Search

Les environnements dynamiques poussent de plus en plus les organisations à répondre à des demandes concurrentes et imbriquées. Ce phénomène accentue les tensions dans l’organisation du travail quotidien des employés. Notre recherche vise à comprendre quelles sont les stratégies d’adaptation mises en place par les cadres intermédiaires pour faire face aux tensions paradoxales en contexte de changement. Il y a relativement peu de recherches dans la littérature portant sur les stratégies individuelles mobilisées par des acteurs organisationnels pour surmonter les paradoxes organisationnels. Notre recherche repose sur une étude de cas approfondie menée durant quatre ans et portant sur une transformation informatique dans une organisation internationale. Cette recherche qualitative a permis d’ouvrir la boîte noire de l’expérience paradoxale vécue par les cadres intermédiaires et leur manière d’y répondre. Nous avons obtenu trois principaux résultats. Premièrement, notre recherche explicite les paradoxes organisationnels dans une perspective empirique, en décortiquant les tensions vécues par les cadres intermédiaires durant un processus de changement organisationnel. Deuxièmement, nos résultats font émerger différentes stratégies d’adaptation mises en place par les cadres intermédiaires. Troisièmement, en reliant ces stratégies d’adaptation à chaque tension paradoxale rencontrée, nos résultats démontrent que les cadres intermédiaires utilisent d’abord des mécanismes d’ajustement discursif pour faire face aux paradoxes de type « appartenance » et « organisationnel ». Par contre, ils mobilisent plutôt des mécanismes de scission (splitting) des tensions paradoxales pour faire face au paradoxe de type « performance ». Ces résultats permettent d’aider les dirigeants à mieux comprendre les comportements des cadres intermédiaires en contexte de changement afin de mettre en place des dispositifs de soutien adaptés.

Based on a case study of 21 middle managers impacted by the implementation of a new SAP system, this research aims to analyze how the change context intensifies the paradoxical nature of middle managers’ work. Based on two series of interviews, this research highlights the double difficulty encountered by middle managers in a change context: on the one hand, the exacerbation of day-to-day business tensions due to lack of time available; on the other hand, the addition of three tensions specifically related to the change context (change agent vs change recipient; change manager demands vs top manager demands; change demands vs business-as-usual). The complexity of middle managers’ work can lead them to be opposed to the change project by developing resistance not towards the change itself but vis-à-vis the consequences it entails such as work overload.

This paper aims to understand how middle managers cope with paradoxical tensions. As it is increasingly common for organizations to have to simultaneously juggle with competing demands (Smith & Lewis, 2011), the juxtaposition of coexisting opposites has increased experiences of paradoxical tensions, challenging organizational actors in their daily work. Among these actors, middle managers are generally more prone to tensions (Wooldridge, Schmidt, & Floyd, 2008) as organizations have become flatter due to downsizing and reengineering, and responsibility is delegated downwards (Balogun & Johnson, 2004), with middle managers reporting a significant increase in their workload (Armstrong-Stassen, 2005). As tension is considered to lead to burnout and stress, more recent work has recognized that it is not the existence of contradictions per se that is productive or destructive, but the way they are managed (Tracy, 2004). Despite accumulate insights into the management of organizational paradoxes (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Van de Ven, 2013), relatively little is known about coping strategies at the intermediate level (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008). In response, this longitudinal real-time analysis of an IT transformation program opens the black box of middle managers’ responses to paradoxical tensions. Specifically, our original contributions are twofold: firstly, to identify seven dualities through which organizational paradoxes are perceived by middle managers, and secondly, to categorize their responses to cope with paradoxes into four active and three defensive strategies. We suggest that our overview of paradoxical tensions and related coping strategies provides significant insights for organizations as well as for their managers.

This paper aims to understand how middle managers cope with paradoxical tension in change context. As it is increasingly common for organizations to have to simultaneously juggle with competing demands such as change vs stability (Farjoun, 2010; Stoltzfuz et al., 2011), exploitation vs exploration (Smith & Tushman, 2005) or collaboration vs control (Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003), the juxtaposition of coexisting opposites has increased experiences of paradoxical tension, challenging organizational actors in their daily work...

26 Years of Paradox research: A literature review

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to explore how drivers differentially speed up the change process adoption in the perspective of a technological change. More specifically, the paper aims to answer the following question: "Which factors impact the technological change adoption speed of an information system?" Based on an empirical study, our results identify three factors that have a direct influence on the speed of technological change adoption. Design/methodology/approach: Using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology model as a point of departure, the paper analyzes the impact of eight variables grouped in four categories: the perceived attributes of change (performance expectancy and effort expectancy), social influence (peer influence and supervisor influence), facilitating conditions (initial training and helpdesk) and individual characteristics (receptivity to change and self-efficacy). To evaluate which factors accelerate or inhibit change adoption, the paper uses a statistical model of survival analysis. Findings: Based on a 15-month longitudinal study of a workflow system implementation in a telecommunications firm, the results highlight that performance expectancy, supervisor influence and self-efficacy have a direct influence on the speed of technological change adoption. Research limitations/implications: As a case study, the research findings may only be valid in the particular organization in which it is developed. Indeed, the organizational culture, the company's internal rules, and the history of the organization are factors which significantly influence the speed of change. Practical implications: The results may help project leaders to be aware of the elements that must be dealt with effectively if a change process is to succeed within the allotted time. Originality/value: The statistical model of survival analysis allows analyzing change adoption from a dynamic perspective. This statistical approach is quite new and complement

This study provides an analysis of 1053 organizational paradoxes related articles published in 277 scientific journals during the period 1986-2012. The paper starts providing key facts (number of publications/ year; key journals; key concepts used; key thematic areas tackled) about the evolution of this research area over the last three decades before focusing on the coping strategies developed to deal with these tensions. In this regards, this paper analyses a subset of xxx of these articles that have provided insights into how to deal with paradoxical tensions. The outcomes of this analysis are twofold. First, it reveals that paradox literature has experienced a phenomenal advancement during the last three decades, characterized by an exponential increase of publications which led to conceptual refinement and extensive topical coverage. Second, it contributes to extending frameworks in paradox research by synthesizing both organizational and individual strategies for coping with tensions. The paper concludes with implications for future research.

Les entreprises sont amenées à gérer des changements qui se succèdent voire qui se chevauchent. Il est utile de considérer le changement comme permanent plutôt qu’un événement ponctuel. En considérant le changement comme un état permanent des entreprises contemporaines, l’enjeu pour les organisations réside dans la capacité de gérer le changement et la stabilité organisationnels. Cela nécessite une capacité à gérer les paradoxes organisationnels. En raison de l’ambivalence de leur position dans l’organisation, les cadres intermédiaires semblent particulièrement concernés par cette approche paradoxale des organisations. Sur base d’une étude empirique menée auprès de 21 cadres intermédiaires, l’originalité de cette recherche est de deux ordres. Premièrement, elle vise à identifier de quelle façon les quatre catégories de paradoxes organisationnels proposées par Smith et Lewis (2011) influencent le travail des cadres intermédiaires. Deuxièmement, elle met en avant de quelle manière le contexte de changement permanent accentue les paradoxes que les cadres intermédiaires sont amenés à gérer. De façon générale, cette recherche montre qu’en s’appuyant sur leur « intelligence émotionnelle » et leur « inventivité situationnelle », les cadres intermédiaires sont les plus à même à trouver des solutions locales aux paradoxes énoncés au niveau organisationnel.

As organizational environments become more complex, it is now common for companies to simultaneously deal with competing demands (exploration-exploitation, stability-change, individual-collective, collaboration-control, etc.). Although choosing among competing tensions might seem convincing in the short term, Lewis (2000) argues that long-term sustainability requires organizations to consider these conflicting demands through a paradoxical lens. Despite the lack of conceptual clarity in this field, Smith and Lewis (2011) recently defined paradoxes as “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time”. As early theories were based on the notion that there is one best way, contemporary organizations must from now on deal with complexity, ambiguity and plurality. However, although a paradoxical approach may be beneficial on the long run, companies have to be aware that the juxtaposition of coexisting opposites intensifies experiences of tensions, challenging actors’ cognitive limits and demanding creative sensemaking. In particular, while middle managers are traditionally seen as mediators between the strategic sphere and the operating core (Balogun, 2003), it is not uncommon to see these actors faced with conflicting demands. The ambivalence of the place they occupy within the organization leads us to consider the paradoxical nature of their roles. Through an empirical study of 21 middle managers, this article seeks to identify the different roles of these actors and the potential tensions they induce. As middle managers’ roles are analyzed through an emergent perspective, we consider that these actors are capable of transcending and transfiguring their prescribed roles in order to adapt their behavior to the context in which they evolve. In line with Mantere (2008), our discussion of managers’ roles is not limited to roles expectations, but also accounts for roles enactment, which involves agency and context. Through the combina

Le changement constitue dans l’univers des organisations un thème central dans la mesure où les évolutions constantes de l’environnement au sein duquel évoluent les entreprises conduisent à faire de la gestion des changements organisationnels une question clé de survie. Toutefois, de nombreux travaux ont mis en avant le faible taux de succès dans la mise en œuvre effective des changements organisationnels. Les principaux courants de recherche portant sur le changement en organisation se sont orientés soit vers l’étude du contenu, soit vers une compréhension des processus. Notre recherche s’inscrit résolument dans une approche processuelle, diachronique et multi-niveaux du changement. Dans la lignée des travaux récents portant sur la « fabrique de la stratégie » qui proposent une approche microscopique des processus organisationnels, notre recherche analyse les processus de changement au travers des micro-pratiques, des activités et des conversations quotidiennes menées par les acteurs organisationnels aux différents niveaux hiérarchiques de l’organisation. Plus particulièrement, cet article se focalise sur les pratiques des cadres intermédiaires afin de comprendre comment ces acteurs organisationnels intermédiaires participent à la « fabrique » du changement dans leurs activités quotidiennes.

Sur la base d’une étude de cas, cette recherche analyse la double difficulté rencontrée par les cadres intermédiaires en contexte de changement à savoir : d’une part, un ajout de tensions spécifiquement liées au contexte de changement ; et d’autre part, une exacerbation des tensions courantes due au manque de temps dont ils disposent. La complexification du travail des cadres intermédiaires peut dès lors les amener à s’opposer au projet de changement en développant de la résistance non pas à l’égard du changement en lui-même mais vis-à-vis des conséquences qu’il entraîne., Based on a case study this research highlights the double difficulty encountered by middle managers in a change context: on the one hand, the exacerbation of day-to-day business tensions due to lack of time available; on the other hand, the addition of three tensions specifically related to the change context. The complexity of middle managers’ work can lead them to be opposed to the change project by developing resistance not towards the change itself but vis-à-vis the consequences it entails such as work overload.