manager rh manager change management change …

François PICHAULT

Fran

çois

Pic

ha

ult

MANAGER RH

Change ManagementTowards Polyphony

Foreword by Erhard FriEdbErg

Cha

nge Man

agem

ent

Change Management

RHMANAGER

A rigorous theoretical framework for sustaining change management

This book develops a critical view on the main current theories in change mana-gement. Most of them offer partial explanations: the planning model considers change as a linear process, in which design necessarily precedes implementation; the contingent model is essentially focused on contextual pressures; the political model is mainly concerned with power games, often leading to the dilution of change, etc.

The book proposes an original combination of these models by referring to the actor-network theory, a french sociological perspective. Thanks to numerous case studies, it provides the reader with a rich and concrete understanding of the main phenomena linked to any change process. It leads to a multidimensional grid for assessing change processes and pleads for the adoption of a “polyphonic” management style, in which the interests of the various stakeholders concerned directly contribute to the design of the project.

ISBN 978-2-8041-7673-0CHAMANA

I S S N 2 0 3 0 - 3 6 6 1

Casestudies

François PichaultPhd in sociology, is full professor at HEC-Management School (University of Liège, Belgium). He is also affiliated professor in human resource management at ESCP-Europe, Paris. He chairs, at the University of Liège, an action-research centre (LENTIC) focussed on human and organiza-tional aspects of change and innovation processes. He authored numerous books and scientific papers in HRM and organizational change.

www.deboeck.com

Change Management

This series is destined to those working and training in the HRM area, or to those wanting to expand their education in this field. The series focuses on practical books written by experienced authors, all HR practitioners simul-taneously active in the corporate and academic worlds. Its hands-on format addresses various issues faced by HR managers today.

David Alis, Charles-Henri Besseyre Des Horts, Françoise CHevAlier, Bruno FABi, Jean-Marie Peretti

GRH. Une approche internationale

Claude Blanche Allègre et Anne Elisabeth AnDréAssiAn

Gestion des ressources humaines. Valeur de l’immatériel

Jean-Marie DujArDin

Compétences durables et transférables. Clés pour l’employabilité

Mary Jo HAtCH, Ann L. CunliFFe

Théorie des organisations. De l’intérêt de perspectives multiples

Francis KArolewiCz

écomanagement. Un management durable pour des entreprises vivantes

Guy KoninCKx et Gilles teneAu

Résilience organisationnelle. Rebondir face aux turbulences

Ilios Kotsou

Intelligence émotionnelle et management. Comprendre et utiliser la force des émotions

Christine MArsAn

Réussir le changement. Comment sortir des blocages individuels et collectifs

Bernard MerCK et Pierre-Eric sutter

Gestion des compétences, la grande illusion. Pour un new-deal « compétences »

André MullenDers

e-DRH. Outil de gestion innovant

François PiCHAult

Change Management. Towards Polyphony

François PiCHAult

Gestion du changement. Vers un management polyphonique

Dave ulriCH, Wayne BroCKBAnK

RH : Création de valeur pour l’entreprise

Michel viAl, Armand MAMy-rAHAgA, Annie Tellini Accompagnateur en RH. Les quatre dimensions de l’accompagnement

professionnel

Philippe vernAzoBres

La valeur ajoutée du coaching

MANAGER RH

François PICHAULTMANAGER RH



Casestudies

© De Boeck Supérieur s.a, 2013 1th edition Rue des Minimes 39, B-1000 Bruxelles

All rights reserved for all countries. The reproduction, storage or communication, in any form or on any medium, of all or parts of this book is forbidden unless prior written consent of the publisher.

Printed in Belgium

National Library, Paris, August 2013 ISSN 2030-3661 Royal Belgian Library, Brussels : 2013/0074/041 ISBN 978-2-8041-7673-0

For further information about our catalogue and new titles in your field, visit our website: www.deboeck.com

Summary

Table of contents 7

Foreword 11

INTRODUCTION 15

CHAPTER 1A process to be described 19

CHAPTER 2A process to be explained 45

CHAPTER 3A process to be evaluated 71

CHAPTER 4A process to be anticipated 95

CHAPTER 5A process to be managed 115

CONCLUSION 167

Bibliographical references 171

List of figures and tables 181

Summary 5

Table of contents 7

Foreword 11

INTRODUCTION 15

CHAPTER 1

A process to be described 19

What is being changed? 19

Organisational change 20

Cultural change 24

Strategic change 29

HRM change 30

Technological change 35

On the use of ideal types 38

The scale of change 39

The question of temporalities 42

What should we retain from this chapter? 43

CHAPTER 2

A process to be explained 45

An initial typology 48

Table of contents

8 Change management

The planning approach (rationalism) 52

The vagaries of planned change 52

Main characteristics of the approach 52

The political approach 55

Major conflicts 55


The incremental approach 60

A change project… following on from other projects 60


The contingent approach 62

A necessary adaptation 62


The interpretativist approach 64

Communication by denigration 64


Changes and enactement 65

Selection 65

Retention 66

Towards an integrated model 67

Is description separate from explanation? 67

The stakes of a plural explanation: the five forces model 68


CHAPTER 3

A process to be evaluated 71

From the five forces model to a multidimensional evaluation of change 72

Four contrasting cases of change 74

Modernisation of HRM at a public administration (case 1) 74

Strategic restructuring of a media group (case 2) 77

Towards a culture of social responsibility at an air freight company (case 3) 81

Change of information system at a press agency (case 4) 85

Table of contents 9

Multidimensional evaluation of four cases of change 89

Taking account of stakeholders’ expectations 89

From consideration of expectations to a multidimensional evaluation 91


CHAPTER 4

A process to be anticipated 95

The predictive capacities of the five forces model 96

Scenarios of evolution 101

Perpetuation or adaptation 102

Dissidence or innovation 104

Is congruence necessary? 108


CHAPTER 5

A process to be managed 115

From the five forces analysis to polyphonic management 116

Basic principles of polyphonic change management 120

Characterising the existing influence system 124

Locating informal communication circuits 126

Identifying the main stakeholders 127

Analysing internal and external mobilisation capacities 129

Anticipating the means of action likely to be deployed 130

Identifying a translator 128

Mobilising and enrolling spokespeople for the different stakeholders 134

Proposing a common formulation of the problem to be solved 135

Abandoning the myths of predetermining tasks and reforming currentpractices 136

Avoiding the search for consensus and favouring compromises 138

Promoting unforeseen innovations and appropriations 142

Making relevant use of the joker’s power 145

Using project management techniques as shared references 148

10 Change management

Evaluating the process continuously 151

Communicating constantly about the process under way 155

Socialising newcomers 157

Summary 160

Can we “import” a polyphonic management style? 161


CONCLUSION 167


List of figures and tables 181

Foreword

Books about changemanagement in organisations certainlymake up one of themost extensive branches of literature on the life of organisations. Monographicanalyses, accounts drawn from experience, recipe books, scholarly treatises:there is a diverse and abundant supply of works, yet it varies greatly in quality.Built on a multitude of real-life cases, carefully analysed, as well as an in-depthknowledge of the findings of social science in the field, François Pichault’s bookis certain to occupy a prominent place in this body of literature, for at least threereasons.

The first reason is his broad, multi-dimensional view of organisational change.This is seen and understood in all its complexity, as a social process first andforemost which can never be reduced to simple technical rearrangements,which raises questions about multiple stakeholder games and sets them inmotion. This process is always full of surprises and unforeseen feedback loops,and never matches the simplifying sequential visions of rational planning. Thisis the point of the first chapters of the book. The reflection on differences inthe nature, level and temporality of the change processes that take place simul-taneously in organisations, opens our minds to the real complexity of whatwe are attempting to understand and manage. The attempt at categorisingand ordering the various approaches which are currently used to explain andinterpret these processes (the rationalist, political, incremental, contingent andinterpretativist approaches) is aimed at matching our conceptualisations ofchange with this complexity, by showing that no single approach is capableof reflecting the empirical reality. The third chapter logically draws conclusionsfrom this essential diversity in the reasoning frameworks used to evaluate theeffects of change: the evaluations, too, aremultiple or rathermulti-dimensional,just like the premises they are based on. Incidentally, we should stress that thecomplexity described here is not an invention of a sociologist trying to makea simple reality complicated at any cost. It is the complexity of the empiricalphenomenon that obliges us to take a complex view of the schemas of inter-pretation and evaluation. We should also stress that while all these reflectionsnaturally form an essential starting point to help us understand the problems ofchangemanagement in organisations, they shine a light far beyond the organi-sations themselves, since it is true that a good understanding of organisationalchange enables us to make progress in understanding social change itself.While we should keep things in proportion, and do not wish to take a reductive


approach to the reality of the matter, can we not (must we not) consider organisationsas scaled-down models of society, and therefore as privileged observatories for inspiringreflection in the social sciences (sociology, management sciences) on themechanisms andthe dynamic of social change? If we accept this perspective, those with the will to masterthese processes, and the ambition to manage them from start to finish by controlling theway they unfold, will find ample reasons to proceed with greater humility and realism.This book is therefore solidly anchored in a broad reading of change, which connectsorganisational transformations to more general dynamics of change. Yet, and this is thesecond reason, François Pichault is not content with just highlighting the complexity ofreality. His book also provides a realmethodical discourse onhow to accept this complexitywithout becoming paralysed by it. To this end, the author proceeds in stages which grad-ually lead us from a descriptive perspective to a prescriptive vision, which nonethelessavoids being reductive. The first stage is the presentation, at the end of chapter two, of hisfive forcesmodel, in which he aims to incorporate the contributions of the five approachesset out earlier. The second stage comes in chapter five, where the author seeks to detailthe predictive capacities of his five forces model, to counter the accusation of inte-gral relativism, as he puts it. He then introduces two distinctions, the first one betweentwo influence systems which are characteristic of the internal context (centripetal andcentrifugal, depending on their degree of concentration and power) and a second onebetween two styles of managing the change process: the panoptical style (a reference toBentham’s Panopticon) and the polyphonic style (with several voices). By comparing thesefour “variables”, he demonstrates the superiority of the polyphonic management style inachieving successful innovative change. The characteristics of this management style thenneed to be explained in more depth. This is the purpose of chapter five, the third andfinal stage of his approach which takes the reader from the descriptive register to theprescriptive register of a methodology of action. The basic principles of this chapter aretaken from the sociology of translation, which is in many ways similar to a methodologyof mobilisation, playing simultaneously on the cognitive, relational and technical registers(instrumentation). Yet the tone is resolutely prescriptive: the reader is invited to take aninterest in the polyphonic style. The author places emphasis on this style, analysing it andshowing the prerequisites for its implementation, as well as the difficulties and demandsit creates. The reader will find many useful reflections to help them practise a more “poly-phonic” style of organisational change. Incidentally, we should add, and this is not a criti-cism, that by placing the onus on the polyphonic style in this way, the author also makesa choice between the approaches set out in chapter two. The rationalist approach to plan-ning change is disqualified for obvious reasons, and the winner is a somewhat broadenedpolitical approach which makes room for, and places proper importance on, stakeholdergames. These games are themselves linked to the contexts in which they take place, to thedifferent temporalities of simultaneous changes unfolding within the organisation, andnaturally to the very different interpretations which the actors (nowadays we call them“stakeholders”) have of the processes which are under way, and the opportunities andconstraints they may entail for them.The third reason why François Pichault’s book will occupy a special place in the literatureon organisational change is the richness of its empirical foundations. The tone is set fromthe very beginning, with a stylised account of four processes of organisational change,which the author uses repeatedly to illustrate a more conceptual position. There are alsoa great many other boxes containing accounts of empirical situations he has encountered,

Foreword 13

which help to concretise the book’s analyses and conceptualisations. Every reader will findfood for thought and can take their pick of case studies. My favourite has to be the accountof the difficulties of a process which, against the backdrop of a vast structural changeproject, seeks to radically transform the relationship between agents at a large adminis-trative body and the documentation they need for their work. This account is emblematicof the difficulties that are often caused by the unrealistic, even megalomaniacal attitudeof change projects which are based on preconceptions rather than an in-depth analysisof agents’ practices. A sociological analysis of these helps us understand the complexreasons (which are anything but purely instrumental) behind the refusal to use the docu-mentation, and the relationships formed around the obtaining of information needed bythe staff to perform their tasks. The agents find not only information but also support,protection, and in some cases permission to “bend” the rules. In short, as things stand, ifno further support measures are taken, these relationships cannot be replaced by data-bases, however up-to-date and easy to access they may be.The book is full of examples like this. More than any theoretical statement, they illustratethe importance of a thorough knowledge of the contexts in which change arises, andfor which the change is designed. Therefore, this book is also a call for humility amongchange managers, and this is maybe its ultimate merit. To successfully modify a systemof stakeholders in the long term, we must accept the idea that we do not know it all, andabove all that change cannot be confined to rigid schemas. There is no single correct solu-tion outside of an in-depth knowledge of the reality of agents’ practices, besides showingrespect for the complexity of their work. And the quality of the solution, even if we areassured of it, is no guarantee of its successful implementation. This requires the commit-ment and intelligence of the parties involved, in order to find the right balance betweeninnovation and accommodation, and to imagine possible gateways to a transformationof what Philip Selznick called the “operational system” of an organisation. For it is true,and François Pichault is right about this, that organisational change must be polyphonicif it is to take place at all.

Erhard FriedbergProfessor emeritus at Sciences Po Paris

Ex-director of CSO (Centre de Sociologie des Organisations)Program Director of the School of Government and Public Policy

(Jakarta, Indonesia)

Introduction

Where does organisational change come from? According to the texts we referto, it would appear to result from the implementation of major strategic orien-tations, from a transformation of structures and internal modes of operation(process automation, increase in size, restructuring, etc.) or from an adapta-tion to environmental variations (vagaries of the markets, regulatory changes,etc.). However, one must admit that these three poles are often in close inter-action. Strategic decisions are themselves influenced to a great extent by envi-ronmental variations and in turn lead to structural modifications. They can alsocontribute to shaping the external and internal context of the organisation, bymodifying certain characteristics and/or components. The origin of change istherefore often multi-faceted, made up of a set of interrelated variables.As explained by Demers (1999), research on organisational change has beencharacterized by notable evolutions. The author suggests a distinction betweenthree main periods. The first one, beginning after the World War II, emphasizesthe necessity for all organisations to grow and to adapt to environmental vari-ations. Several typologies are proposed in view of combining strategies, organ-isational structures, and contextual factors. Adaptation is very often consideredas a gradual process, within a largely foreseeable framework. During the secondperiod, beginning with the ’70 crisis, change is increasingly seen as a discon-tinuous process, with theories putting the emphasis on the dramatic reconfig-urations organisations may sometimes experience, according to the strategicactions of the managerial team. The third period eventually considers changeas an unavoidable process: it concerns everybody and is not only resulting fromtop-down planning actions. Research is thus paying attention to the permanentlearning and evolving capacities of the organisation, as well as to the engage-ment of all stakeholders groups in the organisational dynamics.

– Well, shall we go?

– Yes, let's go.

(They do not move)

S. Beckett, Waiting for Godot

Ne désespérez jamais. Faites infuser davantage.

H. Michaux, Face aux verrous


We can observe that such conceptual evolutions have progressively diluted the notionof change … Most current researches indeed considers that modern organisations arepermanently immersed in situations of change : according to them, it would be wrongto believe that corporate life consists of periods of change alternating with periods ofgreater stability. The globalisation of exchanges, the massive irruption of informationtechnologies and crises in the financial system now require organisations to adopt flex-ible ways of working that enable them to constantly adapt to background fluctuations.In this perspective, studying change would mean studying the organisation itself, sincechange has become a “routine” (Leifer, 1989; Luecke, 2003)…or conversely organisationalroutines themselves may be viewed as a source of continuous change, given the perma-nent interplay between their ostensive (abstract references for action) and performativeaspects (effective behaviours of actors in situ), creating on-going opportunities for theadoption of new patterns of actions (Feldman, 2000; Pentland et al., 2012).Discourses on continuous change can make us forget that if change must be managed, itmeans that in the flow of permanent organisational evolutions, some specific “moments”may be distinguished, during which themanagers of an organisation try to achieve trans-formational objectives. In a hegelian perspective, the concept of “moment” refers to alogical step within a process, that contains in itself the power to lead from one particularidea to its contrary. Two precisemeanings of the concept are combined here: the power ofmoving, the origin of the move and its force, on the one hand; the phase that the reasonmay detect in the development of a process, on the other hand. This definition simulta-neously uncovers the temporary fixation of the process in one of its steps, and its under-lying tensions in a permanent destructuring/restructuring move. A “moment” must beunderstood as one of the key steps of the dialectic analysis. Change moments are first ofall, from an analytical point of view, the expression of managerial intentions (discourses,logos, machines or any other managerial device) and are thus very frequent in the organi-sational life. But the probability that such intentions become effective is very low: as soonas they are expressed, they already contain the tensions that will lead – or not – to anotherstep. Identifying thesemoments allows the analyst to observe themultiple reactions likelyto be linked to them – even if they are not immediately tangible – and helps him/her togive sense to them.First of all, we thus need to clarify the subject that we are discussing. The first chapterpresents a set of tools that are available in management science to describe changes, theirnature, scale, temporality etc., drawing on various case studies of change in the areas oforganisation, strategy, technology, HRM, etc.1

Wewill then attempt to explain these changes, drawing on various theoretical approaches(planning, contingent, political, incremental and interpretativistmodels) articulatedwithina single analytical framework, with a view to proposing an integrated model called “thefive forces”. The same case study will serve as an empirical illustration of these variousapproaches. This is the subject of the second chapter.

1 Except where otherwise stated, most of the case studies presented refer to research interventions carriedout by our research team, LENTIC. These generally lasted several months and combined the following tech-niques: interviews with dozens of key players, participative observation and document analysis. We are respon-sible for writing up the case studies, taking care to ensure that, for ethical reasons, the research interventionfrom which they were derived had finished long enough ago to enable us to maintain a certain distance fromthe organisation and players concerned.

Introduction 17

The third chapter considers how we evaluate a change process by immersing ourselvesin the reality of four contrasting case studies. We will take a look at an attempt to indi-vidualise human resource management policy at a public administration; the adoptionof a new cost leadership strategy at a media group; the launch of a social responsibilityapproach at an air freight company; and the updating of the information system at a pressagency. These four cases will enable us to draw up a multidimensional evaluation chartbased on the five forces model: we will thus be able to take a new look at evaluating thesuccess or failure of a change process.Based on these case studies, the fourth chapter invites us to consider change as a processto be anticipated, using several more or less probable scenarios. The five forces model,applied to the case studies presented above, will in fact help us to formulate a certainnumber of predictive hypotheses on the probable evolution of change processes, whichwill include the central role of management style. Two categories will be proposed withregard to this: the panoptical style (seeing all, controlling all) and the polyphonic style(several voices in dialogue).The fifth and final chapter, dedicated to change as a process to bemanaged, shifts fromthe analytical register – which has been favoured until now – to the normative registerand proposes, on the basis of the hypotheses formulated in the previous chapter, concretecourses of action drawing on the various theoretical approaches articulated within thefive forces model. Two new research intervention cases will be presented. The first willact as a starting point for defining concrete courses of action connected to the poly-phonic management style; the second will show how an external party can refer to sucha management style when assisting with a change process.This book thus intends to propose a structured and critical approach to change (describe,explain, evaluate, anticipate, manage), which can serve as a basis for teaching, researchandmanagerial practices. The alternation between theoretical comments and case studieswill hopefully help to grasp the full complexity of the phenomenon, whilemaking it acces-sible to everyone2.

2 Wewould like to thank our colleague and friend Jean Nizet for his careful proofreading of themanuscript,France Bierbaum, for her meticulous help with the final formatting of the text, and the whole team of LENTIC(HEC-Management School of the University of Liège), which contributed greatly to the empirical parts of thework through its many research intervention activities.

Chapter 1

In this chapter you will find:

The tools needed to describe the change process:

▶ Its purpose and aims (is it a change of organisation,culture, strategy, HRM policy, production technology,information system, etc.?);

▶ Its scale (is it a change of strategic, managerialor operational importance?);

▶ Its temporality (how can we define the start of the process,its key stages, its end date?)

Has change become a commonplace phenomenon in the life of contemporaryorganisations? Has changemanagement not become synonymouswithmanage-ment itself? Indeed, the managers who talk about “change as a routine” presentus with a picture of change which no longer has anything specific about it.To try to frame an answer to these questions, we first need to engage in asystematised description of the process in question, based on a few methodo-logical and conceptual distinctions that will help us to approach change as aspecific phenomenon, which therefore merits special attention.

What is being changed?From the outset, we need to agree on the phenomenon we are talking about.Change can just as well be intentional (or deliberate) – and thus subject of

A process to be described


programming (Wilson, 1992), temporal sequencing, communication actions, etc. – as itcan be created gradually throughout the organisational evolutions (emergence of newways of carrying out the work process, for example). More precisely, change may beviewed as a sequence of transformative intentions coming from the managerial team,unavoidably generating some reactions from the concerned actors, answered by newmanagerial intentions, etc.The purpose or aim of change is thus an initial area of differentiation: is it a case ofchanging the way the organisation functions, its HRM policy, business strategy or infor-mation system? These various purposes are undoubtedly linked, yet the fact remains thatthe very nature of change – in other words, the starting point of the process – must beclearly identified insofar as it refers to players’ representations of the nature of the processunder way: they must therefore be understood as accurately as possible.In this respect it may be useful to take an ideal-typical approach, which in some waysmakes it possible to give a shape to the change process. We should remember thatthis approach consists of developing imaginary tables based on elements from reallife taken to the extreme limit of their coherence, which then serve as a yardstick for itsexploration.Here we will content ourselves with illustrating some of the purposes of change, usingrelatively well-documented typologies: organisational structure, culture, strategy, humanresource management, production technology and information system architecture.

Organisational changeIf the change process essentially consists of modifying organisational functioning (theway people work, how the organisation is divided into units, the level at which decisionsare made, hierarchical structure, etc.), we can make use of the classic distinction betweenmechanical and organic structures, established by Burns & Stalker (1961). Nowadays thedistinction appears as a pioneering work, insofar as the two extreme forms still seem toconstitute the obligatory reference point for management theorists when they contrastold and new, stable and unstable, fossilisation and dynamism1.Another more elaborate distinction refers back to the different configurations definedby Mintzberg (1979, 1983). By synthesising the typologies presented by this author (Nizet& Pichault, 2001), it is possible to identify five types of configuration:

– the entrepreneurial configuration is a young, small organisation which employsunskilled staff. It is coordinated by direct supervision, leading to a centralisationof power in the hands of the strategic apex;

– the machine configuration is a form of organisation where operators’ workis highly divided, vertically as well as horizontally. Coordination is achieved byformal mechanisms: at the level of the operators and standardisation of proce-dures or outcomes; and at the level of units, planning of activities or performancecontrols. The organisation is old and large in size. System goals generally prevailover mission goals. This configuration has two variants, depending on whether

1 As shown by a paper presenting a synthesis of the main theoretical contributions in organisational soci-ology, the diverse typologies of organisational structures offered by the literature are very often convergent(Lammers, 1990).


there is an owner with a strong influence over the organisation (we then refer toan “instrument”, with a high degree of centralisation of decision-making in thehands of the strategic apex and their analyst allies), or whether such external influ-ence is absent (we then refer to a “closed system”, with greater decentralisation ofdecision-making and more conflicts between rival clans);

– themissionary configuration is characterised by the predominance of one ormoremissions. Coordination is achieved by standardisation of values. Insofar as theplayers are loyal to these missions and values, they are able to exercise a certainamount of power, at least overmanagerial or operational decisions. However, stra-tegic decision-making remains quite centralised;

– the professional configuration involves highly skilled, hyper-specialised operators(strong horizontal division), who achieve coordination by standardisation of skills.They pursue specific goals and have a significant influence on decision-making,in an environment characterised by stability;

– in the adhocratic configuration, which also involves skilled operators, coordinationis achieved bymechanisms that call on interpersonal relations: mutual adjustmentat operator level; liaison posts, project groups etc. at unit level. The adhocraticconfiguration is departmentalised by products or markets. Strategic decisionsremain centralised in the hands of the strategic apex but hinge on managerialand operational decisions decentralised within teams encompassing operators,the middle line, analysts and logistical support.

TABLE 1 • Organisational configurations

entrepreneurial machine missionary professional adhocratic

Divisionof labour

informal high vertical Indeterminate high horizontal low

Coordinationmechanisms

directsupervision

standardisationof procedures/outcomes

standardisationof values

standardisationof skills

mutualadjustment

Differentiationbetween units

low high vertical high horizontal high horizontal high horizontal

Liaisonbetween units

non-existent planning andcontrol

socialisation,mobilisation

liaison agents,permanentcommittees

project groups,matrixstructure

Concentrationof power

strategicapex(managingdirector)

analysts strategic apex,analysts

skilledoperators

skilledoperators

Centralisationof the decision-making process

high high intermediate low lowfor operationaldecisions


entrepreneurial machine missionary professional adhocratic

Priority goals mission goals+ survivaltake priority

system goalstake priority

mission goalstake priority

varied conceptsof the mission

mission goals+ efficiencytake priority

Marketcharacteristics

hostile/simple

stable/simple stable,complex, non-hostile

stable/complex unstable,complex,hostile,heterogeneous

(based on Nizet & Pichault, 2001)

Other distinctions are available in the literature on governance modes and managementcontrol systems. A well-known typology, initially developed by Ouchi (1980) and revisitedlater by Adler (2001), opposes the “hierarchy”, “market” and “clan” systems.

TABLE 2 • Forms of governance and management control

Predominant system Regulation principle Object of control Control mechanism

Hierarchy Authority Behaviorsand actions

Personal controlor impersonal planning (rule)

Market Competition Outcomes Control of outcomes

Clan Trust Identitiesand values

Control of beliefs and skills(socialisation)

On similar bases, Williamson (1985, 1991) differentiates traditional forms of organisation(hierarchy) in which the different components of the value chain are integrated, refocuson the core business with massive recourse to subcontractors (market) and collabora-tion with different partners in view of accessing complementary resources (network). Thechange project may consist in moving from the hierarchical mode – based on control viarules – to the market mode – based on price bargaining – or again to the network mode– based on trust and reciprocity. In the latter case, Butera (1991) opposes what he calls“castle” and “network” forms.These typologies may be usefull for describing managerial intentions as well as ongoingorganizational transformations, as shown in the following example.

Organisational transformation at Holidays Club

Holidays Club was founded by a group of friends led by Gérard B. Initially, the association wasset up to provide group holidays in unusual places. The members were mainly young peoplewho liked sport and especially the sea. The first “village”, made with tents, was a campsite inthe Balearics. After four years’ trading, Robert T. was made Director and is now considered asthe real founder of Holidays Club.


Robert T. joined the Club via his family-owned tent-making business, which was an importantsupplier to the Club. At that time, Holidays Club already managed 90 villages in 40 differentcountries and five continents. As well as its main activities, it has expanded into other areas ofactivity so it can offer a wide range of services: this diversification makes its internal manage-ment considerablymore complicated. As a result of the expansion, today over 1,600,000 peoplestay in Holidays Club villages.To finance this expansion, Robert T. decided to go public and float the company on the NewYork Stock Exchange. Various financial, private and institutional groups from France and abroadthus bought a share in the company’s capital and gradually become more and more involvedin its management. However, Robert T. kept the majority share and stayed at the head of thecompany, alongside his son Julien.Every season, all the members of staff responsible for activities organisation (known as GOs,short for gentle organisers) must be moved from one village to another, and are assignedto different areas. This has been a principle of the Club since it was formed, meaning thatno-one stays on one site or is engaged in one activity for more than six months: this rotation isdesigned to create a family spirit within Holidays Club while regularly exposing the GOs to newwork environments.The village leader reports directly to themanaging director. The village leaders are practically SMEmanagers, andbehave like internal customers of the central departments (one for eachgeograph-ical area). The role of the central departments is to provide them with “the right resource at theright time”. Every time there is a change of staff, the village leaders find themselves in charge ofa village with a team they do not know. They are therefore demanding and closely monitor theactions and deeds of “their” GO, by supervising them directly in their daily work.Since the GO team changes every six months, a kind of “book of facts and rules” is left on-siteso that the following team can more easily understand the methods and procedures whichare specific to the village. This book is not really a way of homogenising practices, rather, ithas become a collection of anecdotes on the behaviours of the village leader, the “tips andtricks” to know when organising an excursion, etc. Most of the time, each new team has to startfrom scratch, with a new budget and new guidelines from central management, which thevillage leader is responsible for putting into operation. This gives the village leader consider-able discretionary power. The concrete organisation of the GOs’ work depends directly on theleader’s personality and experience.The central head office has a marketing and sales director and other managers in the supportfunctions, such as accounting, finance and tax. In fact, the structure of a village reflects thestructure of the central head office. Robert T. leads the business in the same way the villageleader leads their village. This trend has been reinforced since the arrival of Julien T. at the headof the company.Of course, the structure developed by Robert T. ended up causing the opposite problem to theone it was meant to solve: since Julien T. became co-director, he directly managed a hundredor so village leaders as well as 8 product directors and 14 country directors, who all reportedto him from all over the world. Therefore there was an obvious information overload at hislevel. This problem became even more worrying as time went by, for Holidays Club grew anddoubled its capacity every five years.When the company was founded, GOs from all over the world met in Paris every six monthsto be assigned to another village. These were big events where all the staff gathered togetherto talk with the managing director about any problems they had. They could also meet friendswho worked in other villages, exchange their impressions of other countries, etc. Apart from theirconcrete implications in terms of staff allocation, these meetings were essentially special eventsfor group celebrations, during which everybody’s commitment to the Club spirit was rekindled.However, as GOnumbers grew, it became increasingly hard for themall to attend at the same time.


Apart from these organisational difficulties, the pursuit of a policy of growth at all costs started topose serious financing problems. A shareholder restructuring programme began with a capitalincrease and a takeover of the family interests, which were by now in the minority, by new part-ners. Robert and Julien T. left their positions as co-chairmen and a new Chairman was appointedby the shareholders, with the mission of getting the company back on track to achieve profita-bility. The recovery project (underpinned in particular by triennial and annual plans) was followedby a brand redeployment programme, with an expansion of its product range. Some directorscriticised the loss of the original spirit but others stressed the fact that this was the price of savingHolidays Club. The re-launch efforts seemed to bear fruit in the two years that followed, withslightly positive results. However, with the unexpected crisis that rippled through the travel sectorafter the events of 11 September 2001, the results went back into the red. In the end, the leadingEuropean hotel group became the main shareholder of Holidays Club, with a share of around30%. It brought in a new control strategy, consisting of rigorous annual budget programmes.In its heroic yearly years, the many demands made of the GOs were offset by the family spirit thatreignedwithin the Club. The permanent party spirit and “holiday” atmosphere continue to attractyoung people, as on-spec applications come in every day. A unique aspect of the GO’s life lies inthe fact that Holidays Club takes care of all their needs. Clothes are provided and washed, mealsare always ready, accommodation is provided free of charge, etc. Everything is provided to ensuretheir full devotion to the Club. However, the advantages offered by the GO role end up seeminglike a golden prison. Especially since the early family spirit seems to have been abandoned infavour of a wild race to profitability, which has been speeding up since the financial difficultiesof the 90s and especially since Julien T. was replaced as head of the group. Under these condi-tions, the total commitment of the staff is becoming increasingly problematic. The proof is in thegrowing number of employees who go to employment tribunals to claim payment for overtime.In this case, change is linked to an evolution of the organisation’s life cycle. Originally, the way Holi-days Club worked was similar to the elements of the entrepreneurial configuration (high level ofdirect supervision of village leaders by Julien T., and of staff by their village leaders, in the absenceof formalised procedures; high level of centralisation at the strategic apex; threats to the survival ofthe organisation) and the missionary configuration (standardisation of values in the sense of devo-tion, predominance of the “mission” and family spirit, many socialisation activities). The growth ofthe activity and scope of Holidays Club is marked by the arrival of international shareholders andthe progressive formalisation of activities via the annual programme and budgetary controls. Thechange experienced by Holidays Club can thus be described as a gradual shift from an entrepre-neurial configuration – with certain features of the missionary configuration – to what is largely amachine configuration of the instrument type. Such a change is accompanied by multiple tensionsrevealing the loss of power by certain players (strategic apex, middle line and original GOs), and theincrease in power of others (owners and analysts).

Cultural change

Since the 80’s, several authors have advocated the need for investment in the area ofcorporate culture, aimed at encouraging employee behaviour in a particular direction(customer focus, the need for flexibility, ethical frameworks or other fundamental values,etc.). Culture thus becomes a real managerial project (Peters, 1987; Reitter et al., 1991;Champy, 1995; Valentino, 2004), designed to offset the hyper-differentiation caused bythe increasing segmentation of social ties by using sophisticated integrationmechanisms(Louart, 1994). Some do not hesitate to lambast the instrumental aims that underpin anumber of actions carried out in this area, arguing that culture is not a variable that can


bemanipulated to suit managerial intentions (Aktouf, 1990; Welch &Welch, 2006). The factremains that many initiatives are launched with a view to moving away from old habitsand forging a common identity, presented as desirable: socialisation rites, mentoringof new entrants, celebratory events, promotion of signs of belonging, organisation ofoutdoor activities designed to encourage team building, etc.How do we characterise these managerial investments, which are not always based onthe same values? The typology proposed by Boltanski & Thévenot (1991) identifies various“conventions” based on a certain number of “orders of worth” or “polities”. Below is asummary, reworked by Nizet (2002). The first type of reference point, the first componentof the convention consists in the statements produced within the context of the organi-sation. First and foremost this applies to themore official statements, those found in busi-ness reports, promotional documents, etc. However, the theory of conventions invites usabove all to take a look at the statements in which players justify the behaviours they adoptand the actions they carry out.Based on various statements that we encounter in a given situation, it is generallypossible to identify one (or a few) of the more abstract principles – called common prin-ciples – which can serve as a kind of summary of the convention specific to the organi-sation (depending on the case, it may be to “shorten delivery times”, “be attentive to sickpeople’s needs”, or “keep the organisation’s human dimension”, etc.)A convention is not only made up of verbal statements, it also consists of more implicitreferences that relate primarily to people. A convention is thus characterised by the presenceof people with characteristics such as age, sex, professional qualification, etc. These peopleobviously adopt behaviours and attitudes. These can be closely related, can correspond tothe superior principle that governs the situation; they can also deviate from it or even contra-dict it. In the first instance, we say that people are “great” with regard to the principle inquestion; in the other case, they are described as “small”. Moreover, the people involvedare not isolated from each other; from the outset they have very specific linkswith each other(of seniority, authority, complementing each other in the performance of certain tasks, etc.).Another category of reference points – also implicit – onwhich individuals base their deci-sions is made up of objects. This term has a very broadmeaning: a particular building, laidout or decorated in a particular way, a particular machine, accessory, software program,rule, form etc. Among these objects, some havemore characteristics, more “potentialities”with regard to the superior principle(s) that govern(s) the situation; others present thesecharacteristics or potentialities to a lesser degree. In other words, the former are more aptto fulfil the principle (“great”), the latter less so (“small”). Thus, with regard to the principlethat consists of reducing delivery times, a particular ordermanagement software programwill be “greater” than a particular book where these same orders are processed manually.A final set of criteria that make up a convention relate to space on the one hand, andtime on the other. All social situations, especially organisational situations, are character-ised by a certain organisation, a certain arrangement, and more abstractly by a certainconcept of space conveyed by the individuals that constitute it. This space can be largeor more restricted, organised around a central location or more homogeneous, closedor open, etc. Alongside this, all social situations are characterised by a certain organisa-tion, a certain concept of time: emphasis on the here and now, on the moment, or on thecontrary on the long term; orientation towards the past or the future, etc.These various reference points allow us to identify a certain number of “orders of worth”or “polities”, presented in table 2.


A situation of cultural change can therefore be analysed using these various conventions.Initially, it is a case of identifying the convention or conventions that mainly characterise theexisting organisational culture: the convention can refer to a single principle, but frequentlyincludes several; in other words, it already takes the form of a compromise. Secondly, theindices of the new convention are identified, which introduces suspicion and criticism tothe original convention(s). Thirdly, the initial convention reacts, either by “resisting” the suspi-cion, or by “dealingwith” with the new convention and reaching a new compromise; in somecases theoriginal conventionmayalsodisappear andgivewayentirely to thenewconvention.

Cultural transformation of maintenance activities for a HST(high-speed train) company

Pegasus was formed as a result of close cooperation between several national railway compa-nies – still with public status – which were keen to operate a high-speed train (HST) betweenseveral European capitals. The business, which was founded over ten years ago, enjoyedcommercial success and exponential growth. As well as making use of sub-contractors (inparticular for on-board services), Pegasus has entrusted certain activities to partners withwhom it has no contractual or hierarchical link.Such is the case with train maintenance, which is provided by a unique specialist workshopintegrated into one of the three national railway companies that holds shares in Pegasus. Main-tenance constitutes a critical aspect of providing a quality service under optimal safety condi-tions, while maximising the train usage rate.“In the old culture,” explains one of the managers at Pegasus, the networks were organisedamongst themselves to carry out maintenance work following their own rules, with the conse-quences that you might imagine. Pegasus came at the bottom of the chain and receivedthe number of trains that were not assigned to technical operations and maintenance. Wecompletely shook up their ways of thinking. Wemanaged to say to them: youmust not performmaintenance for maintenance’s sake and then see what is left for passenger transport; ratherthe opposite, you need to try and see what customers’ needs are, while following the safetyrules that are of crucial importance. According to customers’ needs and the time when theseare expressed, let’s see how we can carry out maintenance, while staying as close as possibleto the company’s basic missions. In concrete terms, this means that for a maximum numberof trains to be made available during the day, maintenance must mainly take place at night.This is now the fleet optimisation principle that is meant to guide the maintenance activities.Alongside improved tools in the workshop and computer programs for maintenance planning,we have brought in officers in charge of day-to-day liaison with Pegasus’s operational centre, todeal with all the unpredictable aspects of train circulation in a permanent way.While maintenance activities were mainly part of the industrial polity until recently (organisation ofactivities according to technical constraints, primacy of engineers and the logic of security, presenceof a highly sophisticated set of tools, division of the workshop into secure areas, use of dashboardsand planning programmes, etc.), a reversal gradually took place in favour of the market polity(organisation of activities according to operating constraints, primacy of salespeople and the logicof customer satisfaction, liaison officers to increase interaction with Pegasus’s operational centre,multifunctionality of the work space, the need for an immediate reaction to the technical problemsthat arise, etc.). It is clear that the industrial polity has not totally disappeared but the new culturein force in the workshop now gives priority to the market polity, and presents itself in the form of acompromise between the two polities.


TABL

E3•Typologyofp

olitiesaccord

ingto

Bolta

nski&

Théve

not(199

1),reworked

byJ.Nizet(2

002

)

Inspirationpolity

Civicpolity

Industrialpolity

Domestic

polity

Marketpolity

Famepolity

Com

mon

princ

iple

Leavingfree

reign

tocreativity

andoriginality

Pursuito

fthecommon

good

andthege

neral

interest

Controlofp

eople

andthings

with

aview

tocarrying

oute

ffectiveactio

ns

Respectfor

peo

ple

andthehierarchical

socialorde

rthat

conn

ectsthem

Person

alen

richm

ent

throug

hthepu

rchase

andsaleof

good

san

dfin

ancialtran

sactions

Beingkn

own

byas

man

ypeo

ple

aspossible

Peop

lewho

have

theirp

lace

Thosewho

aredriven

bythene

edto

create

Thosewho

work

fora

causerelatin

gto

thege

neral

interest;alsope

ople

who

are

thegu

arantors

ofinstitu

tions

thatpreserve

thisge

neralinterest

Thosewho

,du

eto

theirrole

orfunc

tion

,collaborate

todeliver

anaction

orproject

Thosewho

areconn

ected

bynatural

hierarchical

relatio

nships

relatin

gto

thege

neratio

ns,

seniority,etc.

Thosewho

areinvolved

intrad

erelatio

nships

Thosewho

seek

tobewell-kn

own

Qua

lity

ofgreat/

small

Person

who

iscreative,

imag

inative,

unexpected,

original/person

who

isun

imag

inative,

ban

al,

predictable,

orderly

Person

who

isdisinterested,

who

puts

thecollective

causeah

ead

ofan

yothe

rconsideration/

personwho

ismotivated

bypersona

linterests,especially

materialand

/or

finan

cialon

es

Person

who

presen

tsprofession

alan

dhu

man

qualities

thatmakethem

useful,effective/

person

who

has

noprod

uctive

qualities

oris

inasituation

ofillne

ss,disab

ility,

unem

ploymen

t,etc.

Person

who

hasad

opted

thebe

haviou

rsthatbe

fittheirp

lace

inthehierarchy

(ben

evolen

ceor

self-eff

acem

ent

depe

ndingon

their

positio

n)/person

who

,inan

elevated

positio

n,crushe

sothe

rs,or,inalow

positio

n,do

esno

tkn

owtheirp

lace

Person

who

wan

tsto

possess

andman

ages

toseize

opportunities,strike

dealsan

den

rich

them

selves/person

who

ispoo

ran

ddoe

sno

thave

themeans

orab

ilities

toescapefrom

materialp

overty

Person

who

shines,

isfamou

s,who

istalked

abou

tan

dseen

inthemed

ia/person

who

isob

scure,

unkn

ownto

peop

le,

discreet,hidde

n


Inspirationpolity

Civicpolity

Industrialpolity

Domestic

polity

Marketpolity

Famepolity

Objects

thathave

theirp

lace

Lowdeg

ree

ofeq

uipmen

t:ob

jects

andtech

nical

system

sin

fact

riskhind

ering

creativity

Laws,regu

lation

s,tech

nicalsystems,

etc.that

prevent

individua

linterests

prevailing

over

thegen

eralinterest

Highdeg

ree

ofeq

uipmen

t:man

ymachine

s,computer

system

s,regu

lation

s,metho

ds,etc.

form

easuring

,evalua

ting

andco

ordinating

Objects

that

consolidate

relation

ships(gifts,

anno

uncemen

tof

birthsor

marriag

es,

etc.)a

nd/orm

ark

theplace

that

oneoc

cupies

inthehierarchy

Objectsthat

enab

lean

d/orfacilitate

trad

e:cu

rren

cy,

ban

kcard,fina

ncial

institutions,m

arkets,

stoc

kexch

anges,etc.

Objectsthat

contributeto

fame

andreputation:

logo,broch

ure,

bad

ge,web

site,

newspap

er,rad

io,

TV,etc.

Space

Valuing

theindividu

al’s

inne

rself,

inpa

rticular

theirresou

rces

andno

n-ratio

nalabilities:

theirfeelings,

imagination

andsubcon

scious

Valuingthepub

licspace–in

which

thegen

eralinterest

isexpressed

–to

thedetrimen

tof

private

space;

thespaceisbroad

,plane

tary,b

ecau

secollectivecauses

arealso

very

broad

Highlystructured

,separating,

enab

lespeo

ple

toco

ordinate

thevariou

scompon

ents

oftheaction

and/orv

arious

stakeh

olders

Valuingtheinterio

r,thecentre

asop

posed

totheperiphe

ry,

theou

tside

world,w

hich

are

threaten

ing;valuing

thetopas

opposed

tothebottom

Very

broad

,witho

utlim

itor

distance

Remov

alof

theprivate

inne

rspace,which

isfully

absorbed

bythepub

licspace;no

thing

mustb

ehidden

Time

Valuing

theun

expe

cted

,rupture,

questio

ning

things

Valuingthelong

term

,ascollective

actio

nwith

aview

tothecommon

good

isge

nerally

along

-term

process

Valuingthefuture,

which

iscontrolled

usingda

shboa

rds,

program

mes,

plans,calen

dars,

etc.

Valuingconstanc

y,perman

ence,

trad

ition;thepast

isvalued

andmust

carryon

into

thefuture.

Thepresent

time:

whe

nthedeal

presentsitself

andmustb

eseized

Theep

hemeral:

celebrity

isshort-

lived


Strategic changeTo characterise the strategy options of an organisation, the management literatureprovides us with a certain number of typologies, the most famous of which are undoubt-edly those of Miles & Snow (1978) and Porter (1980). These authors distinguish betweentwo main types of strategy:

– differentiation aimed at making the product particularly attractive, by innovatingsystematically and/or by working on its brand image and presentation (prospectorin the work of Miles and Snow);

– cost leadership, which looks for economies of scale and seeks to minimise expen-ditures of all kinds to remain competitive (defender in the work of Miles and Snow).

By referring to the conceptual work carried out byMiller (1986), we can relate the first typeto strategies that concentrate on product and service quality in order to increase customersatisfaction by constantly improving the production processes, and strategies of organ-isational flexibility, which tend to adapt constantly to the diversity and specificity of theneeds of the market. On the other hand, the second type can be connected to strategiesof numerical flexibility, which are intended to deal with sudden variations in demand byresorting to using temporary staff (temporary workers, fixed-term contracts) and avoidingcommitting to a structural increase in wage costs.Porter distinguishes another strategic type – called focus – consisting in targeting organi-sational efforts on a particularmarket niche. This third strategymay however be combinedwith the two generic strategies exposed above.

Strategic change at Comptapro

Comptapro is a division of the consulting agency ProConsult, based in Luxembourg. Its mainactivity is the provision of accounting and financial services to banking and investment estab-lishments. The Luxembourg employment market is characterised by a very severe shortageof labour. This, combined with intense peaks of recurring activity (at the end of every monthin particular), leads to excess workloads and administrative delays at banking establishments.One of the directors of ProConsult, keen to quickly develop a profitable business, decided toexploit this “niche” by creating Comptapro. The company was soon a runaway success: its staffcount rose from 10 to 125 people in three years.Comptapro offers accountancy and/or administrative support services to companies on theLuxembourg financial marketplace. The company mainly takes on missions in the areas ofgeneral or specific accountancy, back office, securities management and reporting. Excep-tionally, it also takes on interim management missions. This fairly specialised “niche” businessconcerns a large number of customers, whose needs are quite easy to anticipate in terms oftheir nature and evolution.For most of the missions that are entrusted to them, Comptapro’s employees were meant toapply the knowledge acquired during their accountancy training. Nonetheless, the methodof executing tasks was explained in detail in the contract signed by each customer and thesenior staff member in charge of themission. Paradoxically, while demanding skilled staff, mostcustomers acknowledged that theymainly entrusted Comptapro employees with missions thatthey described as “administrative or repetitive”. Many Comptapro employees said that they didnot put their initial training to use much during their missions.


In general, the staff turnover rate at Comptapro was 35-40% per year. Departures were mainlydue to employees joining the customer’s organisation, where they found better salary condi-tions and real career opportunities. The situation was not experienced as a negative thing bythe current manager of Comptapro, as the company took a large intermediary commission,which considerably increased its profits. It could also be seen as a sign of customer satisfaction,again according to the manager.However, the founder of Comptapro judged that the high staff turnover risked having anadverse effect in the medium and long term. At that point, Comptapro was no longer the onlycompany to provide administrative and accounting support to the world of banking: otherlarge consulting groups, who had spotted the same market opportunities, were also startingto offer this type of service alongside their consulting activities. According to the founder, a fallin activity could be anticipated, and the first effects of this were already starting to be felt.The need to stand out from the competition by using a more skilled workforce, involved inmore complex missions and providing more added value, was more and more perceptible. Themanager was very sceptical about such an approach. For him, Comptapro’s “niche” businessstill had a great future, given the steady growth in the number of customers, which showedhow the company was responding to a real need.The crisis that affected the whole sector after the attacks of Ground Zero and the bursting ofthe Internet bubble would bring things to a head and enable the founder of Comptapro towin the argument. A drastic company plan was negotiated, involving making a third of all staffredundant. Under these conditions, the manager also handed in his resignation and endedup starting a competing company, based on the economic model in which he believed, i.e.support missions for third parties. The company was taken over directly by the founder. It nowonly recruits young graduates, and develops highly profitable missions with high added value.In the meantime, the number of employees fell considerably, to around 70 people. A trulypersonalised competence management structure was put in place, under the leadership ofan HR manager. Correlatively, the staff turnover rate dropped sharply and the company wasintegrated more and more clearly into the general strategy of ProConsult, becoming one of itsoperational units.Comptapro’s initial strategy was clearly aimed at numerical flexibility: it offered customers fromthe banking world the option to deal with peaks of activity without having to hire new staff. Thehigh turnover of staff, who were finally lured away by customers, did not worry them as long asthe market was growing and Comptapro benefitted from a niche effect. A few years later, thesituation had changed: other competitors appeared on the same market, which was an argu-ment in favour of a strategic change of course. The founder of Comptapro then intended to prac-tise a differentiation strategy by focussing on a quality service offer with high added value, buthe came up against opposition from the manager, who wanted to maintain the old strategy,which he still felt was relevant. A change of context would enable him to impose his own strategicvision. Incidentally, we should note that such a strategic change was accompanied by a changein human resource management; in other words, a minimal coherence seemed to be emergingbetween the new strategic orientation and the adoption of an HRM policy focussing on skillsdevelopment.

HRM change

While the change process concerns human resource management practices and policy,it can be approached using a series of distinctions proposed by the literature: between“traditional” and “innovative” activities (Arthur, 1994; MacDuffie, 1995; Dyer & Reeves,1995), or between practices limited to personnel administration and those focussed on


human resource development (Warnotte, 1997). The former favour a collective vision ofthe working relationship, based on respect for rules and contracts. The latter develop amore individualistic concept of the working relationship, based on valuing the skills ofeach employee.

TABLE 4 • The distinction personnel administration/humanresource development

Personnel administration HR Development

Focus onmanagement of the employmentcontract

Focus on skills management

Primacy of rules, procedures, collectiveagreements

Primacy of “tailor-made” careers

Main customers: unions, individuals Main customers: CEO, top andmiddlemanagers

High staff numbers Reduced staff numbers

Predominance of formal places of cooperation Predominance of project management

Principle of internal equity Principle of external equity

Another famous distinction is the one between hard and soft HRM models (Storey, 1987;Truss et al., 1997). The first model insists on the close integration of HRM policies andpractices into the business strategy. From this viewpoint, the internal consistence ofthe practices and their coherence with strategic objectives are presented as the keys tosuccess in terms of organisational performance. It is logical that in such a model, theperson appears as a “resource” whose contributions are being optimised in a plannedmanner. This model is also characterised by the predominance of quantitative tools (staffcount planning, evaluation charts with scoring, salary benchmarking, etc.). The secondmodel, while continuing to place the emphasis on integration into the business strategy,underlines the importance of the “human” component – i.e. staff involvement, valuingtheir skills, their participation in organisational choices, their motivation and communi-cation with them – in improving company performance.Several attempts have also been made with a view to offering a more precise ideal-typicalframework, combining the HRM policies with the organisational configurations describedabove (Begin, 1993; Verburg et al., 2007). According to the degree of formalisation, specifi-city and verticality of the main HRM variables (Pichault & Nizet, 2013), we can thus discerna discretionary HRM policy, characterised by the informal power of a leader in the absenceof any explicit criteria in this area; a codifying policy, where uniform criteria are defined forall staff members or divided into broad categories; an individualising policy, where criteriaare negotiated between each employee and their linemanager; a deliberative policy, wherecriteria are the subject of debates between peers, and a value-based policy, where criteriaare once more implicit, but this time refer to the organisation’s fundamental values.


TABL

E5•A

typologyofH

RMpolic

ies

HRM

Discretionary

Codifying

Individualizing

Deliberative

Value-based

SOURC

ING

noplann

ing

anticipatoryman

agem

ent

ofstaff

numbe

rs,

impo

rtan

ceof

recruitm

ent

anticipatory

man

agem

ento

fskills,

importanceof

selection

collegialvalid

ation

selectionbased

onsocialisation

tothemission

LAYO

FFS

dism

issals

“onthespot”

socialplans,early

retiremen

tou

tplacemen

t,spinning

off,red

eploym

ent,

rede

ploymen

tactions,etc.

rare,und

erpee

rpressure

exclusions

caused

byfailu

reto

conform

tovalues

TRAINING

onthejob,

apprenticeship

high

lyinstitutiona

lised

,focussed

ontech

nical

skills(kno

w-how

)an

dtheshortterm

high

lyinstitu

tiona

lised

,focussed

oninterpersona

lskillsan

dthelong

term

man

aged

byprofessiona

lscollective

internalisation

ofvalues

EVALU

ATION

inform

al,

interven

tion

inprivate

life

perman

ent,stan

dardised

criteria(ratingscale)

apo

steriori,ne

gotia

ted

criteria(M

BO)

pee

rrecog

nition

tacit

andconsen

sual

PROMOTION

intuitive

impersona

l(based

onseniority)

based

onmerit

orperform

ance

based

onelection

s(m

andates)

based

onloyalism

displayed

WAGE

onarand

omtask

basis,d

ifferen

ces

hard

tojustify

determined

apriori

(job

classification),

wag

escales

variab

lepartd

etermined

apo

steriori(perform

ance)

determined

apriori

+permission

towork

externally

questio

nno

treally

legitim

ateinrelatio

nto

thepu

rsuito

fvalue

s

WORK

INGTIME

nodifferen

tiation

betwee

nworking

time/free

time

unifo

rman

dregu

lated

adap

ted(flexibleho

urs)

beyon

dinstitutiona

lcontrol

nodifferen

tiation

betwee

nworking

time/free

time

I NDUST

RIAL

RELA

TIONS

non-existen

trepresentationprinc

iple

dire

ctexpression

princ

iple

professiona

llob

bies

non-existen

t(often

avoided

)

(based

onPich

ault&Nizet,201

3)

Adrot, A. & Garreau, L. (2010), “Interagir pour improviser en situation de crise”, Revuefrançaise de gestion, vol. 4, n°203, pp. 119-131.

Aoki, M. (1990), “Toward an Economic Model of the Japanese Firm”, Journal of EconomicLiterature, vol. 28, n°1, pp. 1-27.

Adler, P. S. (2001), “Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and theFuture of Capitalism”, Organization Science, vol. 12, n°2, pp. 215-234.

Agro, L., Cornet, A. & Pichault, F. (1995), “L’implication des utilisateurs dans lesprojets informatiques: un scénario en quête d’acteurs”, Annales des Mines: Géreret Comprendre, December, n°41, pp. 33-44.

Aktouf, O. (1990), “Le symbolisme de la ‘culture d’entreprise’. Des abus conceptuelsaux leçons du terrain”, in CHANLAT, J.-F. (Ed.), L’individu dans l’organisation: lesdimensions oubliées, Québec, Presses de l’Université Laval/ Eska, coll. “Sciences del’administration”, pp. 553-588.

Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. (1988), “A quoi tient le succès des innovations. Premierépisode: l’art de l’intéressement”, Annales des Mines: Gérer et comprendre, June,pp. 4-17.

Akrich, M., Callon, M. & Latour, B. (Ed.) (2006), Sociologie de la traduction: textes fonda-teurs, Paris, Mines Paris, les Presses, “Sciences sociales”.

Allison, G.T. (1971), Essence of Decision: Explaining the CubanMissile Crisis, Boston (Mass.),Little Brown and Company.

Alter N. (1985), La bureautique dans l’entreprise. Les acteurs de l’innovation, Paris, EditionsOuvrières, coll. “Médiatique”.

Alter N. (1990), La gestion du désordre en entreprise, Paris, L’Harmattan, coll. “LogiquesSociales”.

Alter, N. (2000) L’innovation ordinaire, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, coll.“Sociologies”.

Alter, N. (2011), “Comment les dirigeants des organisations peuvent tuer l’innovation ?”,Gestion, vol. 36, n°4, pp. 5-10.

Amblard, H., Bernoux, P., Herreros, G. & Livian, Y.-F. (1996), Les nouvelles approches socio-logiques des organisations, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Sociologie”.

Ansoff, H. I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, New York, Mc Graw Hill.Ansoff, H. I. & Mcdonnel, E. (1990), Implanting Strategic Management, 2nd Edition, NewYork/London/Toronto/ Sydney/Tokyo/Singapour, Prentice Hall.

Arthur, J.B. (1994), “Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performanceand Turnover”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 37, n°3, pp. 670-687.

Arvey, R. D. & Jones, A. P. (1985), “The Use of Discipline in Organizational Settings”,in CUMMINGS, L.L. & STAW, B.M. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 7,pp. 367-408, Greenwich, JAI Press.

Bibliographical references


Bacon, N. & Blyton, P. (2007), “Conflicts for Mutual Gains?”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 44,n°5, pp. 814-834.

Bagozzi, R. P. (2007), “The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Para-digm Shift”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 8, pp. 244-254.

Balle, C. & Peaucelle, J.-L. (1972), Le pouvoir informatique dans l’entreprise, Paris, Éditionsd’Organisation, coll. “Sociologie des organisations”.

Barki, H. & Saunders, D.M. (1990), “Conflits et gestion de conflits dans l’implantation de systèmesinformatisés”, Technologies de l’Information et Société, vol. 3, n°1, pp. 109-130.

Bareil, C. (2004), Gérer le volet humain du changement, Montréal, Éditions Transcontinental, coll.“Entreprendre”.

Begin, J.P. (1993), “Identifying Patterns in HRM Systems: Lessons from Organisational Theory”,Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, supplement 3, pp. 3-20.

Bernoux, P. (1979), “La résistance ouvrière à la rationalisation: la réappropriation du travail”, Socio-logie du travail, n°1, pp. 76-90.

Bernoux, P. (1985), La sociologie des organisations: initiation, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Points/Inédits”.Bigley, G. & Roberts, K. (2001), “The Incident Command System: High Reliability Organizingfor Complex and Volatile Task Environments”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 44, n°6,pp. 1281-1299.

Bisno, H. (1991), Managing Conflict, (1st Edition in 1988), Newbury Park-London-New Dehli, Sage,coll. “Human Services Guide”, n°52.

Boltanski, L. & Chiapello, E. (1999), Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme, Paris, Gallimard.Boltanski, L. & Thevenot, L. (1991), De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur, Paris, Gallimard,coll. “NRF Essais”.

Borum, F. & Christiansen, J.K. (2006), “Actors and Structure in IS Projects: What Makes Implementa-tion Happen?”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 22, n°3, September, pp. 213-237.

Bournois, F. & Peretti, J.M. (2001), Tous DRH. Les responsabilités RH des cadres et dirigeants, Paris,Editions d’Organisation.

Brasseur, M. & Picq, T. (2000), “La Silicon Valley: modèle précurseur ou marginal?”, Revue Françaisede Gestion, n°127, January-February, pp. 131-136.

Bridges, W. (1991), Managing Transitions. Making the Most of Change, Reading (Mass.), AddisonWesley.

Buchanan, D.A., Body, D. & Mccalman, J. (1988), “Getting In, Getting On, Getting Out, and GettingBack”, in Bryman, A. (Ed.) (1988), Doing Research in Organizations, London/New York, Routledge,pp. 53-67.

Burns, T. & Stalker G.M. (1961), The Management of Innovation, London, Tavistock.Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. Elements of theSociology of Corporate Life, London, Heinemann Educational Books.

Butera, F. (1991), La métamorphose de l’organisation. Du château au réseau, Paris, Editionsd’Organisation.

Cäker, M. (2008), “Interwined Coordination Mechanisms in Interorganizational Relationships withDominated Suppliers”,Management Accounting Research, n°19, pp. 231-251.

Callon, M. (1986), “Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction. La domestication des coquillesSaint-Jacques dans la Baie de Saint-Brieuc”, L’Année sociologique, n°36, pp. 169-208.

Callon, M. (1991), “Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilités”, in Boyer, R., Chavance,B. & Godard, O. (dir.), Les Figures de l’irréversibilité en économie, Paris, Editions de l’Ecole desHautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, pp. 195-230

Carnall, C.A. (1990),Managing Change in Organizations, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/ Tokyo/Singapore, Prentice Hall.

Castells, M. (1999), La Société en réseaux, Paris, Fayard, tome 1.


Chabeau, D. & Parthenay, C. (1999), “Le modèle suédois d’organisation du travail : une lectureaokienne de la ‘production en équipes’”, Revue d’économie industrielle, n°89, pp. 49-68.

Champy, J. (1995), ReengineeringManagement:Mandate for NewLeadership, New York, HarperCollins.Cooney, R. & Sewell, G. (2008), “Shaping the Other: Maintaining Expert Managerial Status in aComplex Change Management Program”, Group & Organization Management, vol. 33, n°6,pp. 685-711.

Crozier, M. (1971), Le phénomène bureaucratique. Essai sur les tendances bureaucratiques des systèmesd’organisationmodernes et sur leurs relations en France avec le système social et culturel, (1st Editionin 1963), Paris, Seuil, coll. “Points”.

Crozier, M. (1989), L’entreprise à l’écoute. Apprendre le management post-industriel, Paris, Inter-Editions.

Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. (1977), L’acteur et le système. Les contraintes de l’action collective, Paris,Seuil, coll. “Sociologie Politique”.

Cyert, R.M. & March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey),Prentice-Hall.

Dan-Shang, W. & Chi-Lih, S. (2008), “Will the Strategic Fit between Business and HRM Strategy Influ-ence HRM Effectiveness and Organizational Performance?”, International Journal of Manpower,vol. 29, n°2, pp. 92-110.

Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. & Warshaw, R. (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Compar-ison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science, vol. 35, pp. 982-1003.

De Bono, E. (1991), Conflicts. A Better Way to Resolve Them, (1st Edition in 1985), Harmondsworth,Penguin.

Delobbe, N., Herrbach, O., Lacaze, D. & Mignonac, K. (dir.) (2005), Comportement organisationnel– volume 1: contrat psychologique, émotions au travail, socialisation organisationnelle, Bruxelles,De Boeck Université.

Dervitsiotis, K. (2002), “The Importance of Conversations-for-Action for Effective Strategic Manage-ment”, Total Quality Management, December, vol. 13, n°8, pp. 1087-1099.

Dimaggio, P. J. (1988), “Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory”, in Zucker, L. (Ed.), InstitutionalPatterns and Organizations, Cambridge (Mass.), Ballinger, pp. 3-22.

Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organisations, Thousand Oaks (Ca.), Sage.Dovey, K. & Fenech, B. (2007), “The Role of Enterprise Logic in the Failure of Organizations to Learnand Transform A Case from the Financial Services Industry”, Management Learning, vol. 38, n°5,pp. 573-590.

Dupuy, F. (2011), Lost in management. La vie quotidienne des entreprises au XXIe siècle, Paris, Seuil.Durand, C. (1978), Le travail enchaîné. Organisation du travail et domination sociale, Paris, Seuil, coll.“Sociologie”

Dyer, L. & Reeves, T. (1995), “Human Resource Strategies and Firm Performance: What Do We Knowand Where We Need to Go”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 6, n°3,September, pp. 656-670.

Feldman, M.S. (2000), “Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change”, OrganizationScience, november/december, vol. 11, n°6, pp. 611-629.

Fimbel, E. (2007), Alignement stratégique. Synchroniser les systèmes d’information avec les trajectoireset manoeuvres des entreprises, Paris, Pearson, coll. “Village Mondial”.

Ford, J. & Ford, L. (1995), “The Role of Conversations in Producing Intentional Change in Organiza-tions”, Academy of Management Review, July, vol. 20, n°3, pp. 541-570.

Foucault, M. (1979), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, (1st Edition in French in 1975), NewYork, Vintage Books.

Friedberg, E. (1988), L’analyse sociologique des organisations, new updated edition, (1st Edition in1972), Paris, L’Harmattan, coll. “Pour”.


Friedberg, E. (1993),Lepouvoiret la règle.Dynamiquesde l’actionorganisée, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Sociologie”.Friedmann, G. (1946), Machine et humanisme, Paris, Gallimard/N.R.F., (9st Edition), t.II: Problèmeshumains du machinisme industriel.

Gilbert, P. (1998), L’instrumentation de gestion. La technologie de gestion, science humaine ?, Paris,Economica, coll. “Gestion”.

Ginzberg, M.J. (1980), “An Organizational Contingencies View of Accounting and InformationSystems Implementation”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 5, n°4, pp. 369-382.

Girin, J. & Grosjean, M. (Ed.) (1996), La transgression des règles au travail, Paris, L’Harmattan, coll.“Langage et Travail”.

Gomez, P.-Y. (1996), Le gouvermement d’entreprise. Modèles économiques de l’entreprise et pratiquesde gestion, Paris, InterEditions.

Gomez, P.-Y. (2006), “Information et conventions”, Revue française de gestion, vol. 1, n°160, pp. 217-240.Grover, V., Lederer, A.L. & Sabherwal, R. (1988), “Recognizing the Politics of MIS”, Information& Management, vol. 14, n°3, pp. 145-156.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the Corporation: a Manifesto for Business Revolution.New York, Harper Business.

Hazen, M.A. (1993), “Towards Polyphonic Organization”, Journal of Organizational Change Manage-ment, vol. 6, n°5, pp. 15-26.

Heitz, M. (2000), “Les soubassements du jeu relationnel: les enjeux de la confiance par style deréseau”, Cahier de recherche du GREFIGE, n°14, Nancy, pp. 1-17.

Henderson, J.C & Venkatraman, N. (1999), “Strategic Alignment: Leveraging Information Tech-nology for Transforming Organizations”, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38 n°2/3, pp. 472-484.

Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Lee, C.A., Schneck, R.H. & Pennings, J.M. (1971), “A Strategic Contingen-cies’ Theory of Intraorganizational Power”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 16, pp. 216-229.

Hirschman, A.O. (1972), Face au déclin des entreprises et des institutions, translated fromUS (1stEditionin 1970), Paris, Éditions Ouvrières.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations. Software of the Mind, Londres, McGraw-Hill.Holmqvist, M. (2003), “A Dynamic Model of Intra-and Interorganizational Learning”, OrganizationStudies, vol. 24, n°1, pp. 95-123.

Hyclak, T.J. & Kolchin, M.G. (1986), “Worker Involvement in Implementing New Technology”, Tech-novation, vol. 4, n°2, pp. 143-151.

Jamous, H. & Grémion, P. (1978), L’ordinateur au pouvoir. Essai sur les projets de rationalisation dugouvernement et des hommes, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Sociologie”.

Johnson, G. (1987), The Process of Strategic Change. A Management Perspective, Oxford, Blackwell.Jones, B. & Wood, S. (1984), “Qualifications tacites, division du travail et nouvelles technologies”,Sociologie du travail, n°4, pp. 407-422.

Joseph, I., Rajendran, C., Kamalanabhan, T. & Aman, R. (1999), “Organizational Factors and TotalQuality Management: an Empirical Study”, International Journal of Production Research, April,vol. 37, n°6, pp. 1337-1353.

Kaplan, R.S & Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action, Boston(Mass.), Harvard Business Press.

Karim, S. & Mitchell, W. (2000), “Path-Dependent and Path-Breaking Change: Reconfiguring Busi-ness Resources Following Acquisitions in the U.S. Medical Sector, 1978-1995”, Strategic Manage-ment Journal, vol. 21, pp. 1061-1081.

Kavanagh,M. & Ashkanasy, N. (2006), “The Impact of Leadership and ChangeManagement Strategyon Organizational Culture and Individual Acceptance of Change during a Merger”, British Journalof Management, March, vol. 17, pp. S81-S103.

Keen, P.G.W. (1981), “Informations Systems and Organizational Change”, Communications of theACM, vol. 24, n°1, pp. 24-33.


King, A. & Lenox, M. (2000), “Industry Self-Regulation without Sanctions”, Academy of ManagementJournal, vol. 43, pp. 698 –716.

Kreps, G.L. (1990), Organizational Communication, (1st edition in 1986), New York/London, Longman.Lammers, C.J. (1990), “Sociology of Organizations around The Globe. Similarities and Differencesbetween American, British, French, German and Dutch Brands”, Organizations Studies, vol. 11,n°2, pp. 179-206.

Latour, B. (1987), La science en action. Introduction à la sociologie des sciences, Paris, La Découverte,coll. “Poche/Sciences humaines et sociales”

Latour, B. (2006), Changer de société. Refaire de la sociologie, Paris, La Découverte.Law, J. & HASSARD, J. (Eds.) (1999), Actor Network Theory and After, Blackwell Publishers/The Socio-logical Review, Oxford.

Lawler, E.E. (2012), Effective Human Resource Management: A Global Analysis, Stanford (California),Stanford University Press.

Lawler, E.E. III & Boudreau, J.W. (2009), “What Makes HR a Strategic Partner?”, People and Strategy,vol. 32, n°1, pp. 14-22.

Lawrence, P.R. & Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organizations and Environments, Boston, Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R. & Leca, B. (2009), Institutional Work, Actors and Agency in InstitutionalStudies of Organization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Leifer, R. (1988), “Matching Computer-Based Information Systems with Organizational Structures”,MIS Quarterly, March, pp. 63-73.

Leifer, R. (1989), “Understanding Organizational Transformation Using a Dissipative StructuralModel”, Human Relations, vol. 42, n°10, pp. 899-916.

Leiser, S. (2007), “Epistemological and Theoretical Challenges for Studying Power and Politics inInformation Systems”, Information Systems Journal, April, vol. 17, n°2, pp. 165-183.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science. Selected Theoretical Papers, New York, Harper & Row.Lim, J., Stratopoulos, T. C. & Wirjanto, T. S. (2011), “Path Dependence of Dynamic Information Tech-nology Capability: An Empirical Investigation”, Journal of Management Information Systems,vol. 28, n°3, pp. 45-84.

Lindblom, C. E. (1959), “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’”, Public Administration Review, Spring,pp. 79-88.

Louart, P. (1994), “La GRH à l’heure des segmentations et des particularismes”, Revue française degestion, March-April-May, pp. 79-94.

Luecke, R. (2003),Managing Change and Transition, Boston (MA), Harvard Business School Press.Lui, K.M. & Chan, K.C.C. (2008), “Rescuing Troubled Software Projects by Team Transformation:A Case Study with an ERP Project”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, February,vol. 55, n°1, pp. 171-184.

Lyytinen, K. & Hirschheim, R. (1987), “Information Systems Failures: a Survey and Classification ofthe Empirical Literature”, Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, Oxford University Press,vol. 4, pp. 257-309.

Macduffie, J.P. (1995), “Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance: OrganizationalLogic and Flexible Production Systems in the World Auto Industry”, Industrial and Labor RelationsReview, vol. 48, n°2, January, pp. 197-220.

Maguire, S., Hardy, C. & Lawrence, T.B. (2004), “Institutional Entrepreneurship in EmergingFields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 47, n°5,pp. 657-679.

March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”, Organization Science,vol. 2, n°1, pp. 71-87.

March, J.G. & Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, New York, Wiley.


Markus, M.L. & Pfeffer, J. (1983), “Power and the Design and Implementation of Accounting andControl Systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, vol. 8, n°2/3, pp. 205-218.

Markus, M.L. & Robey, D. (1983), “The Organizational Validity of Management Information Systems”,Human Relations, vol. 36, n°3, pp. 203-226.

Merton, R.K. (1968), “Social Theory and Social Structure”, expanded edition, (1st edition in 1949),New York, The Free Press.

Miles, R.E. & Snow, C.C. (1978),Organisational Strategy, Structure and Process, New York, McGraw-Hill.Miles, R.E. & Snow, C.C. (1986), “Network Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms”, CaliforniaManagement Review, vol. 28, n°3, pp. 62-73.

Milgram, S. (1984), La soumission à l’autorité, Paris, Calman-Lévy.Miller, D. (1986), “Configurations of Strategy and Structure: Towards a Synthesis”, Strategic Manage-ment Journal, vol. 7, n°3, pp. 233-249.

Miller, D. & Friesen, P.H. (1984), Organizations, a Quantum View, with the collaboration ofMintzberg,H., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1979), The Structuring of Organisations. A Synthesis of the Research, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around Organisations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.Mintzberg, H. (1989), Mintzberg on Management. Inside our Strange World of Organizations, NewYork/London, The Free Press/Mac Millan.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour through the Wilds ofStrategic Management, New York, Free Press.

Mintzberg, H. & Waters, J.A. (1982), “Tracking Strategy in an Entrepreneurial Firm”, Academy ofManagement Journal, vol. 25, n°3, pp. 465-499.

Mispelblom, F. (1995), Au-delà de la qualité. Démarches qualité, conditions de travail et politiques dubonheur, Paris, Syros, coll. “Alternatives sociologiques”.

Moisdon, J.C. (dir.) (1997), Du mode d’existence des outils de gestion: les instruments de gestion àl’épreuve des organisations, Paris, Seli Arslan.

Morin, E.M., Savoie, A. & Beaudin, G. (1994), L’efficacité de l’organisation. Théories, représentations etmesures, Montréal/Paris/Casablanca, Gaëtan Morin.

Moss Kanter, R. (1983), The Change Masters, London, Unwin Paperbacks.Moullet, M. (1992), Le management clandestin, preface by Friedberg, E., Paris, Interéditions.Mumford, E. (1981), “Participative Systems Design: Structure andMethod”, Systems, Objectives, Solu-tions, North Holland Publishing, n°1, pp. 5-19.

Ngai, E., Law, C. & Wat, F. (2008), “Examining the Critical Success Factors in the Adoption of Enter-prise Resource Planning”, Computers in Industry, August, vol. 59, n°6, pp. 548-564.

Nikolova, N., Reihlen, M. & Schlapfner, J. (2009), “Client – Consultant Interaction: Capturing SocialPractices of Professional Service Production”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 25, n°3,pp. 289-298.

Nizet, J. (2002), “La théorie des conventions”, in Nizet, J. & Pichault, F. La coordination inter-organisationnelle chez Thalys. Support pédagogique au diagnostic et à l’intervention, CD-ROMand Trainer Book, Namur/Liège, CIME/Labset (available at the Centrale des Cas et Médias Péda-gogiques de Paris).

Nizet, J. & Huybrechts, C. (1998), Interventions systémiques dans les organisations. Intégration desapports de Mintzberg et de Palo Alto, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université, coll. “Management”.

Nizet, J. & Pichault, F. (2001), Introduction à la théorie des configurations. Du “one best way” à la diver-sité organisationnelle, Québec/Bruxelles, GaëtanMorin/De Boeck Université, coll. “Management”.

Nizet, J. & Pichault, F. (2012), La coordination du travail dans les organisations, Paris, Vuibert,coll. “Topos”.


Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company: How the Japanese CompaniesCreate the Dynamic of Innovation, New York: Oxford university Press.

Nooteboom, B. (1997), “Path Dependence of Knowledge: Implications for the Theory of theFirm”, in Magnusson, L. & Ottosson, J. (eds), Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependence, Elgar,Cheltenham, pp. 57-78.

O’reilly, C.A. & Tushman, M.L. (2004), “The Ambidextrous Organization”, Harvard Business Review,vol. 82, n°4, pp. 74-81.

Orlikowski, W.J. & Hofman, J.D. (1997), “An Improvisational Model of Change Management: TheCase of Groupware Technologies”, Sloan Management Review, Winter, pp. 11-21.

Ouchi, W. G. (1980), “Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 25,n°1, pp. 129-141.

Pastré, O. (1983), L’informatisation et l’emploi, Paris, Maspero, coll. “Repères”.Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P. & Schultz, F. (2011), “Maintaining Legitimacy: Controversies, Orders ofWorth,and Public Justifications”, Journal of Management Studies, December, vol. 48, n°8, pp. 1804-1836.

Pavé, F. (1982), “Le Katangais et le Financier ou les limites de l’audit informatique”, L’informatiqueprofessionnelle, n°8, pp. 35-55.

Pavé, F. (1989), L’illusion informaticienne, Paris, L’Harmattan, preface by Crozier, M., coll. “Logiquessociales”.

Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). “Dynamics of Organizational Routines:A Generative Model”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 49, n°8, pp. 1484-1508.

Peters, T. (1987), ThrivingonChaos:Handbook foraManagementRevolution, NewYork, HarperCollins.Pettigrew, A. (1987), “Context and Action in the Tranformation of the Firm”, Journal of ManagementStudies, vol. 24, n°6, pp. 649-670.

Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Cambridge (Mass.), Ballinger, 391p.Pichault, F. (1990), Le conflit informatique. Gérer les ressources humaines dans le changement tech-nologique, Bruxelles/Paris, De Boeck/Éditions Universitaires, coll. “Ouvertures sociologiques”.

Pichault, F. (1998), “A Political Model of Change in Network Organizations”, European Journal ofWork Organizational Psychology, vol. 7, n°2, pp. 215-232.

Pichault, F. (2004), “Peut-on mesurer le succès d’une intervention en GRH ?”, Revue de gestion desressources humaines, n°54, July-August-September, pp. 7-28

Pichault, F. (2006), “L’intervention en organisation: une question de légitimation systémique ?”, inMucchielli, A. & BOURION, C. (dir.), Psychosociologie et systémique des relations dans les organisa-tions, Paris, Eska, pp. 63-96.

Pichault, F. (2007), “HRM-Based Reforms in Public Organizations: Problems and Perspectives”,Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 17, n°3, pp. 265-282.

Pichault, F., Lisein, O., Rondeaux, G. & Xhauflair, V. (coord.) (2008), La recherche-intervention peut-elleêtre socialement responsable ?, Paris Vuibert, coll. “AGRH”.

Pichault, F. & Nizet, J. (2013), Les pratiques de gestion des ressources humaines. Conventions, contexteset jeux d’acteurs, Paris, Seuil, coll. “Points/Economie”.

Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy. Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, NewYork, Free Press.

Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, New York,Free Press.

Powell, W.W. (1990), “Neither Markets Nor Hierarchies: Network Forms of Organizations”, Researchin Organizational Behavior, n°12, pp. 295-336.

Quinn, J. B. (1980), Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Homewood (Il.), Richard D.Irwin.Randall, J. & Procter, S. (2008), “Ambiguity and Ambivalence: Senior Managers’ Accounts of Organi-zational Change in a Restructured Government Department”, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, vol. 21, n°6, pp. 686-700.


Reitter, R., Chevalier, F., Laroche, H., Mendoza, C. & Pulicani, P. (1991), Cultures d’entreprise. Etude surles conditions de réussite du changement, Paris, Vuibert, coll. “Gestion”.

Reix, R., Fallery, R., Kalika, M. & Rowe, F. (2011), Systèmes d’information et management des organisa-tions, 6e édition, Paris, Vuibert, coll. “Gestion”.

Rocher, O. (dir.) (2003), E-projets: la conduite du changement par la traduction, Lyon, Editions del’ANACT.

Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, W.J (1950),Management and theWorker, Cambridge (Mass.), HarvardUniversity Press.

Rorive, B. (2005), “L’entreprise réseau revisitée. Une tentative d’ordonnancement des nouvellesformes d’organisation”, Annales des Mines. Gérer et comprendre, March, n°79, pp. 63-75.

Rouleau, L. (2005). “Micro-Practices of Strategic Sensemaking and Sensegiving: How MiddleManagers Interpret and Sell Change Every Day”, Journal of Management Studies, November,vol. 42, n°7, pp. 1413–1441.

Sabberwal, R. & Chan, Y.E. (2001), “Alignment between Business and IS Strategies: A Study of Pros-pectors, Analyzers, and Defenders”, Information Systems Research, vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 11-34.

Salerni, D. (1979), “Le pouvoir hiérarchique de la technologie”, Sociologie du Travail, n°1, pp. 4-18.Sarker, S. & Sidorova, A. (2006), “Understanding Business Process Change Failure: An Actor-NetworkPerspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Summer, vol. 23, n°1, pp. 51-86.

Schein, E. H. (1969), Process Consultation: its Role in Organizational Development, Reading (Mass.),Addison Wesley.

Schein, E. H. (1999), The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Culture Change,San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Segrestin, D. (2004), Les chantiers du manager. L’innovation en entreprise: où en sommes-nous?Comment piloter les changements et les maîtriser?, Paris, Armand Colin.

Simon, H.A. (1976), Administrative behaviour, New York, Free Press.Star S.L. & Griesemer, J. (1989), “Institutionnal Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects:Amateurs and Professionals on Berkeley’s Museum of Vertrebate Zoologie”, Social Studies ofScience, vol. 19, n°3, pp. 387-420.

Storey, J. (1987), “Developments in the Management of Human Resources: an Interim Report”,Warwick Papers in Industrial Relations, IRRU, School of Industrial and Business Studies, Universityof Warwick, November, n°17.

Sullivan, P. & Mccarthy, J. (2008), “Managing the Polyphonic Sounds of Organizational Truths”,Organization Studies, vol. 29, n°4, pp. 525-541.

Thevenot, L. (1986), “Les investissementsde forme”, in Thevenot, L. (ed.),Conventionséconomiques,Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, coll. “Cahiers du Centre d’Etude de l’Emploi”, pp. 21-71.

Thomas, R. & Davies, A. (2005), “Theorizing the Micro-politics of Resistance: New Public Manage-ment and Managerial Identities in the UK Public Services”, Organization Studies, vol. 26 n°5,pp. 683-706.

Thompson, P. & Smith, C. (2009), “Waving, Not Drowning: Explaining and Exploring theResilience of Labor Process Theory”, Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, vol. 21, n°3,pp. 253-262.

Tichy, N.M., Fombrun, C.J. & Devanna, M.A. (1982), “Strategic Human Resource Management”,Sloan Management Review, vol. 23, n°2, pp. 47-61.

Tourish, D., Paulsen, N., Hobman, E. & Bordia, P. (2004), “The Downsides of Downsizing: Communi-cation Processes and Information Needs in the Aftermath of a Workforce Reduction Strategy”,Management Communication Quarterly, vol. 17, n°4, pp. 485-516.

Truss, C., Gratton, L , Hope-Hailey, V., Mcgovern, P. & Stiles, P. (1997), “Soft and Hard Models ofHuman Resource Management: A Reappraisal”, Journal of Management Studies, January, vol. 34,n°1, pp. 53-73.


Tsoukas H. & Chia, R. (2002), “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change”,Organization Science, vol. 13, n° 5, pp. 567-582.

Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and DeliveringResults, Boston (Mass.), Harvard Business School Press.

Valentino, C.L. (2004), “The Role of Middle Managers in the Transmission and Integration ofOrganizational Culture”, Journal of Healthcare Management, November/December, vol. 49, n°6,pp. 393-404.

Van Maanen, J. (1978), “People Processing: Strategies of Organizational Socialization”, Organiza-tional Dynamics, vol. 7, n°1, pp. 19-36.

Venkastesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L. & Xu, X. (2012), “Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Tech-nology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”, MIS Quarterly,March, vol. 36, n°1, pp. 157-178.

Verburg, R.M., Hartog, D. & Koopman, P. L. (2007), “Configurations of Human ResourceManagementPractices: a Model and Test of Internal Fit”, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement,vol. 18, n°2, pp. 184-208.

Villette, M. (1988), L’homme qui croyait au management. Récit, suivi d’une brève mise en perspectivehistorique, Paris, Seuil.

Vlaar, P.W.L., VanDenBosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Copingwith Problems of Understandingin Interorganizational Relationships: Using Formalization as a Means to Make Sense”, Organiza-tion Studies, vol. 27, pp. 1617-1638.

Voepel, S., Leibold, M. & Mahmoud, K. (2004), “The Organizational Fitness Navigator: Enablingand Measuring Organizational Fitness for Rapid Change”, Journal of Change Management, June,vol. 4, n°2, pp. 123-140.

Vuuren, M. & Elving, W. (2008), “Communication, Sensemaking and Change as a Chord of ThreeStrands: Practical Implications and a Research Agenda for Communicating OrganizationalChange”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, August, vol. 13, n°3, pp. 349-359.

Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection and Socialization of Newcomers,(1st edition in 1980), Reading (Mass.), Addison-Wesley.

Warnotte, G. (1997), “Fonction ressources humaines et management humain: approche historique”in Brouwers, I., Cornet, A., Guttierez, L., Pichault, F., Rousseau, A. & Warnotte, G., Managementhumain et contexte de changement: pour une approche constructiviste, Bruxelles, De Boeck Univer-sité, coll. “Management”, pp. 15-25.

Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organization, Reading (Mass.), Addisson Wesley.Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, London, Sage.Welch, D.E. & Welch, L.S. (2006), “Commitment for Hire? The Viability of Corporate Culture as a MNCControl Mechanism”, International Business Review, vol. 15, n°1, February, pp. 14-28.

Werr, A., Stjernberg, T. & Docherty, P. (1997), “The Functions of Methods of Change in ManagementConsulting”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 10, n°4, pp. 288-306.

Williamson, O.E. (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York, Free Press.Williamson, O.E. (1991), “Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete StructuralAlternatives”, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 36, June, pp. 269-296.

Wilson, D.C. (1992), A Strategy of Change. Concepts and Controversies in the Management of Change,London/New York, Routledge, coll. “Routledge Series in Analytical Management”.

Woodward, J. (1965), Industrial Organization: Theory and Practice, London, Oxford University Press.Zald, M.N. & Berger, M.A. (1978), “Social Movements in Organizations: Coup d’Etat, Insurgency, andMass Movements”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, n°4, pp. 823-861.

List of FiguresFigure 1 Roles of the HR department 33Figure 2 The rational decision-making process 53Figure 3 Deliberate/emergent change 55Figure 4 Interactions between content, context and process 69Figure 5 The five forces model 69Figure 6 Relationships between influence systems, management styles

and types of social interaction 112Figure 7 The “improvisational” model of changemanagement over time 148

List of TablesTable 1 Organisational configurations 21Table 2 Forms of governance and management control 22Table 3 Typology of polities according to Boltanski & Thévenot (1991),

reworked by J.Nizet (2002) 27Table 4 The distinction personnel administration/human

resource development 31Table 5 A typology of HRM policies 32Table 6 Types of information system architecture 37Table 7 Ten schools of thought in strategy formation 49Table 8 Comparison between the typologies of Johnson andMintzberg

et al. in strategy formation 50Table 9 Approaches to change and methods of evaluation 73Table 10 Applying the criteria of joint satisfaction of diverging interests

in the evaluation of a change process 92Table 11 A multidimensional evaluation of the four case studies 93Table 12 Centripetal and centrifugal influence systems 98Table 13 Change management styles, influence systems and potential

reactions of the stakeholders concerned 108Table 14 Congruence relationships between management styles

and influence systems 110Table 15 Correspondences between the phases of the actor-network

theory 123

List of figuresand tables


Table 16 Fundamental principles of a polyphonic management style 123Table 17 Stakeholders analysis in the press agency 127Table 18 Multidimensional evaluation in the air freight company 152Table 19 Managerial responses to individual concerns during a change process 159Table 20 Panoptical vs. polyphonic management styles 161

François PICHAULT

Fran

çois

Pic

ha

ult

MANAGER RH



Cha

nge Man

agem

ent

Change Management

RHMANAGER

A rigorous theoretical framework for sustaining change management

This book develops a critical view on the main current theories in change mana-gement. Most of them offer partial explanations: the planning model considers change as a linear process, in which design necessarily precedes implementation; the contingent model is essentially focused on contextual pressures; the political model is mainly concerned with power games, often leading to the dilution of change, etc.

The book proposes an original combination of these models by referring to the actor-network theory, a french sociological perspective. Thanks to numerous case studies, it provides the reader with a rich and concrete understanding of the main phenomena linked to any change process. It leads to a multidimensional grid for assessing change processes and pleads for the adoption of a “polyphonic” management style, in which the interests of the various stakeholders concerned directly contribute to the design of the project.

ISBN 978-2-8041-7673-0CHAMANA

I S S N 2 0 3 0 - 3 6 6 1

Casestudies

François PichaultPhd in sociology, is full professor at HEC-Management School (University of Liège, Belgium). He is also affiliated professor in human resource management at ESCP-Europe, Paris. He chairs, at the University of Liège, an action-research centre (LENTIC) focussed on human and organiza-tional aspects of change and innovation processes. He authored numerous books and scientific papers in HRM and organizational change.

www.deboeck.com

manager rh manager change management change …

Documents