Abstracts
Résumé
Cet article s’intéresse au rôle des individus lorsqu’ils répondent à la complexité institutionnelle au quotidien. S’appuyant sur étude qualitative de la gestion de la multiplicité des normes en systèmes d’information, les résultats montrent que les individus s’engagent dans trois activités. (1) Le sensemaking consiste à traduire une logique dans le langage organisationnel et à la formaliser. (2) Les individus procèdent ensuite à une interprétation de la centralité et de l’incompatibilité entre logiques et les comparent entre elles. (3) Enfin, l’implémentation des logiques assure leur mise en action. Dotés de créativité, les individus peuvent alors bricoler et modifier les pratiques organisationnelles.
Mots-clés :
- Complexité institutionnelle,
- logiques institutionnelles,
- l’individu,
- référentiels des bonnes pratiques,
- systèmes d’information
Abstract
This study examines how individuals cope with institutional complexity in their everyday work. The empirical setting includes a qualitative study of multiple information technology best practices frameworks. It shows that individuals perform three activities in dealing with institutional complexity in their day-to-day work. First, they are involved in (1) a sensemaking activity which consists in translating logic into organizational language and formalizing it. Secondly, (2) they perform an interpretation of the centrality and incompatibility and a comparison of logics. Finally, (3) the implementation of the logics ensures their effective application. Individuals, equipped with creativity, can alter, modify and tinker organizational practices.
Keywords:
- Institutional complexity,
- institutional logics,
- the individual,
- best practices frameworks,
- information system
Resumen
Este artículo se interesa por el papel de los individuos cuando responden a la complejidad institucional a diario. Los resultados, que se basan en un estudio cualitativo de la gestión de la multiplicidad de las normas en los sistemas de información, muestran que los individuos se comprometen en tres actividades. (1) El “sensemaking” consiste en traducir una lógica en el lenguaje organizacional y en formalizarla. (2) Los individuos proceden después a una interpretación de la centralidad y de la incompatibilidad entre lógicas y las comparan entre ellas. (3) Por fin, la implementación de lógicas garantiza su puesta en funcionamiento. Dotados de creatividad, los individuos pueden entonces hacer arreglos y modificar las prácticas organizacionales.
Palabras clave:
- Complejidad institucional,
- lógicas institucionales,
- el individuo,
- registro de buenas prácticas,
- sistemas de información
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
- Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. (2015). Harnessing Productive Tensions in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Work Integration Social Enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685.
- BenSlimane, K. (2012). Retourner sa veste, toujours du bon côté: Travail institutionnel discursif dans le déploiement de la télévision numérique terrestre en France. M@n@gement, Vol. 15(2), 146–179.
- BenSlimane, K., & Leca, B. (2014). Pour une approche par les ressources et les compétences du travail institutionnel. Management international, 19(1), 85–93.
- Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3). 1
- CIGREF. (2009). Les référentiels de la DSI: état de l’art, usages et bonnes pratiques.
- CIGREF. (2011). Gouvernance du Système d’Information. Paris.
- Colyvas, J., & Powell, W. (2009). Measures, metrics, and myopia: The challenges and ramifications of sustaining academic entrepreneurship. In Gary D. Libecap (ed.) Measuring the Social Value of Innovation: A Link in the University Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship Equation (Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation & Economic Growth, Volume 19) (pp. 79–111). Emerald Group Publishing.
- Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208.
- Currie, G., & Spyridonidis, D. (2016). Interpretation of Multiple Institutional Logics on the Ground: Actors’ Position, their Agency and Situational Constraints in Professionalized Contexts. Organization Studies, 37(1), 77–97.
- Dacin, M. T., Munir, K., & Tracey, P. (2010). Formal dining at Cambridge colleges: Linking ritual performance and institutional maintenance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1393-1418.
- Dalpiaz, E., Rindova, V., & Ravasi, D. (2016). Combining Logics to Transform Organizational Agency: Blending Industry and Art at Alessi. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61(3), 347–392.
- DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21).
- Durand, R., Szostak, B., & Jourdan, J. (2013). Institutional logics as strategic resources. In Michael Lounsbury, Eva Boxenbaum (ed.) Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 39 Part B) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, (pp. 165–201).
- Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023.
- Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (pp. 232–263).
- Gartner. (2012). Le rôle en plein évolution des structures et des modèles de références basés sur les processus dans l’amélioration continue de l’informatique.
- Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
- Goodrick, E., & Reay, T. (2011). Constellations of Institutional Logics: Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists. Work and Occupations, 38(3), 372–416.
- Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The Multiplicity of Institutional Logics and the Heterogeneity of Organizational Responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539.
- Greenwood, R., Hinings, C., & Jennings, P. (2015). Sustainability and organizational change: An institutional perspective. Leading Sustainable Change: An Organizational Perspective, 323–355.
- Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications (pp. 1–46).
- Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional Complexity and Organizational Responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
- Guler, I., Guillén, M. F., Macpherson, J. M., & Guillen, M. F. (2002). Global Competition, Institutions, and the Diffusion of Organizational Practices: The International Spread of ISO 9000 Quality Certificates. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 207.
- Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213–236.
- Kodeih, F., & Greenwood, R. (2014). Responding to Institutional Complexity: The Role of Identity. Organization Studies, 35(1), 7–39.
- Kraatz, M., & Block, E. (2008). Organizational Implications of Institutional Pluralism. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications (pp. 243–275).
- Langley, A., & Abdallah, C. (2011). Templates and Turns in in Qualitative Studies of Strategy and Management. In Boyd, B., Crook, R., Lê, J., & Smith, A. (2011) (Eds), Research Methodology in Strategy and Management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, (pp. 201–235).
- Lok, J. (2010). Institutional Logics as Identity Projects. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1305–1335.
- Lounsbury, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2013). Institutional Logics in Action, Part 1. Emerald Group Publishing.
- Maguire, S., & Hardy, C. (2009). Discourse and Deinstitutionalization: the Decline of DDT. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 148–178.
- Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la Résistance: Competing Logics and the Consolidation of U.S. Community Banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.
- Martin, G., Currie, G., Weaver, S., Finn, R., & McDonald, R. (2016). Institutional Complexity and Individual Responses: Delineating the Boundaries of Partial Autonomy. Organization Studies, 23(3), 1–25.
- McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in Action: Managing Institutional Complexity in a Drug Court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196.
- Nicolini, D., Delmestri, G., Goodrick, E., Reay, T., Lindberg, K., & Adolfsson, P. (2016). Look What’s Back! Institutional Complexity, Reversibility and the Knotting of Logics. British Journal of Management, 27(2), 228–248.
- Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research on Organizations Learn from Each Other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145.
- Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in Hybrid Context: How Individuals In Organizations Respond to Competing Institutional Logics. In Michael Lounsbury, Eva Boxenbaum (ed.) Institutional Logics in Action, Part B (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 39 Part B)Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.3–35
- Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267–292.
- Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy1. American journal of sociology, 108(4), 795–843.
- Smets, M., Jarzabkowski, P., Burke, G. T., & Spee, P. (2015). Reinsurance Trading in Lloyd’s of London: Balancing Conflicting-yet-Complementary Logics in Practice. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 932–970.
- Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1997). Grounded theory in practice. Sage Publications.
- Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 1(3), 571–610.
- Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process. Oxford University Press.
- Thornton, P., & Occasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics, in Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE Publications, (pp. 99–129).
- vanBon, J., de Jong, ArjenPieper, M., Rozemeijer, E., Tjassming, R., vanderVeen, A., & Verheijen, T. (2007). IT Service Management: an Introduction (ITSMF.). itSMF International Pubication - van Haren Publishing.
- Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE.
- Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or Conformity? An Institutional and Network Perspective on the Content and Consequences of TQM Adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 366.
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
10.7202/1028491ar