Résumés
Abstract
Relying on two case studies, this paper investigates how new knowledge produced by internal communities is integrated in the hosting firms’ activities and procedures. Its main contribution highlights the key role played by boundary structures lying at the interface between communities and the managerial strata of the organization. These structures are instrumental in the boundary work underpinning integration: aligning the communities’ outputs with the firms’ strategy and negotiating their acceptance by top managers. Their role goes beyond a mere diffusion process and includes combining and adapting the managerial and communitarian logics while preserving the autonomy and internal functioning of communities. Due to their collective character, this integration mechanism differs from the sponsor-leader dyad found in the literature on communities.
Keywords:
- boundary structures,
- knowledge integration mechanisms,
- internal communities,
- strategic alignment
Résumé
Sur la base de deux études de cas approfondies, cet article étudie comment les nouvelles connaissances produites par les communautés internes s’intègrent dans les activités et les procédures de leurs entreprises. Sa principale contribution souligne le rôle clé joué par les structures frontières situées à l’interface entre les communautés et les strates managériales de l’organisation. Ces structures articulent le travail de frontière nécessaire à l’intégration des travaux communautaires : alignement à la stratégie, négociation de leur validation par la direction. Plus qu’un simple processus de diffusion, leur rôle consiste à combiner et adapter logiques managériales et communautaires tout en préservant l’autonomie et le fonctionnement interne des communautés. Le caractère collectif de ce mécanisme d’intégration le distingue de la dyade sponsor-leader.
Mots-clés :
- structures frontières,
- mécanismes d’intégration des connaissances,
- communautés internes,
- alignement stratégique
Resumen
Sobre la base de dos estudios de caso exhaustivos, este artículo estudia cómo se integran los nuevos conocimientos producidos por las comunidades internas en las actividades y procedimientos de sus empresas. Su mayor contribución subraya el papel clave desempeñado por las estructuras fronterizas que se hallan en la interfaz entre las comunidades y los estratos directivos de la organización. Estas estructuras articulan el trabajo fronterizo necesario para la integración del trabajo comunitario : alineamiento con la estrategia, negociación de su validación por la dirección. Su papel va más allá de un mero proceso de difusión : consiste en combinar y adaptar lógicas de gestión y lógicas comunitarias manteniendo la autonomía y el funcionamiento interno de las comunidades. El carácter colectivo de este mecanismo de integración lo distingue del nexo entre patrocinador y líder que se encuentra en la literatura sobre comunidades.
Palabras clave:
- estructuras fronterizas,
- mecanismos de integración del conocimiento,
- comunidades internas,
- alineamiento con la estrategia
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Anand, N., Gardner, H. K., Morris, T., 2007. Knowledge-based innovation: Emergence and embedding of new practice areas in management consulting firms. Academy of management journal 50, p. 406-428. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24634457
- Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20, p. 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
- Arena, M., Cross, R., Sims, J., Uhl-Bien, M., 2017. How to catalyze innovation in your organization. MIT Sloan Management Review 58, p. 38-48.
- Bechky, B.A., 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization science 14, p. 312-330. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162
- Biancani, S., McFarland, D. A., Dahlander, L., 2014. The semiformal organization. Organization Science 25, p. 1306-1324. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0882
- Boland, R. J., Tenkasi, R. V., 1995. Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. Organization science 6, p. 350-372. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.4.350
- Brown, J., 2004. Anti-individualism and knowledge. MIT Press, Massachusetts.
- Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization science 12, p. 198-213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116
- Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovating. Organization Science 2, p. 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
- Bucher, S., Langley, A., 2016. The interplay of reflective and experimental spaces in interrupting and reorienting routine dynamics. Organization Science 27, p. 594-613. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1041
- Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization science 15, p. 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
- Centola, D., Macy, M., 2007. Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American journal of Sociology 113, p. 702-734. https://doi.org/10.1086/521848
- Chen, R. R., Kannan-Narasimhan, R. P., 2015. Formal integration archetypes in ambidextrous organizations. R&D Management 45, p. 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12083
- Cohendet, P., Simon, L., 2007. Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, p. 587-605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.460
- Cowan, R., David, P. A., Foray, D., 2000. The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial and corporate change 9, p. 211-253. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/9.2.211
- Cox, A., 2005. What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works. Journal of information science 31, p. 527-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505057016
- Dupouët, O., Barlatier, P.-J., 2011. Le rôle des communautés de pratique dans le développement de l’ambidextrie contextuelle: le cas GDF SUEZ. Management international/International Management/Gestiòn Internacional 15, p. 95-108. https://doi.org/10.7202/1006194ar
- Durisin, B., Todorova, G., 2012. A study of the performativity of the “ambidextrous organizations” theory: Neither lost in nor lost before translation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29, p. 53-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00981.x
- Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S.J., 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of management review 18, p. 397-428. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.9309035145
- Furnari, S., 2014. Interstitial spaces: Microinteraction settings and the genesis of new practices between institutional fields. Academy of management review 39, p. 439-462. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0045
- Gassmann, O., Widenmayer, B., Zeschky, M., 2012. Implementing radical innovation in the business: the role of transition modes in large firms. R&D Management 42, p. 120-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00670.x
- Gioia, D. A., Chittipeddi, K., 1991. Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic management journal 12, p. 433-448. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
- Hansen, E.G., Wicki, S., Schaltegger, S., 2019. Structural ambidexterity, transition processes, and integration trade-offs: a longitudinal study of failed exploration. R&D Management 49, p. 484-508. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12339
- Harvey, J.-F., Cohendet, P., Simon, L., Dubois, L.-E., 2013. Another cog in the machine: Designing communities of practice in professional bureaucracies. European Management Journal 31, p. 27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.07.008
- Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., 2009. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science 20, p. 797-811. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415
- Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science 3, p. 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
- Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
- Levina, N., Vaast, E., 2005. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS quarterly, p. 335-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148682
- Lô, A., Diochon, P. F., 2019. Unsilencing power dynamics within third spaces. The case of Renault’s Fab Lab. Scandinavian Journal of Management 35, 101039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.11.003
- Maitlis, S., 2005. The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of management journal 48, p. 21-49. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993111
- Maitlis, S., Christianson, M., 2014. Sensemaking in Organizations: Taking Stock and Moving Forward. ANNALS 8, p. 57-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177
- McDermott, R., Archibald, D., 2010. Harnessing Your Staff’s Informal Networks. Harvard Business Review 88, p. 82-89.
- Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks.
- Nonaka, I., Hirose, A., Takeda, Y., 2016. ‘Meso’-foundations of dynamic capabilities: Team-level synthesis and distributed leadership as the source of dynamic creativity. Global Strategy Journal 6, p. 168-182. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1125
- Obstfeld, D., 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative science quarterly 50, p. 100-130. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.1.100
- O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M. L., 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review 82, p. 74-81.
- Orr, J., 1990. Sharing Knowledge, Celebrating Identity: War Stories and Community Memory in a Service Culture, in: Middelton, D.S., Edwards, D. (Eds.), Collective Remembering: Memory in Society. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
- Perry-Smith, J. E., Mannucci, P. V., 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review 42, p. 53-79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462
- Probst, G., Borzillo, S., 2008. Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. European Management Journal 26, p. 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.05.003
- Pyrko, I., Dörfler, V., Eden, C., 2017. Thinking together: what makes communities of practice work? Human relations 70, p. 389-409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716661040
- Rouleau, L., 2005. Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management studies 42. p. 1413-1441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x
- Ruiz, E., 2021. Entre différenciation et intégration: favoriser l’innovation d’exploration grâce au Fab Lab interne, le cas de l’i-Lab (Air Liquide). Innovations. p. 219-245. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.pr2.0113
- Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., 2013. Guest editorial: Qualitative studies in information systems: A critical review and some guiding principles. MIS quarterly 37.
- Schlagwein, D., Bjorn-Andersen, N., 2014. Organizational learning with crowdsourcing: The revelatory case of LEGO. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 15, p. 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00380
- Schulte, B., Andresen, F., Koller, H., 2020. Exploring the embeddedness of an informal community of practice within a formal organizational context: A case study in the German military. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 27, p. 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051819833382
- Siggelkow, N., 2007. Persuasion with case studies. Academy of management journal 50, p. 20-24. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160882
- Stadler, C., Rajwani, T., Karaba, F., 2014. Solutions to the exploration/exploitation dilemma: Networks as a new level of analysis. International Journal of Management Reviews 16, p. 172-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12015
- Stake, R.E., 1995. The art of case study research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.
- Taylor, A., Helfat, C.E., 2009. Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: Complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organization Science 20, p. 718-739. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429
- Thompson, M., 2005. Structural and epistemic parameters in communities of practice. Organization Science 16, p. 151-164. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0120
- Tortoriello, M., Krackhardt, D., 2010. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of management journal 53, p. 167-181. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037420
- Uhl-Bien, M., Arena, M., 2018. Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly 29, p. 89-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.009
- Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
- Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., Snyder, W., 2002. Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.