[et_pb_section bb_built=\u00a0\u00bb1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=\u00a0\u00bb4_4″][et_pb_text]<\/p>\n
Loin des zones de confort et du happy talk, Armand Hatchuel conduit sa r\u00e9flexion sur le destin des organisations.<\/p>\n
De mon entretien avec lui, je retiens les trois id\u00e9es suivantes :<\/p>\n
Un co\u00fbt de transaction est un co\u00fbt provoqu\u00e9 par toutes les proc\u00e9dures qui rendent possibles des \u00e9changes mutuellement avantageux, entre deux ou plusieurs individus.<\/p>\n
Pendant longtemps, les co\u00fbts de transaction ont \u00e9t\u00e9 assimil\u00e9s aux co\u00fbts de coordination des choix d’acteurs ind\u00e9pendants les uns des autres. Par exemple, l’utilisation d’un march\u00e9 et d’une monnaie implique un co\u00fbt de fonctionnement. La notion de co\u00fbt de transaction s’applique aussi \u00e0 une plus petite \u00e9chelle, lorsque la transaction est formalis\u00e9e par un contrat liant deux entit\u00e9s.<\/p>\n
Dans ce second cas, les co\u00fbts de transaction comprennent les co\u00fbts qu’entra\u00eenent pour chaque partie la recherche et le listage de toutes les \u00e9ventualit\u00e9s qui peuvent survenir pendant la p\u00e9riode o\u00f9 le contrat s’ex\u00e9cute, les co\u00fbts provoqu\u00e9s par les n\u00e9gociations entre les parties, frais de r\u00e9daction et de mise en forme contractuelle compris, et les co\u00fbts inh\u00e9rents \u00e0 la recherche et au fonctionnement de syst\u00e8mes l\u00e9gaux cens\u00e9s garantir le respect des engagements, et sans lesquels l’opportunisme et la m\u00e9fiance emp\u00eachent les transactions.<\/p>\n
L’explication \u00e9conomique des entreprises en tant qu’organisations s’appuie fondamentalement sur l’id\u00e9e que les co\u00fbts de transaction \u00ab\u00a0contractuels\u00a0\u00bb sont avantageusement limit\u00e9s par le mode de coordination hi\u00e9rarchique que permet par d\u00e9finition l’organisation.<\/p>\n
Mais la r\u00e9duction par les \u00e9conomistes de l’entreprise \u00e0 un probl\u00e8me de minimisation des co\u00fbts de transaction suscite une illusion dont nous ne devons pas \u00eatre dupes.<\/p>\n
Une organisation ouverte n’est pas une anti-organisation, ni une g\u00e9n\u00e9ralisation du rapport marchand \u00e0 l’entreprise.<\/p>\n
Il se peut que le monde contemporain soit anti-organisationnel, que les promesses, les relations soient de plus en plus \u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e8res, que tout s’\u00e9ph\u00e9m\u00e9rise.<\/p>\n
Mais l’organisation ouverte est bien une organisation.<\/p>\n
Pour appr\u00e9hender sa forme, il est indispensable de forger des instruments de perception adapt\u00e9s : sans quoi nous ne comprendrons rien \u00e0 une entreprise comme Uber.<\/p>\n
Il faut une th\u00e9orie des organisations pour voir une organisation.<\/p>\n
De tels instruments d’abord conceptuels doivent \u00e9galement permettre de sortir du \u00ab\u00a0manag\u00e9rialisme\u00a0\u00bb, trop friand de benchmarks et de conformisme. La th\u00e9orie des organisations peut au contraire aider \u00e0 rompre les habitudes pour b\u00e2tir du neuf. Rares sont cependant les entreprises qui saisissent cette chance.<\/p>\n
Le premier instrument propos\u00e9 par Armand Hatchuel est celui du couplage forme juridique \/ management. Il implique de revenir sur la s\u00e9paration entre les mondes et les cat\u00e9gories du droit et de l’entreprise op\u00e9r\u00e9e dans l’Universit\u00e9 au d\u00e9but du vingti\u00e8me si\u00e8cle.<\/p>\n
Le droit est un outil d’organisation. Dans les formes d’organisation nouvelles, le rapport entre droit et management change : il devient plus compliqu\u00e9 et plus interactif. La gestion n’est plus \u00e0 droit constant. Cette r\u00e9alit\u00e9 est parfois tr\u00e8s violente et instable, notamment en cas de reventes \u00e0 r\u00e9p\u00e9tition d’une m\u00eame entreprise.<\/p>\n
Les \u00ab\u00a0entreprises \u00e0 mission\u00a0\u00bb constituent selon Armand Hatchuel une nouveaut\u00e9 \u00e0 l’horizon. \u00c0 l’instar de la coop\u00e9rative ouvri\u00e8re Coopaname, elles doivent permettre de mettre en place des m\u00e9canismes de cr\u00e9ation de valeur tout en s’affranchissant du mod\u00e8le de la valeur actionnariale, vou\u00e9 au profit sans la prosp\u00e9rit\u00e9. Leur structure l\u00e9gale de propri\u00e9t\u00e9 s’\u00e9carte de la norme capitalistique dominante.<\/p>\n
Je constate que ce trait revient r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement sous des formes diff\u00e9rentes : mission inspirante,\u00a0massive transformative purpose<\/em>, entreprise communautaire… il se passe quelque chose \u00e0 ce niveau.<\/p>\n Selon Armand Hatchuel, les pays non occidentaux seront une source de surprises organisationnelles sur ce plan dans l’avenir, parce ces pays ne sont pas issus de la matrice du droit romain, ou du droit anglo-saxon romanis\u00e9. Il cite notamment l’Inde, les pays africains, la Chine, et Isra\u00ebl. Il pense que ces surprises organisationnelles impliquent l’existence de variables cach\u00e9es \u00e0 l’int\u00e9rieur de la notion de territoire.<\/p>\n Dans le cas d’Uber, on peut observer qu’il s’agit d’une entreprise qui fait ex\u00e9cuter un travail par des subordonn\u00e9s utilisant un statut d’entrepreneur. Cette forme n’est pas neuve : c’est celle de la franchise, invent\u00e9e dans les ann\u00e9es 1920. Mais cette forme peut changer. Elle n’est pas stable. Pour le comprendre il est n\u00e9cessaire de prendre en compte une seconde cl\u00e9 d’analyse<\/p>\n Le gradient de transformation d’activit\u00e9 d\u00e9note la fr\u00e9quence des changements de cap strat\u00e9gique d’une entreprise : produit, clients, organisation, production… La notion se rapproche de celle du \u00ab\u00a0pivot\u00a0\u00bb entrepreneurial.<\/p>\n Une cl\u00e9 d’analyse qui, selon Armand Hatchuel, n’a jamais \u00e9t\u00e9 forg\u00e9e dans le cas de la France, contrairement \u00e0 l’Allemagne. Il impute la d\u00e9sindustrialisation fran\u00e7aise \u00e0 ce qu’il nomme un \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9ficit d’anthropologie industrielle\u00a0\u00bb.<\/p>\n Mais revenons au cas d’Uber. Sur le gradient de transformation se trouve la possibilit\u00e9 de remplacer les chauffeurs actuels par des v\u00e9hicules autonomes.<\/p>\n S’agit-il d’un joker pour contrer la coalition des chauffeurs d\u00e9sireux d’obtenir de meilleures conditions (revenu minimum, protection, formation)? (\u00ab\u00a0Plus vous augmentez vos prix, plus j\u2019ai int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 basculer.\u00a0\u00bb)<\/p>\n Les investissements actuels en mati\u00e8re de pilotage automatique pourraient dans un premier temps se limiter \u00e0 viser le d\u00e9veloppement d’une aide \u00e0 la conduite : \u00ab\u00a0La premi\u00e8re ligne de chemin de fer \u00e9tait hippomobile.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n D\u00e8s lors que les v\u00e9hicules seraient pleinement autonomes, deux possibilit\u00e9s se pr\u00e9senteraient :<\/p>\n Les v\u00e9hicules autonomes d’Uber pourraient provenir de fournisseurs tiers, auquel cas Uber verrait sa marge comprim\u00e9e. La discussion avec Armand Hatchuel m’a permis de prendre du recul et de comprendre que le d\u00e9veloppement de la notion d’organisation ouverte devait d\u00e9sormais s’appuyer sur un approfondissement plus intensif de la description des cinq attributs fondamentaux que j’ai d\u00e9gag\u00e9s jusque-ici, quitte \u00e0 les r\u00e9am\u00e9nager.<\/p>\n *** [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_post_nav _builder_version=\u00a0\u00bb3.14″ prev_text=\u00a0\u00bbPrevious article\u00a0\u00bb next_text=\u00a0\u00bbNext article\u00a0\u00bb in_same_term=\u00a0\u00bbon\u00a0\u00bb background_color=\u00a0\u00bb#3d59a1″ title_font=\u00a0\u00bb|800|||||||\u00a0\u00bb title_text_color=\u00a0\u00bb#ffffff\u00a0\u00bb title_font_size=\u00a0\u00bb15px\u00a0\u00bb custom_padding=\u00a0\u00bb10px|10px|10px|10px\u00a0\u00bb border_radii=\u00a0\u00bbon|5px|5px|5px|5px\u00a0\u00bb border_width_all=\u00a0\u00bb1px\u00a0\u00bb border_color_all=\u00a0\u00bb#3d59a1″ saved_tabs=\u00a0\u00bball\u00a0\u00bb custom_margin=\u00a0\u00bb30px|||\u00a0\u00bb global_module=\u00a0\u00bb8506″ \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Loin des zones de confort et du happy talk, Armand Hatchuel, Professeur \u00e0 Mines ParisTech, conduit une exigeante r\u00e9flexion th\u00e9orique sur le destin des organisations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":5218,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Far removed from comfort zones and happy talk, Armand Hatchuel reflects upon the fate of organizations.<\/p> From my interview with him, I retain the following three ideas:<\/p> A transaction cost is a cost caused by all the procedures that\u00a0enable mutually beneficial exchanges between two or more individuals.<\/p> For a long time, the transaction costs were assimilated to the costs of coordinating the choices of actors independent of each other. For example, the use of a market and a currency implies a cost of operation. The notion of transaction cost also applies to a smaller scale, when the transaction is formalized by a contract linking two entities.<\/p> In the second case, the transaction costs include the costs incurred by each party in the search and listing of all contingencies that may arise during the period the contract is executed, the costs of negotiations between the parties, including the cost of drafting and formatting a contract, and the costs of researching and operating legal systems to ensure compliance with commitments, and without which opportunism and mistrust prevent transactions.<\/p> The economic explanation of companies as organizations is fundamentally based on the idea that \"contractual\" transaction costs are advantageously limited by the hierarchical coordination mode that the organization allows by definition.<\/p> But the reduction by economists of the company to a problem of minimizing transaction costs gives rise to an illusion by which we must not be fooled.<\/p> An open organization is not an anti-organization, nor a generalization of the commercial relation to the company.<\/p> It is possible that the contemporary world is anti-organizational, that the promises, the relations are more and more ephemeral, that everything is becoming more and more ephemeral.<\/p> But the open organization is an organization.<\/p> To understand its form, it is essential to forge appropriate instruments of perception: otherwise we will not understand anything about a company like Uber.<\/p> It takes a theory of organizations to see an organization.<\/p> Such first conceptual tools must also allow to get out of \"managerialism\", which is too fond of benchmarks and conformism. On the contrary, organizational theory can help break bad habits. Few companies, however, seize this opportunity.<\/p> The first instrument proposed by Armand Hatchuel is that of the coupling of legal form and management form. It implies\u00a0a\u00a0reevaluation of the separation between the worlds and the categories of law and enterprise operated within the University at the beginning of the twentieth century.<\/p> Law is an organizational tool. In the new forms of organization, the relationship between law and management changes: it becomes more complicated and more interactive. Management\u00a0no longer functions under a constant legal form. This reality is sometimes very violent and unstable, especially in the case of repeated resales of the same company.<\/p> According to Armand Hatchuel, \"mission companies\" are a novelty on the horizon. Like the Coopaname workers' cooperative, they must make it possible to set up value creation mechanisms while avoiding the model of shareholder value, dedicated to profit without prosperity. Their legal ownership structure deviates from the dominant capitalistic norm.<\/p> I notice that this trait comes back regularly in different forms: inspiring mission, massive transformative purpose, community enterprise ... something is happening at this level.<\/p> According to Armand Hatchuel, non-Western countries will be a source of organizational surprises in this regard in the future, because these countries do not come from the matrix of Roman law, or Anglo-Saxon Romanized law. He cites India, African countries, China, and Israel. He believes that these organizational surprises imply the existence of hidden variables within the notion of territory.<\/p> In the case of Uber, it can be observed that this is a company that has a job done by subordinates using an entrepreneurial status. This form is not new: it is that of the franchise, invented in the 1920s. But this form can change. It is not stable. To understand it, it is necessary to take into account a second key of analysis.<\/p> The business transformation gradient denotes the frequency of changes in a company's strategic direction: product, customers, organization, production ... The notion is similar to that of the entrepreneurial \"pivot\".<\/p> An analytical key\u00a0that, according to Armand Hatchuel, has never been forged in the case of France, unlike Germany. He blames French deindustrialization on what he calls a \"deficit of industrial anthropology\".<\/p> But let's go back to Uber's case. On the transformation gradient is the possibility of replacing current drivers with autonomous vehicles.<\/p> Is it a wildcard to counter the coalition of drivers wanting to get better conditions (minimum income, protection, training)? (\"The more you raise your prices, the more I have to switch.\")<\/p> Current investments in autopilots could initially be limited to the development of a driving aid: \"The first railway line was horse-drawn.\"<\/p> Since the vehicles would be fully autonomous, two possibilities would arise:<\/p> Uber's autonomous vehicles could come from third-party suppliers, in which case Uber would see its margin squeezed. The discussion with Armand Hatchuel allowed me to take a step back and understand that the development of the notion of open organization must now be based on a more intensive deepening of the description of the five fundamental attributes that I have\u00a0maintained until now.<\/p> *** \u00a0<\/p>","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[110,1239],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5214"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5214\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5218"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/open-organization.com\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}3) Les \u00ab\u00a0gradients de transformation d’activit\u00e9\u00a0\u00bb constituent une seconde cl\u00e9 pour comprendre les organisations<\/h4>\n
\nUber pourrait tenter de devenir une \u00e9norme entreprise industrielle manufacturant des v\u00e9hicules autonomes.
\nL’analyse d’Armand Hatchuel me conforte certainement dans l’id\u00e9e que pour comprendre Uber, il faut aussi comprendre Tesla. En effet, l’entreprise que Tesla cherche \u00e0 concurrencer n’est pas, par exemple, Renault, mais justement Uber. Le but de Tesla est de fournir un service de mobilit\u00e9 \u2014 et cette convergence \u00e9claire aussi l’un des chemins d’\u00e9volution potentiels d’Uber.<\/p>\nCONCLUSION<\/h4>\n
\n*<\/p>\nArticle r\u00e9alis\u00e9 sur la base d\u2019un entretien r\u00e9alis\u00e9 avec Armand Hatchuel, Professeur en Sciences de Gestion \u00e0 Mines ParisTech.<\/pre>\n
1) The open organization can not be reduced to the generalization of economic coordination by commercial contracts.<\/h4>
2) The law is an essential key to understanding the organizational reality.<\/h4>
3) \"Business transformation gradients\" are a second key to understanding organizationss<\/h4>
Uber could try to become a huge industrial company manufacturing autonomous vehicles.
The analysis of Armand Hatchuel certainly confirms me in the idea that to understand Uber, it is also necessary to understand Tesla. Indeed, the company that Tesla seeks to compete with is not, for example, Renault, but precisely Uber. The purpose of Tesla is to provide a mobility service - and this convergence also sheds light on one of Uber's potential paths of change.<\/p>CONCLUSION<\/h4>
*<\/p>Article based on an interview conducted with Armand Hatchuel, Professor of Management Science at Mines ParisTech.<\/pre>