Abstracts
Résumé
Objectif de la recherche : Cet article interroge la pérennité des communautés de pratique (CoP), généralement considérée par des approches déterministes, en utilisant le cadre théorique des communs. Cet article propose donc par analogie d’analyser les CoP en tant qu’organization et organizing. Cette approche doit permettre d’identifier les conditions internes pour une reproduction d’une CoP. L’objectif de cette recherche est ainsi de comprendre les conditions d’auto-organisation et de pérennité d’une CoP. Méthodologie : Pour ce faire, nous utilisons une méthodologie mixte. Après une étude qualitative de plusieurs mois à observer et analyser deux CoP, nous nous appuyons sur une étude quantitative menée auprès de sept CoP au sein d’une entreprise, MUTUALIS. Un questionnaire permettant d’analyser l’organization et l’organizing des CoP a été envoyé aux membres. 76 réponses ont été retenues et analysées avec SMART PLS. Contribution : Si cet article identifie un potentiel de reproduction interne des CoP et donc de pérennité, il souligne également que celle-ci demeure partielle par son usage instrumental. En raison de ce dernier, les CoP minimisent leur reproduction organisationnelle et donc leur auto-organisation. Pour dépasser cette limite, le cadre du commun propose in fine une approche intégrative de l’organisation d’une action collective auto-organisée qui nous amène à penser la démocratisation à une échelle multiniveaux. Finalement, cette étude démontre l’impératif d’une transformation organisationnelle plus générale de l’entreprise qui ne peut être réduite à des dispositifs ou des communautés sporadiques.
Précis
Les communautés de pratique (CoP) semblent aujourd’hui amplement étudiées par la littérature académique depuis une vingtaine d’années, en particulier leur rôle en knowledge management. Cependant, parfois considérées comme des formes auto-organisées et émancipatrices au sein de l’entreprise, les approches traditionnellement développées concernant leur pérennité nous semblent discutables. Elles proposent en effet une conception déterministe : les CoP sont vouées à dégénérer, soit à se banaliser par contrôle de la structure managériale soit par banalisation interne. Cet article propose alors une relecture de la pérennité des CoP, à l’aide d’une approche renouvelée en sciences de gestion et non déterministe de l’action collective organisée : les communs.
Mots-clefs:
- Communauté de pratique,
- Dégénérescence,
- Commoning,
- Méthodologie mixte
Abstract
Research objective: This article examines the sustainability of communities of practice (CoP), which are typically considered through deterministic approaches, using the theoretical framework of the commons. By analogy, this article proposes to analyze CoPs as organizations and organizing. This approach should identify the internal conditions for the reproduction of a CoP. The objective of this research is thus to understand the conditions of self-organization and sustainability of a CoP. Methodology: To do so, we use a mixed methodology. After a qualitative study of several months observing and analyzing two CoPs, we rely on a quantitative study of seven CoPs within a company, MUTUALIS. A questionnaire analyzing the organization and organizing of CoPs was sent to members. 76 responses were retained and analyzed with SMART PLS. Contribution: While this article identifies the potential for internal reproduction of CoPs and therefore sustainability, it also emphasizes that this remains partial through instrumental use. The more instrumental it is, the more CoPs minimize their organizational reproduction and self-organization. To overcome this limit, the framework of the commons ultimately proposes an integrative approach to the organization of a self-organized collective action that leads us to think about democratization at a multi-level scale. Finally, this study demonstrates the imperative of a more general organizational transformation of the company that cannot be reduced to sporadic devices or communities.
Key Words:
- Community of practice,
- Degeneration,
- Commoning,
- Mixte analysis
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Adler, P. S. (2015). Community and Innovation : From Tönnies to Marx. Organization Studies, 36(4), 445‑471. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084061456156610.1177/0170840614561566 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Adler, P. S., Kwon, S.-W., & Heckscher, C. (2008). Perspective—Professional Work : The Emergence of Collaborative Community. Organization Science, 19(2), 359‑376. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.029310.1287/orsc.1070.0293 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Anadón, M. (2019). Les méthodes mixtes : Implications pour la recherche « dite » qualitative. Recherches qualitatives, 38(1), 105‑123. https://doi.org/10.7202/1059650ar
10.7202/1059650ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aufrère, L., Eynaud, P., Gauthier, O., & Vercher-Chaptal, C. (2019). Entreprendre en commun(s). Revue francaise de gestion, N° 279(2), 83‑96.10.3166/rfg.2019.00332 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Battilana, J., Yen, J., Ferreras, I., & Ramarajan, L. (2022). Democratizing Work : Redistributing power in organizations for a democratic and sustainable future. Organization Theory, 3(1), 26317877221084710. https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787722108471410.1177/26317877221084714 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Baudry, B., & Charmettant, H. (2020). L’échec de la « démocratie industrielle » aux États-Unis : Retour sur les « mirages » de l’« Industrial Pluralism ». Droit et société, 104(1), 165‑187. https://doi.org/10.3917/drs1.104.016510.3917/drs1.104.0165 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Beaudry, C., Gagnon, M., & Deschênes, A.-A. (2019). Quand la perception des employeurs à l’égard des personnes immigrantes influence leurs pratiques de gestion de la diversité. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 74(4), 674‑696. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066830ar
10.7202/1066830ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2014). The place of communities of practice in knowledge management studies : A critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 366‑381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2013-027710.1108/JKM-07-2013-0277 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (Éds.). (2015). Patterns of commoning. Common Strategies Group.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bommier, S., & Renouard, C. (2018). L’entreprise comme commun : Au-delà de la RSE. Charles Leopold Mayer.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bootz, J.-P. (2009). Les communautés d’apprentissage : Structuration de la littérature, illustrations et perspectives. Gestion 2000, 4, 175‑193.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Charbonnier-Voirin, A. (2011). Développement et test partiel des propriétés psychométriques d’une échelle de mesure de l’agilité organisationnelle. M@n@gement, Vol. 14(2), 119‑156.10.3917/mana.142.0119 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Chassagnon, V., & Hollandts, X. (2019). Human capital and the pluralistic governance of the modern firm : The emergence of flattened hierarchies at work. Revue d’économie Industrielle, 168, Article 168. https://doi.org/10.4000/rei.857810.4000/rei.8578 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary : Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. MIS Quarterly, 22(1), vii‑xvi.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cohendet, P., Créplet, F., & Dupouët, O. (2006). La gestion des connaissances : Firmes et communautés de savoir. Economica.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cohendet, P., Roberts, J., & Simon, L. (2010). Créer, implanter et gérer des communautés de pratique. Gestion, Vol.35(4), 31‑35.10.3917/riges.354.0031 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2000). Comment on Wenger and Yanow. Knowing in Practice : A `Delicate Flower’ in the Organizational Learning Field. Organization, 7(2), 269‑276. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084007200410.1177/135050840072004 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cook, S. D. N., & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and Organizational Learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373‑390. https://doi.org/10.1177/10564926932401010.1177/105649269324010 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Coron, C. (2019). La charge de travail perçue des cadres : D’une typologie à une compréhension systémique. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 74(1), 117‑140. https://doi.org/10.7202/1059467ar
10.7202/1059467ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Créplet, F., Dupouët, O., Kern, F., & Munier, F. (2001). Dualité cognitive et organisationnelle de l’entreprise : Le rôle différencié du manager et de l’entrepreneur. Revue d’économie industrielle, 95(1), 9‑22. https://doi.org/10.3406/rei.2001.178410.3406/rei.2001.1784 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Crosnier, H. L. (2018). Communs numériques et communs de la connaissance. Introduction. tic&société, Vol. 12, N° 1, 1‑12.10.4000/ticetsociete.2348 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Dameron, S., & Josserand, E. (2007). Le développement d’une communauté de pratique. Revue francaise de gestion, n° 174(5), 131‑148.10.3166/rfg.174.131-148 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- De Angelis, M. (2017). Omnia Sunt Communia : On the commons and the transformation to postcapitalism. Zed Books.10.5040/9781350221611 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- De Angelis, M., & Harvie, D. (2013). The Commons. In M. Parker, G. Cheney, V. Fournier, & C. Land (Éds.), The Routledge companion to alternative organization (p. 280‑294). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Degryse, C. (2020). Du flexible au liquide : Le travail dans l’économie de plateforme. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 75(4), 660‑683. https://doi.org/10.7202/1074559ar
10.7202/1074559ar Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Demers, G., & Tremblay, D.-G. (2021). Des communautés de pratique en milieu universitaire : Quels défis et quelle valeur pour l’innovation dans l’organisation ? Revue Interventions économiques, 65. https://doi.org/10.4000/interventionseconomiques.1258610.4000/interventionseconomiques.12586 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Diefenbach, T. (2020). The democratic organisation : Democracy and the future of work. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9780429344671 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eynaud, P., & Carvalho de França Filho, G. (2019). Solidarité et organisation : Penser une autre gestion. Erès.10.3917/eres.eynau.2019.01 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fallery, B. (2016). Du logiciel libre au management libre : Coordination par consensus et gouvernance polycentrique. Management Avenir, N° 90(8), 127‑150.10.3917/mav.090.0127 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fernandes, V. (2012). En quoi l’approche PLS est-elle une méthode a (re)-découvrir pour les chercheurs en management ? M@n@gement, 15(1), 102‑123. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.151.010210.3917/mana.151.0102 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Fournier, V. (2013). Commoning : On the social organisation of the commons. M@n@gement, Vol. 16(4), 433‑453.10.3917/mana.164.0433 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Goglio-Primard, K., & Soulier, E. (2018). Connaissances et technologie dans les communautés d’innovation. Systemes d’information management, Volume 23(1), 3‑9.10.3917/sim.181.0003 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gomez, P.-Y. (2001). La République des actionnaires. Syros.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gongla, P., & Rizzuto, C. R. (2001). Evolving communities of practice : IBM Global Services experience. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 842‑862. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.404.084210.1147/sj.404.0842 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Groux, G. (2021). Les relations professionnelles des “parties prenantes” aux nouvelles “subordinations du travail” ? Marché et organisations, 42(3), 51‑63. https://doi.org/10.3917/maorg.042.005110.3917/maorg.042.0051 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Haas, A., & Abonneau, D. (2021). Partage de connaissances et innovation : Comment concevoir une communauté de pratique performante (p. 59‑75). La Découverte. https://www.cairn.info/l-etat-du-management-2021--9782348068584-p-59.htmGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(3), 414‑433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0261-610.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 1(3), 243‑253. https://doi.org/10.1080/1939045090303730210.1080/19390450903037302 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hegarty, J., & Maubrey, R. (2020). Decision making for sustainable development. Journal of Decision Systems, 1‑14. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.184783410.1080/12460125.2020.1847834 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (Éds.). (2007). Understanding knowledge as a common : From theory to practice. MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6980.001.0001 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2001). Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects : A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435‑449. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.1063510.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Iverson, J. O., & McPhee, R. D. (2002). Knowledge management in communities of practice : Being True to the Communicative Character of Knowledge. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(2), 259‑266. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933180223723910.1177/089331802237239 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jullien, N., & Roudaut, K. (2020). Commun numérique de connaissance : Définition et conditions d’existence. Innovations, N° 63(3), 69‑93.10.3917/inno.063.0069 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Koliba, C., & Gajda, R. (2009). “Communities of Practice” as an Analytical Construct : Implications for Theory and Practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(2), 97‑135. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069080238519210.1080/01900690802385192 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kuhn, T. (2002). Negotiating Boundaries between Scholars and Practitioners : Knowledge, Networks, and Communities of Practice. Management Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 106‑112. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331890216100810.1177/0893318902161008 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Latan, H., & Ghozali, I. (2012). Partial Least Squares : Concept, Technique and Application using Program SmartPLS for Empirical Research. BP UNDIP.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051181535510.1017/CBO9780511815355 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Linebaugh, P. (2008). The Magna Carta manifesto : Liberties and commons for all. University of California Press.10.1525/9780520932708 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- McDermott, R. (2004). Knowing in community : 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice. http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/knowing.shtmlGoogle Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Mørk, B. E., Aanestad, M., Hanseth, O., & Grisot, M. (2008). Conflicting epistemic cultures and obstacles for learning across communities of practice. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 12‑23. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.29510.1002/kpm.295 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Munier, F. (2009). Viabilité des communautés de pratique pilotée : Un modèle dynamique. In J.-P. Bootz & F. Kern, Les communautés en pratique : Leviers de changements pour l’entrepreneur et le manager (p. 63‑86). Hermès Science publications-Lavoisier.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. (2010). Gouvernance des biens communs : Pour une nouvelle approche des ressources naturelles. De Boeck.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Peter, J. P. (1979). Reliability : A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6‑17. https://doi.org/10.2307/315086810.1177/002224377901600102 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Probst, G., & Borzillo, S. (2008). Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. European Management Journal, 26(5), 335‑347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.05.00310.1016/j.emj.2008.05.003 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., & Eden, C. (2017). Thinking together : What makes Communities of Practice work? Human Relations, 70(4), 389‑409. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872671666104010.1177/0018726716661040 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rampa, R., & Agogué, M. (2020). Lorsque les démarches d’exploration nécessitent de l’innovation collective : Le rôle des communautés de pratique. Revue Française de Gestion, 46(291), 53‑71. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2020.0046110.3166/rfg.2020.00461 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rouleau, L., Allard-Poesi, F., & Warnier, V. (2007). Le management stratégique en pratiques. Revue française de gestion, 174(5), 15‑24. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.174.15-2410.3166/rfg.174.15-24 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Saint-Onge, H., & Wallace, D. (2002). Leveraging Communities of Practice for Strategic Advantage (First Edition, Later Printing). Routledge.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological Empowerment in the Workplace : Dimensions, Measurement, and Validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442‑1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/25686510.5465/256865 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Thompson, M. (2005). Structural and Epistemic Parameters in Communities of Practice. Organization Science, 16(2), 151‑164. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.012010.1287/orsc.1050.0120 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice : Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978051180393210.1017/CBO9780511803932 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wenger, E. (2005). Les communautés de pratique dans les organisations du xxIe siècle. In CEFRIO, Travailler, apprendre et collaborer en réseau (p. 8‑16). Centre francophone d’informatisation des organisations.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice : A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
