Practices and dynamics of immobility
The institutionalized control of induction in consultancy
The Authors
Jérôme Méric, CERMAT-IAE de Tours, Université François Rabelais, Tours, France
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support from the British Advanced Institute of Management, and its specific GNOSIS program, lead by Pr Elena Antonacopoulou. The author gives his special thanks to his colleagues Yvon Pesqueux (CNAM) and Rémi Jardat (ISTEC).
Abstract
Purpose – As its academic definition refers to, induction can be seen as a process designed to prepare newcomers in a company to integrate at least the way of working and collaborating in their new environment. Thus, induction as a process is somewhat a vector for institutionalization. The purpose of this paper is to consider induction as a practice embedded in specific contexts of action. In so doing, it proposes that induction can also be turned into an institution for itself, and this lead to a kind of organizational immobility.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper introduces the case of a consulting company. Supposing that induction is firstly a practice, that is to say an aggregate of ostensive (explicit pattern of action), performative (what is actually done) elements and artefacts (tools and material productions), the dynamics of interactions between these elements are examined.
Findings – Organizational dynamics and change are often considered as synonymous. The paper asserts that, on the contrary, constant dynamics in practices may contribute to organizational immobility. This process can be depicted as “control through the institutionalizing of practice (in the meaning of ways of doing).”
Research limitations/implications – The paper delivers an interpretation of such counterintuitive results, showing the role of modes of action in the way dynamics in practice can engender motion or stability. This research is based on a single case study in a specific range of activities. Additional analyses in other businesses should help deepen the understanding of such dynamics.
Practical implications – Introducing the institutional dimension of practices, this paper offers the opportunity to broaden perspectives on control and responsibility. Change is not only a matter of process design or of culture, which are organizational variables. It should be dealt with in the institutional field.
Originality/value – It sounds original that an organization like a consulting company, supposed to be as highly adaptable as it suggests to be, finally shows to be embedded in such traditional patterns of action.
Article Type:
Research paper
Keyword(s):
Induction; Management consultancy; Organizational change.
Journal:
Society and Business Review
Volume:
3
Number:
1
Year:
2008
pp:
6-22
Copyright ©
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:
1746-5680
Introduction
Organizational change and stability have been considered as key issues of organizational science for long periods of time. Learning and knowledge transfer are also assumed to derive from the ability to induce and to maintain dynamic schemes or capabilities inside and between organizations (Zollo and Winter, 2002). These “learned and stable patterns of collective activity” (Zollo and Winter, 2002, p. 340) are supposed to conceive and drive change towards an explicitly wished state of routines or of organizations. Such assumptions could easily suggest that learning and change in organizations are facilitated, or even empowered by the existence of dynamic routines (Cyert and March, 1963; Levitt and March, 1988; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Once such a track is followed, considering “dynamics in routines” and “(ability to) change” as synonymous may appear both intuitive (change and movements are often assimilated), and rational (inertia and change are contrary, aren't they?).
In this paper, we argue that dynamics in organizational routines can escape any shape of deliberateness (in terms of rational intentions) and produce cases of organisational immobility. The term “routine” has often been associated with the reproduction of stable patterns and thus with organizational inertia (March and Simon, 1958). Nevertheless, studies on organizational routines have described them as major factors of change, from simple adaptation patterns inspired from cybernetics (Cyert and March, 1963), to complex interactions inserted in learning (Levitt and March, 1988; Feldman, 2000) or innovation processes (Miner, 1990). It seems that, adopting a historical perspective, the latest approaches of relations between routines and change have become dominant, not to say exclusive. In such a context, Feldman's (2003)assumption according to which change and stability can derive from the same dynamics is an exception.
From our point of view, it seems necessary, in order to cast a specific light onto such phenomena, to extend the study from the field of routines to the scope of “practices.” Such a semantic switch is of importance, because it induces a significant change in perspectives. As Feldman (2003) suggests, routines cannot be considered as independent from an organizational context and from the persons who operate them. Practices, as we defined them, include both routines and their context into the scope of research.
We introduce the case of induction in a consulting company. This key practice for consultancy was initially studied in order to move forward any dynamic that could lead to deep changes in the practice itself and thus in the organizing process. Long observation rounds and testimonies tend to show that substantial change never occurred, even when it could be thought as necessary. We thus analyze the dynamics induced between artefacts, ostensive and performative aspects of the studied practice, in order to show how active and constant interrelations produce a pattern for organizational immobility. We finally depict this self-maintained process as an expression of an institutionalized though informal control framework, embedded in specific modes of action.
Theoretical framework and method for the case study
It seems necessary to introduce epistemological and methodological concerns at the same time, in order to show how complementary these choices are. As far as the research object of this case study is a practice, it appeared that the way we would define it – at least globally – would influence our definition of change and learning, and finally the method for research.
Theoretical framework on practices and routines
There are, at least, two main approaches (including varied sub-approaches) of what a “practice” can be. The first one, which can be depicted as from the “rationalist school,” consists in considering practices as determined and stable sets of elementary tasks or actions that are run by “actors.” According to this framework, changes in practices and learning can be described as rational and deliberate actions that are carried out at a specified time (Zollo and Winter, 2002). This definition presents the main advantage of being extremely simple, “stuck to what is observable” and naturally leads to descriptions of practices that can be based on the “process analysis” methodology (which is valuable for both researchers and professionals). Nevertheless, after a short exploratory view inside a company, it appears that this definition probably refers more to what we usually call “routines” than it does to practices (in their etymological meaning). Practices include not only a simple set of tasks organized throughout a script of action, they also include action itself. Practice articulates patterns of action and the way they are actually performed (Bourdieu, 1977, 1990). Indeed, the Greek word πραξιζ (praxis) denotes action and thought at the same time, or more precisely, it designates action as the context of thought and thought as the context of action. This statement leads to consider a wider approach of what a practice can be, which embraces effective action and its interactions with a broader context (including thought, language, and material production). This second way of seeing practices also confers them the autonomy from which they are deprived in the previous approach: considering practices as sets of tasks induces defining change as an exogenous phenomenon, whereas practices as praxis are sources of change for themselves. Praxis does not only consist in applying acquired knowledge, it leads to creation. As Castoriadis (1998) assumes, the subject of practice is constantly transformed from its own experience. This experience is shaped by praxis, but at the same time praxis shapes it. As far the study of learning and change is concerned, practices as praxis do not require the “invention” of exogenous forces like intention, “practices that change practices” or other artefacts to understand why what we observe in action changes according to constant dynamics. This global definition embraces various sub-approaches, like the ones based on constructivism (as an epistemological posture) or on “structurationism” (Giddens, 1984; Latour, 1987). The second sub-approach, which can be summarized as from the “structuration and/or translation school” considers practices as an aggregate of ostensive (the explicit script of action), performative (the actual doing) elements and of artefacts (material productions on routines), which are run and produced by “actants,” and constantly interact. In this context, change and learning are permanent phenomena, and do not necessarily find their origin in intentionality or rationality (Pentland and Feldman, 2005).
The choice of this second approach led us to build a research program based on both interviews and observation.
Methodological introduction to the case study
Interviews provided exploratory data in a first step. Additional interviews and observation came thereafter. Interviews were run with partners, consultants (with different seniorities), and the only staff member in charge of recruitment and more generally human resources administration. When necessary, interviews had to be reiterated. The main problem that we had to face with at this stage was availability.
We also collected public and internal documents. Public documents consisted mainly in interviews in specialised media and web sites. Internal documents seem to be a “scarce resource” for researchers in such a structure (probably because of the flat hierarchical system). So, we sporadically grasped memos that were related to the induction process, essentially e-mails and training programs.
The research process has been progressively designed around the data that could be collected. In fact, the first collected information was related to the artefacts and above all to the ostensive (in this case, declared) aspects of the studied practice. It helped define the main boundaries of what we called “induction.” These boundaries are also artefacts. For this reason, we did not try to cut inside the organizational activities with a hatchet, but we just defined a set of declared “core actions” around which we could consider performance as induction in a second step. These “core actions” could be classified as in Table I.
It is necessary to repeat that these items are not the only ones that we considered in our study. We tried to examine all the observable aspects that could reveal indicative of these actions, or that could influence these actions even if they were not directly related to them.
Observation provided a wide range of data that tended to confirm the ostensive aspects of the studied practice. Afterwards, we could examine the interactions between the 3Ds of induction, and more precisely how these aspects could be produced as to maintain each other to a large extent. We finally tried to understand why such an organization is able to induce so standardized ways of running processes. To do so, we referred to other organizational patterns which reflected the same attachment to values, tradition, and cooptation.
Analysing induction in a specific case of consultancy
General features on the consulting company
The consulting company (CCo) we studied operates in the area of corporate strategy. CCo originally gathered former consultants from McKinsey, Booz Allen, BCG, from all around the world, and recruitment patterns still apply the same standards as in “mother” companies. The objective of these consultants clearly was to work in a smaller structure and to go along with a more strategy focused consulting business. Recently, the CCo Office in Paris is run by ten associates and 50 consultants. Owing to its small size, its organizational model can be described as a flat hierarchy. Partners are available to all consultants, and may answer their requests at any moment.
The main clients of CCo are CEOs in big international companies and in smaller dynamic ones. As we already mentioned, CCo's offer is mainly based on strategic consulting. The opportunity to diversify in internal process analysis has always been rejected by partners from the beginning up to now.
The professional approach at CCo can be depicted as “sur mesure” as preferred to “prêt à porter.” Partners prefer promoting shorter and immediately relevant processes. They assume to have no time enough to adapt pre-existing methods. Moreover, adapting existing methods is considered as an unethical way of artificially increasing final bills. Projects are run according to processes that are shared tightly with clients. The role of clients generally increases as the project comes to its end, in order to facilitate appropriation instead of so-called “turn key” deliveries. This specific method is unanimously declared to be one of the main KFSs at CCo, and thus reveals a strong need for highly adaptable consultants and high-analytic skills.
After four difficult years, the consulting business faces a new boom, which started in spring 2005. For this reason, recruitment and thus induction are reactivated for a new flourishing period.
Ostensive aspects of induction and artefacts: the paradox of informal formalism
As considered as through its ostensive aspects, induction at CCo can be depicted as a process. The fact that interviewees are for most of them consultants can provide an explanation to this first statement. The paradox in the way CCo runs induction lies in two contradictory ostensive aspects. First, induction is described by all interviewees as a fully standardized process, whereas there are no written rules (i.e. no artefacts explaining how to manage the different steps of the process). Moreover, it may sound surprising to receive so formal and consistent descriptions of induction in an organization that promotes informal relations between its members. As compared to other small structures in the consulting business, management (i.e. partners) particularly insists on a clear distinction between each step in the induction process. After a short series of interviews, it seemed possible to build a process map for induction as a whole, as partly shown in the Appendix 1. This first round of interviews, completed with further observations leads to propose two main hypotheses. First of all, ostensive data and artefacts seem to be consistent in the meaning that they contribute to build a single perspective on the induction practice. Moreover, both aspects of the studied organisational routine confirm the formal and informal (i.e. through discourse and representations) acceptance of a traditional (not written but highly formalised) way of running induction.
Ostensive data and artefacts first show a high degree of consistency. Consultants were asked to tell “their own story” of their own recruitment or of a recent one. Tools as organizers, pages of web sites, newspapers articles and other internal or external artefacts confirm all allegations. It seems that ostensive aspects of induction and artefacts are produced and interact as to maintain one another in a consistent and steady view of what induction is and should be. Internal documents, though scarce ones, are reproductions of ostensive views of induction. As far as organizers are concerned, they can be considered as something “between” artefacts and performative aspects of the observed routine: they are artefacts because they do not relate to direct observation, but at the same time, they constitute proofs that recruitment and induction principles are fully respected. Nevertheless, internal artefacts are so scarce that they cannot affect the conception of induction. The influence of artefacts onto ostensive aspects of the studied practice has to be found in external documents, especially in the production of newspaper and magazine articles. In most of these documents, journalists insist on recruitment and the construction of consulting teams: “I suppose recruitment is your first KFS,” “Tell me how to build such talented and efficient consulting team”; “How do you explain why the turnover of consultants is one of the lowest in the business.” Such artefacts are of course nourished with performative (observation), and ostensive (testimonies) elements of induction. But, reciprocally, they offer a self-confirming mirror through constant evidence of success. The interaction of artefacts with, respectively, ostensive and performative aspects of induction can be synthesised in Figure 1.
From recruitment to the first steps of the promotion process, the induction practice appears to be highly formalized, though not engraved on the marble of procedure manuals. The main elements that can be drawn from the analysis of ostensive aspects and artefacts of induction are depicted according to seven main comments that converge to reflect an organization based on (oral) formalism, loyalty (or fidelity?), and some kind of elitism. We shall first underline that recruitments is highly targeted (1), with formalised job qualifications (2), and follows a strictly shaped process (3). Afterwards, we will focus on post-recruitment activities that have to do with induction. Feedback methods follow strict rules (4), and training programs are designed in order to be followed by every junior consultant (5). Finally, induction seems to be conceived in order to preserve “generalist expertise” (6) and to minimize turnover among consultants (7).
(1) Targeted recruitment
All junior consultants graduated in the best French business and engineering schools, that is to say, mostly, Polytechnique, Centrale, Les Mines, Les Ponts, HEC, ESSEC, ESCP. All these schools belong to the top list of French “Grandes Ecoles.” This elitist choice is declared to guarantee the ability of recent graduates to enter an extremely demanding professional activity. One partner acknowledges that “diversity is not really the objective.” In other words, homogenous recruitment is not only elitist. It also facilitates integration and mutual understanding among consultants.
(2) Highly formalised job qualifications
Job qualifications are formalized neither in terms of knowledge nor in terms of technicality. The placing process focuses on behaviours and ability for analysis. Applicants are appraised according to benchmarks (archetypal examples of behaviours). These benchmarks can be described by any member in the consulting staff, but, once again none of them is written, except one example of what is wished for analytic skills, which can be found on the web site: “somebody who knows how to analyse a complex situation in very simple words and in a few sentences,” a partner says.
(3) Highly formalised recruitment process
Recent graduates have to attend three rounds of two interviews. Recruitment criteria are divided into three categories:
- Motivation, “motivation is not as important as declared, people who accept to enter such a heavy process are necessarily interested in the job” a partner says.
- Experience, a junior consultant confirms: “Now, I perfectly know they didn't care about my year at Saint Gobain. What was important to them was my global understanding of such an experience.”
- Required skills are focused on analysis and synthesis abilities, as already mentioned.
Behaviour and personality are secondary variables. They can change with cumulated experience over time. Each interview comprises a short case study: graduates are chosen for their abilities, not for technical references. This is an important point, as far as many consultants and associates are engineers and have acquired their technical skills from experience.
After each interview, recruiters rate the applicant. Graduates who obtain no veto, at least one enthusiastic rate, and no more than two “no” are hired. “Once you're hired, you're immediately told about the “2 no” rule. But you never know if somebody in the team was hostile to your recruitment” (junior consultant).
(4) Highly formalised feedback
The feedback system follows two distinct but complementary processes. Each project implies individual feedbacks, which are summarized during periodic interviews, called “semester synthesis.” After each of these individual interviews, the decision is made to determine if the consultant should go “up or out.”
(5) Systematic training programs
Training programs are organised “outside” the company, but they are entirely conceived to meet the requirement of extremely precise and exhaustive specifications. Except when specific projects require special syllabuses, training programs are pre-determined for each hierarchical level. For instance, junior consultants attend courses of “advanced finance” when partners focus on leadership and individuality (how to adapt your style of leadership to different behaviours).
(6) Generalist knowledge and areas of expertise
Areas of expertise exist from a certain level of seniority. Nobody is supposed to “specialise” before four or five years of experience inside the company. And even though, consultants remain extremely polyvalent. CCo positions itself onto the market of generalist consultancy. As far as it essentially works on corporate strategy, such a positioning sounds logical. It is also consistent with the size of the organization: “the smaller you are, the more polyvalent you have to stay to meet a varied demand.” On the contrary, personnel management would get tangled in complex situations if people were overspecialised.
(7) A weak staff turnover among consultants
The staff turnover among consultants is one of the weakest inside the consulting sector. This information is confirmed in specialised newspapers. Among 60 professionals, four consultants leave the company each year because they do not meet their job requirements. The others (less than one per year) are people looking for operational jobs, or women following transferred husbands.
The performance and its interactions with ostensive aspects of induction: dynamics of immobility
Observation contributes to confirm many of the ostensive aspects of induction, and particularly each step in the flow charts provided in the Appendix 1. But observation also provides complementary information on how some steps of the process can be managed by internal “actants.” In fact, it fundamentally helps understand how such a practice can be maintained through a permanent interaction of facts, acts, and discourse. All observable changes and variances from the non-written rule derive from “micro-adaptation processes.” These processes can be depicted as the consequence of minimum flexibility prescribed by a large consensus on what is necessary to do under singular circumstances: adaptation to specific personalities of applicants, loosening of principles due to particular urgency, etc. Nevertheless, these adaptations never lead to contravene the “common law.”
(1) Before starting interviews: conditioning
10 a.m … The applicant comes for her first round of interviews. She arrives at the entrance desk, asks for Mr T. (partner). She waits 15 minutes by the desk. Mr T. finally arrives, they shake hands. He tells her to wait one more minute so that he can ask another consultant to come with them. CCo's offices are set on two separate floors. The “ground” floor (which is in fact the fifth floor of the building) is devoted to offices. Meeting rooms are upstairs. For this reason, the applicant only sees a small part of the place where she will have to work. The partner, the consultant and the applicant walk up to the second floor.
Though it may seem extremely natural and spontaneous, this sequence will be repeated exactly the same way for the next meetings. Though we have no tangible proof that all this process is set on purpose, the course of action clearly places the applicant in a context of pre-initiation, that is to say: the conjunction of a “long” wait, and of a specific organization of premises.
(2) Interviews: confirmation of the main process
Undoubtedly, interviews differ because actants change from one to another (the applicant as well as the consultants). Nevertheless, observation confirms many alleged (ostensive) aspects of recruitment. For each interview, interviewers sit on one side of a long table in the meeting room. The applicant sits alone on the other side. The first interview is focused on motivation and experience. When the applicant is inclined to technical speech, he or she is gently asked to undertake some rectification. Questions are adapted to the applicant, but they all converge towards the same objectives: appraise autonomy, measure analytic skills. The second interview is focused on case studies, and is much more accomplished as a rite. After a short introductive speech delivered by the partner or by the consultant, the applicant is presented a situation first orally, and thereafter on a short typed document. He or she is given a couple of minutes to think about his or her answer. Afterwards, the interviewers try to enlarge the scope of considerations, and ask for quick answers. If the applicant does not immediately identify the problem in the case, he or she receives no additional information, and subjects are changed at once.
(3) Decision meeting
All partners attend the meeting, plus the consultants who have taken part to the interviews. Each “interviewer” gives his or her opinion and rates the applicant. In one specific meeting, we could observe, no veto was issued, but one consultant and one partner expressed their reluctance towards the integration of the applicant. The “2 no” rule should have implied an immediate rejection of the candidate. Nevertheless, it was necessary to hire somebody within three weeks because of a starting big project. Thus, the two “hostile” actors were asked to justify more precisely their conclusions. Finally, both of them acknowledged that their opinion was much more based on “relational feelings” than it was on tangible elements, and withdrew their negative rate. As a conclusion on this meeting, it seems obvious that the group imposed two stakeholders to revise their opinions. Nevertheless, all the process was designed in respect of the “common law” (i.e. the “2 no” rule).
Observation and discourse analysis tend to show that both interact constantly, not to create change, but to maintain a quite motionless system. In fact, it seems that each step of the processes described by partners is implemented by actants with a quite respectful attitude. Reciprocally, newcomers in the structure are not necessarily taught directly about those practices. They learn by doing, and implement practices in a quite mimetic way. This pattern of interaction contributes to maintain the practice of induction in a stable state. In fact, the script of action (the ostensive aspect of the practice) that newcomers deliver reproduces actual performance, and their future performance will reproduce the discourse on action. To that extent, the individual learning induction at CCo, de facto enter a “community of practice,” in the meaning of Wenger and Snyder (2000): “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.” As Wenger assumes, such a construct does not require any shape of intentionality. Newcomers at CCo do not necessarily acquire the schemes of induction on any purpose. They reproduce what they actually experienced as applicants, and thereafter as junior consultants. Mimetism is supposed to be a frequent path for learning: “Be the victim before becoming the executioner! No better way to learn how to manage an appraisal interview!” (senior consultant). But, reproduction is only one part of interaction between practice and ostensive aspects of induction. Authority also induces compliance towards scripts of action. In such a small company as CCo, authority does not consist in constant issues of orders and objectives. It becomes visible when consultants move aside from standards: “You should not help the applicant that much. Remember we didn't do the same when we hired you” (a partner to a young consultant after his first recruitment interview); “Next time, you call me before you welcome the applicant, right?” (a partner to a consultant before an interview).
The impact of authority on mimetism and compliance is strengthened by the conjunction of internal values and rational justification. At least, two values promoted at CCo have to do with the induction process. Firstly, conformity towards (even unwritten) rules and the group is laid down as a principle. “‘Up or out’ also means ‘you're with us or you're out’ ” (senior consultant). Secondly, legitimacy (and thus authority) directly derives from seniority: “Of course you can discuss with a partner or a senior, (but) the eldest ones in a meeting always keep the last word.” As the “up or out” rule is fully applied, the status in hierarchy and the seniority are merely synonymous. At the same time, ostensive aspects, and most of discourse provide a rational justification of practices. The “up or out” rule, the choice of letting apparent autonomy to junior consultants, and other aspects of induction are always assumed to improve effectiveness and efficiency in the company: “We have no time to lose with perfectible people who have to perfect a lot before becoming good consultants” (partner). Examples and testimonies proceed from this rationalisation process, as so many evidence of that rules and non-written procedures are based on common sense and valid reasoning:
As far as I am concerned, I wouldn't have been able to take part efficiently to that project if I had not attended this training in finance. I had never seen that before, or so superficially (junior consultant – engineer).
We could notice the frequent use of counterexamples (histories of what you should never do). When they are asked to explain why the exposed case is supposed to be a counterexample, consultants always deliver an ex post rational justification. When they are not asked to do so, the counterexample is left for itself, without any shape of rationalising comment: something you should never do. Such an attitude reveals how far professional behaviours in the company are embedded in tradition and values. This attitude, as well as some other observations, led us to think that interactions between performative and ostensive aspects of induction at CCo consist in constant dynamics which are operated to maintain the practice as consistent as possible with a stable standard. In other words, they are dynamics of immobility, which could be easily compared with the ones of autopoietic systems.
The analysis of interaction between ostensive and performative aspects of induction is shown in Figure 2, and a synthesis for the main routine is proposed in the Appendix 2. All the interactions analysed above contribute towards the generation of a community of practice, as we already mentioned it. Nevertheless, as Wenger and Snyder contend, such communities follow various patterns, and it may be time to try to understand what the pattern of CCo as a community of practice proves to be. We already mentioned that interactions between artefacts, ostensive and performative aspects of induction consist in a constant dynamic of mirror effects. We thus propose to go beyond this mirror in order to understand the possible reasons for such observed dynamics of immobility.
Discussion, beyond the mirror: dynamics of immobility as typical of a traditional and value-oriented organisation
The first paradox we could draw from this case study consisted in the coexistence of apparent informal relations between organisational members and their ability to produce a highly formalised discourse on practices. Though CCo chose not to specialize in organizational consulting, their approach of internal processes fully meets the requirement of process description. Procedures are not written, but seem to be engraved in each member's mind. Not only each step of the process, but also qualitative variables like recruitment criteria are perceived and expressed in the same way among consultants. This consensus is probably reinforced by that consultants followed the same process inside this company or before, in another one.
Possible reasons for immobility: pure rationality or tradition?
A first reason for this paradox can be found in the reference to external standards, which is clearly acknowledged by partners. One of them systematically refers to “what is done in the sector.” All founders experienced working for big consulting companies, more precisely they all worked for McKinsey & Company. Undoubtedly, this common experience shapes many of the studied processes. Nevertheless, it seems extremely difficult to understand the absence of change as a pure product of mimetism.
Formal processes set frameworks for controlling consultants. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to look for other factors of control than the only “feedback” system. As we already mentioned it, ostensive aspects of induction deliver many elements that indicate and testify the existence of shared values. We already noticed that the use of counterexamples or the importance given to seniority can be considered as typical of a value system. Whereas “coaching” is usually expressed to describe the relation between partners and consultants, a recurrent word in interviews is “companioning” (compagnonnage). Of course, when an interviewee is asked to say more about this specific concept, the explanation sounds extremely objective:
Companioning contributes to improve teams' skills and ability. This works as an almost “peer to peer” education, due to the fact that the coach and/or evaluator (same person) had the same experience as the evaluated person before. Knowledge is transmitted from people who had the same jobs a few years before.
A junior consultant is supposed to be autonomous enough to propose his/her own work first. Thereafter, he/she can take some advice from designated partners (this only works if consultants have some personal solution to propose). For this reason (but not only for this one), partners are fully involved in projects, from the first selling contacts to the evaluation of consultants.
Nevertheless, it seems that “companioning” (as used in a French context) cannot be considered as a neutral way of describing the coaching process at CCo. Such an approach conveys at least a traditional system if not a specific set of values.
Traditional action and value-oriented rationality
The observation of the induction process at CCo leads to establish paradoxical statements. First, it is easy to represent this process with charts, as a consequence of an extremely formalised way of recruiting and managing the integration of consultants inside the structure. But, at the same time, there is need neither for documentation nor for written procedures. All rules seem to be “engraved in people's minds.”
A second paradox arouses when considering the dissonance between the declared teleogical rationality of processes and the reference to “companioning.” The existence of external models is fully acknowledged by partners, but the reason for such a strong influence hides “between lines.” Of course, when a model appears to work fine elsewhere, why should not the company apply the same principles? According to Weber's (1922) theory of social action, this would mean that the use of external references follows the principles of zweckrationality (goal-oriented action). But, when considering formalism, external standards, and the coaching process altogether, it seems that the company offers a specific approach of induction, embedded in both wertrationality (value-oriented action) and traditional action.
Indeed, a parallel analysis can be done of the induction process analysed in this research and the French system of compagnonnage (the word used in French for companioning). In the French context, companioning refers to much more than a simple coaching method. Companioning refers to the relation between “masters” and “companions” (or “apprentices”) in societies of journeymen in certain craft trades in France
The following table is a first attempt to set a parallelism between the induction process at CCo and the way compagnonnages still work today. It is obvious that the potential violence and the taste for secrecy that characterize the compagnonnage system have nothing to do with the way CCo manages induction with recent graduates. It is more likely a metaphor, which may cast enough light onto the wertrational or traditional patterns of action adopted in such a company. Indeed, compagnonnage is an archetype of traditional and value-oriented organisation. To moderate this interpretation, but also to underline the weaknesses of zweckrational interpretations of such a process, a column is inserted between the factual and the interpretative data, which supplies a “goal oriented” view of the induction process
Undoubtedly, many of the principles of compagnonnage derive from very empirical considerations. Nevertheless, they have turned into purely traditional behaviours. The study of this specific consulting company may lead to the type of conclusion.
Conclusion: towards a framework for dynamics of immobility
As Yin (1994) contends, single case studies are designed to test theories, to study rarities, or to reveal unexpected phenomena. The initial objective of our research did consist in testing existing theories on organizational change. It progressively turned into the observation of an unexpected phenomenon. Indeed, according to the literature, we could expect to meet one or both of the two following situations:
- inert routines, embedded in pure tradition; and
- constantly evolving and changing routines.
We finally studied a both constantly moving and immobile practice of induction. Constant move has to be found in the perpetual interactions of ostensive and performative aspects of the practice, whereas performance provides constant outcomes.
The first hypothesis that has to be drawn from such a case study consists in considering that dynamics in organizational routines are fundamentally neutral towards change. The same processes may lead to significant organizational motion somewhere and contribute to immobility elsewhere. To understand such observable variances, the dominant action mode inside the organization is worth being taken into consideration. Control, as the production of behavioural regularities within organisations, derives from the embeddedness of practice in specific modalities of action. In the particular case studied here, induction is “dressed up” as a professionally rationalised practice. When examining it more deeply, it seems to belong much more to the domain of ritualised activities. We tried to show how much CCo as a “community of practice” could maintain itself through traditional and value-oriented action. As far as induction deals with newcomers, the stability of the main systems directly depends on the way such a process is run and maintained. Here may lay the main reason why this practice should not change before long.
Fixed graphic 1
Fixed graphic 2
Figure 1Induction as a self-maintained practice
Figure 2Induction as a self-maintained practice
Table IOstensive “core actions”: possible boundaries for induction
Table IIInduction: description, justification, and understanding
References
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, .
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, .
Castoriadis, C. (1998), The Imaginary Institution of Society, MIT Press, Boston, MA, trans. K. Blamey, .
Cyert, R.M., March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, .
Feldman, M.S. (2000), "Organizational routines as a source of continuous change", Organization Science, Vol. 11 pp.611-29.
Feldman, M.S. (2003), "A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 12 No.4, pp.727-52.
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, .
Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, .
Levitt, B., March, J.G. (1988), "Organizational learning", Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 14 pp.314-40.
March, J.G., Simon, H.A. (1958), Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY, .
Miner, A. (1990), "Structural evolution through idiosyncratic jobs: the potential for unplanned learning", Organization Science, Vol. 1 pp.195-210.
Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company. How the Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, .
Pentland, B.T., Feldman, M.S. (2005), "Organizational routines as a unit of analysis", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 14 No.5, pp.793-815.
Weber, M. (1922), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundriβ des Verstehender Soziologie, Mohr Siebeck, Erfurt, .
Wenger, E., Snyder, W. (2000), "Communities of practice: the organizational frontier", Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp.139-45.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA, .
Zollo, M., Winter, S.G. (2002), "Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities", Organization Science, Vol. 13 No.3, pp.339-51.
Further Reading
Feldman, M.S., Pentland, B.T. (2003), "Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change", Administrative Science Quarterly, No.48, pp.94-118.
Appendix
The Appendix follows overleaf.
Appendix 1. Full induction processFixed graphic 1
Appendix 2. Induction as a self-maintained and ritualized practice – synthesisFixed graphic 2
About the author
Jérôme Méric, PhD at HEC, 1998, is an Associate Professor at the Institute of Business Administration, University of Tours and Vice-Director of the CERMAT Research Laboratory, Center of Management Research in Touraine. He is also Contributing Academic Professor at ESCEM Business School (Tours-Poitiers). His main research interests cover formal and informal dynamics of control in organizations. He has published in French speaking and international journals and books. He has recently completed a three-year term on the executive of MED-Academy of Management. Jérôme Méric can be contacted at: meric@univ_tours.fi