, J. B., & Ordaz, F. (2007). The integration of two “brotherhoods” into one organizational culture: a psycho-social perspective on merging police and fire services. Public Organization Review, 7(2), 143–161.Google Scholar
  50. Sund, B., Svensson, L., Rosenqvist, M., & Hollenberg, J. (2012). Favourable cost–benefit in an early defibrillation programme using dual dispatch of ambulance and fire services in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The European Journal of Health Economics, 13(6), 811–818.Google Scholar
  51. Svensson, A., & Weinholt, Å. (2014). När hemsjukvården lämnar hemmet - En analys av sambruk på Öckerö när kommunens sjuksköterskor biträder räddningstjänsten vid akuta vårdlarm i väntan på ambulans. CARER Working Paper No. 10. Linköping University.Google Scholar
  52. Tansey, O. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4), 765–772.Google Scholar
  53. Thurnell-Read, T., & Parker, A. (2008). Men, masculinities and firefighting: occupational identity, shop-floor culture and organisational change. Emotion, Space and Society, 1(2), 127–134.Google Scholar
  54. Tracy, S. J., & Scott, C. (2006). Sexuality, masculinity, and taint management among firefighters and correctional guards: getting down and dirty with ‘America’s heroes’ and the ‘scum of law enforcement. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(1), 6–38.Google Scholar
  55. Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2013). Policy implementation, street-level bureaucracy, and the importance of discretion. Public Management Review, 16(4), 527–547.Google Scholar
  56. Vamstad, J. (2012). Co-production and service quality: A new perspective for the Swedish welfare state. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production (pp. 297–316). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  57. Wagenaar, H. (2004). ‘Knowing’ the rules: Administrative work as practice. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–656.Google Scholar
  58. Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 131–140.Google Scholar
  59. Weinholt, Å., & Andersson Granberg, T. (2013). En samhällsekonomisk utvärdering av samarbete mellan räddningstjänst och väktare. CARER Working Paper No. 6. Linköping University.Google Scholar
  60. Wettenhall, R. (2009). Crises and natural disasters: a review of two schools of study drawing on Australian wildfire experience. Public Organization Review, 9(3), 247–261.Google Scholar
  61. World Health Organization. (2005). Prehospital trauma care systems. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business Administration and Social SciencesMolde University College - Specialized University in LogisticsMoldeNorway
  2. 2.Communications and Transport Systems, Department of Science and TechnologyLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations