The different contributions in this special issue discuss various contemporary developments surrounding the military organization and their implications for governance and public administration, such as technological development, geopolitical transition and fundamental changes the nature of military work. Because of its task and command and control structure, the military organization is a unique public organisation. It operates within the boundaries of political authority that define the ambitions, goals as well as possibilities and limitations of its operations. For an organisation that may use force in the performance of its tasks, these limitations define the legitimacy of the military organisation's operational activities. However, given the nature of its main tasks, the military organisation is potentially deployed in particularly dangerous, uncertain, ambiguous and changeable circumstances. This creates a tension whereby the moral responsibility of military professionals consists of reconciling compliance with political authority with local conditions. This requires reflexivity from military professionals at various levels. The central theme of this issue is thus ‘Legitimacy, responsibility and the reflexive military organisation’.

The recently published IOB evaluation on Dutch efforts to promote stability in fragile contexts identifies an incompatible gap between the ambitious policy goals and the limited sphere of influence of the policy. This article discusses four structural causes behind this gap. First, policy goals are generally too focused on the political context in The Hague, with insufficient attention given to the specific context in which the policy is to be implemented. Second, the fear of negative publicity hinders a transparent flow of information about policy results. Third, there is not enough focus on learning from the implementation of policy in fragile and conflict-affected areas. Finally, insufficient consideration is given – even in advance – to existing knowledge and insights from research and evaluation. The gap between unrealistic objectives and the limited sphere of influence is problematic; when political ambitions and promises are not fulfilled, it can undermine support and trust.

This article focuses on improving protection against Russian threats and it distinguishes between military and societal resilience. The first part of the article focuses on military resilience. What is striking here is that the Netherlands authorities greatly neglected external security in the period from 2014 to 2022, while the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 can already cause for concern. Nevertheless, the authorities felt no urgency to develop better protection against potential threats. In early 2022, the sense of urgency changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. This was the moment when urgency was indeed felt. The decision-making on military expansion that followed showed many similarities with the garbage can model of organisational choice. The second part of the article looks at societal resilience and reflects on a joint societal approach against potential threats, also called the whole-of-society approach. To this end, the history of a joint approach and the threats evident in the new type of Russian warfare are discussed. Moreover, the article prompts contemplation on actions to be taken, by looking at Sweden, for example. Resilience against Russian threats is now, unfortunately, an unavoidable necessity. It is not a rosy picture, but forewarned is forearmed!

After the end of the Cold War, several crucial changes took place in the military field. It could be argued that the work of military personnel has become more similar to that of other public service providers through the introduction of what has been called the ‘human security’ paradigm (Kaldor, 2007). At the same time, military deployment and the profession itself remain fundamentally distinct from other frontline occupations. In this contribution I will explore to what extent this leads to idiosyncratic tensions in military work. These can partly be understood through the lens of street-level bureaucracy theory, and partly with the trauma concept of ‘moral injury’. Yet, an important part of military work escapes these perspectives. To this end, a third, contextual perspective is introduced, arguing that many of the tensions in military work essentially arise from ambiguity in terms of organisation, deployment and political views.

This article examines the impact of technological integration within military organisations, with a focus on the strategic and organisational challenges that arise. Based on empirical research on autonomous vehicles, it discusses the influence of technology on primary work processes. The integration of technologies not only brings changes to operational execution but also presents complex governance issues at the strategic level. The article employs a multilevel framework to analyse the interaction between macro-strategic decisions and changes at the micro and meso levels. Central to the discussion is how technology affects existing organizational processes and how these changes raise new strategic questions. The article links literature on network governance, digital transformation, and sociotechnical innovation to provide insight into the dynamics of technological development within the layered military system. It highlights how these technological implementations not only alter operational processes but also lead to strategic reconsiderations within the military structure, involving various internal and external actors. The aim is to explore the interaction between technology and organisational governance, addressing the challenges of embedding new technologies in existing work processes.

In the concluding reflection, the editors look back at the contributions, discuss salient connections and identify future challenges for the military organisation. The articles indicate that the military organisation will have to be able to navigate much more between its various main tasks than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while at the same time it appears that technological changes are making military deployment more complex. The proverbial gap between thinking and doing plays a central role in the dynamics between legitimacy, accountability and reflexivity. In addition, it appears that the military organisation is becoming increasingly intertwined with a larger ‘governance network’ of external and internal parties, which also creates dependencies from parties not associated with political authority. Ultimately, a research agenda with three main themes is formulated. The various developments point to the importance of thinking about designing the military organisation of the future. The growing complexity of the governance networks surrounding the armed forces leads to questions about organising responsibility. Finally, the importance of organising a ‘democratic dialogue’ about the future of the military is discussed in which the various questions of legitimacy, responsibility and reflexivity can be addressed in a transparent manner.

Recently, the journal Bestuurskunde reflected on the ‘state of public administration’, especially regarding ‘impact’. Although this includes valuable contributions, some key issues around a public public administration, remain unmentioned. In this article, we present a performative and interactive understanding of ‘the public’ and propose a new agenda. Our paper ultimately seeks to pave the way for a truly publicly oriented public administration.

Complex issues require an approach by various parties that coordinate their interventions in society. This is often urgent, complicated, uncertain and threatening. You don’t want to introduce such interventions until they have first been thought through together: co-creation. At the same time, transparency is needed to increase the legitimacy of those same interventions. In that case, you don’t want to wait until ideas have been fully thought through, so that the outside world can think along. In this essay, the author argues that ‘living networks’ skilfully make this tension palpable and constructive. With a view to sustainable development, investing in their emergence is worthwhile.