PARADOXICAL PRACTICES IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS: THE CASE OF A COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION / PARADOXES ORGANISATIONNAL DANS LES ORGANISATIONS PUBLIQUES : CAS D'UNE ORGANISATION A CARACTERE COMMERCIAL ET INDUSTRIEL

Fouad Bazzine, Hassane Boujettou

Abstract


Public sector organizations are by nature complex multifunctional entities, attempting to reconcile partially conflicting objectives and considerations (Perrow, 1972). The advent of new public management (NPM) has only increased the number of paradoxes to be faced, since these new managerial requirements, focused on performance, efficiency and even profitability, were added to those, very present, linked to the essential principles of public action. In this study, we address the paradoxical nature of the daily work of proximity managers and identify strategies for managing the paradoxes they face. Our results confirmed two key points: 1) the presence of organizational paradoxes that affect the daily work of proximity managers; and 2) that proximity managers can respond to paradoxical tensions by applying different defensive and active approaches. They must then show a behavioral complexity that allows them to manage the paradoxes in order to take into account the multiplicity of tendencies that are expressed within the organization.

Les organisations du secteur public sont par nature des entités multifonctionnelles complexes, qui tentent de concilier des objectifs et des considérations partiellement contradictoires (Perrow, 1972). L’avènement du new public management (NPM) n’a fait qu’augmenter le nombre de paradoxes à affronter, puisque ces nouvelles exigences managériales axées sur la performance, l’efficience voire la rentabilité, venaient se rajouter à celles, bien présentes, liées aux principes essentiels de l’action publique.
Dans cette étude, nous abordons la nature paradoxale du travail quotidien des cadres de proximité et nous identifions les stratégies de gestion des paradoxes auxquels ils sont confrontés. Nos résultats ont permis de confirmer deux points essentiels : 1) la présence des paradoxes organisationnels qui se répercutent au niveau du travail quotidien des cadres de proximité; et 2) Ces derniers peuvent réagir aux tensions paradoxales en appliquant différentes défensives et actives. Ils doivent alors montrer une complexité comportementale leur permettant de gérer les paradoxes afin de prendre en compte la multiplicité des tendances qui s’expriment au sein de l’organisation.

Article visualizations:

Hit counter


Keywords


public organization, paradoxical, local framework / organisation publique, paradoxe, cadre de proximité

Full Text:

PDF

References


Autissier, D., & Derumez, I. V. (2007). Les managers de première ligneet le changement. Revue française de gestion, (5), 115-130

Babeau, O. et Chanlat, J. F. (2008). La transgression, une dimension oubliée de l’organisation. Revue française de gestion, 183(3), p.201-219.

Beech N., Burns H., de Caestecker L., MacIntosh R. & Mac- Lean D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations, Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332. R.E. Moore, Interval analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1966).

Charreire Petit, S., & Durieux, F. (2007). Explorer et tester: les deux voies de la recherche. Méthodes de recherche en management, 3, 58-83.

Christopher Hood, Guy Peters, The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Volume 14, Issue 3, July 2004, Pages 267–282,

Crozier M., Friedberg E. (1997). L’acteur et le système : les contraintes de l’action collective, Paris, Le Seuil.

Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science, 11(1), 77–101. doi:10.1287/Orsc.11.1.77.12570

demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic Organization, 11(3), 245-280.

Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspective.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989 Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14 : 4, 532-550.

Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225.

Ford J., Backoff R. (1988). Organizational Change in and Out of Dualities and Paradox in R. Quinn & K. Cameron, Paradox and Transformation, Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, Ballinger Publishing

Gebert D., Boerner S. & Kearney E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action strategies?, Organization Science, 21 (2), 593-608

Gulati R. & Puranam P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies between formal and informal organization, Organization Science, 20(2), 422-442

Huy, Q. (2002). Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: The contributions of middle managers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.

Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2013). Responding to competing strategic

Letondal, A. M. (1997). L’encadrement de proximité. Quels rôles dans les changements.

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management review, 25(4), 760-776.

Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149.

Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sense making. Working through paradox (2007). Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240.

McGrath, J. (1982). Dilemmatics: the study of research choices and dilemmas. In J. McGrath, J. Martin & R. A. Kulka (eds), Judgement calls in research : 69-80. Beverly Hills, CA : Sage.

Mintzberg H. (2006). Le manager au quotidien : les 10 rôles du cadre, Les Editions d’Organisation.

Perret V., Josserand E. (2003). Le paradoxe : Penser et gérer autrement les organisations, Ellipses.

Perrow, C. (1972). Complex organizations; a critical essay (No. 04; HM786, P3.).

Poole M. S., Van De Ven A. H. (1989). Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories, Academy of Management Review, vol. 14, n° 4, p.562-578.

Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers

Ragin Charles C. & Becker Howard S. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, Cambridge (MA), Cambridge University Press.

Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In M.S. Poole & A.H. Van de Ven (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation (pp. 73– 107). New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Smith K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, W. K., &Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.

Smith, Wendy, Binns, Andy, and Tushman, Michael (2010). Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43:, 448-461.

Smith, W. K. et Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a Theory of Paradox: a Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing, Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.

Stewart, T. A. (2006). The top line. Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no 7/8, p. 10.

Stoltzfus, K., Stohl, C., & Seibold, D. R. (2011). Managing organizational change: Paradoxical problems, solutions, and consequences. Journal of organizational change management, 24(3), 349-367.

Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of management review, 28(3), 397-415.

Tracy, S. J. (2004). Dialectic, contradiction, or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119-146.

Trosa, S. (2017). Pour un management public des paradoxes. Gestion Finances Publiques, (1), 96-101.

Vince, R., & Broussine, M. (1996). Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies, 17(1), 1-21.

Watzlawick, P., Helmick B. J. and Jackson, D. (1972). Unelogique de la communication, Paris, Seuil.

Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, California, Thousand Oaks, Sage, 219 p.578.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejmms.v7i1.1172

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2021 Fouad Bazzine, Hassane Boujettou

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The research works published in this journal are free to be accessed. They can be shared (copied and redistributed in any medium or format) and\or adapted (remixed, transformed, and built upon the material for any purpose, commercially and\or not commercially) under the following terms: attribution (appropriate credit must be given indicating original authors, research work name and publication name mentioning if changes were made) and without adding additional restrictions (without restricting others from doing anything the actual license permits). Authors retain the full copyright of their published research works and cannot revoke these freedoms as long as the license terms are followed.

Copyright © 2017-2023. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies (ISSN 2501 - 9988) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library. All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and standards formulated by Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002), the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing (2003) and  Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003) and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Copyrights of the published research works are retained by authors.