Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation

Normes et conventions : Des dispositifs de régulation aux formes organisationnelles de gouvernance

Abstract : Norms and conventions. From collective regulation mechanisms to organisational forms of governance. Following on from the work of Jean-Daniel Reynaud on the regulation theory which allows exchange, communication, entry into contracts and creation of rules with the existence of conflicts within a social group, we make the observation that the project mode can be "a new form of sociology of action, establishing as the major characteristic of the social actor his autonomy, i.e. his capacity to build social rules and to agree thereto" (Reynaud, 1991 : 13). We subscribe to the social cognitive perspective which "focuses on the significance of social factors in the regulation of cognitive activity developed by a subject. [...] Cognitive activity does not result only from processing of information; it is also social in the sense that it falls within a context of social relationships" (Lauriol: 5). This approach combines the three characteristics of the organisational cognition approach, to which the interactions among actors and the context of action are added. These interactions and this context are already at the heart of the logic of action (Habermas, Crozier, Friedberg) and of social logics, which are themselves based on the forms of relationships (Bernoux, Herreros, 1996). The entire dimension of the system is considered here for analysis of the group dynamic and of individual or collective strategies. A dynamic where individual representations and conditions of collective production of knowledge are the markers of understanding of the forming of social action (Ward, Reigen, 1990). In this article, we therefore intend to cross the notions of norm, cooperation and convention. This is a recent theoretical attempt. It is noteworthy that in 1999, Armand Hatchuel emphasized the link between cooperation and convention by using the focal point theory of Schelling which "describes a situation of collective conception without revision" (Hatchuel, 1999: 198). According to Schelling, the focal point is the point of convergence which results from the interaction of the members of the group and which is collectively accepted as a solution following cognitive construction. This solution itself is the result of a learning process, characterized by Schön (1997: 167) of a "behavioural world which can more or less influence common reflection which is essential to any reliable communication". The value of this approach which is a cross between the logic of action in project governance and cooperation/convention will, in the long run, be to isolate that an interpretive rationality (consisting of various factors such as the history of the group, artefacts, rules, representations, conventions and procedures) makes it possible to clear up uncertainties. Authors such as Denise Jodelet, Serge Moscovici and Jacques Lauriol have already identified the objectivization and polarization processes which offer a group the possibility of reaching a consensus within margins of disagreement (according to the socio-cognitive meaning of interpretive rationality which presupposes materialisation of knowledge and of its meaning in the organisation with a view to action). We considered it worthwhile to open the work on organisational communication to this analysis as it is inherent to the decision-making of the actors. In fact, many authors (Giddens, 1997; Hatchuel, 1997; Reynaud, 1997) have shown that rules are at the heart of a collective organisation, however, one can only observe that rules alone do not constitute an organisation, given that the collective entity does not entirely comply with the rule which can be a partial and restrictive response in action (as a form of registration of mobilizable collective knowledge), hence the social dimension. Beyond the regulation theory, the organisation exceeds the holistic vision where, according to Emile Durkheim, the individual is not determined by the whole of which he is a part, but where social facts explain other social facts. Holism where individual behaviours are socially determined in a relational vision of the world. The theory of conventions does not adopt the individualistic vision of Max Weber either, which opposes Emile Durkheim and which considers that the individual can change according to his own will which pushes him to act independently from his context, (the issue of free will), is also challenged. But a rule, like a convention, calls for interpretation (Reynaud B, 1998) which stems from negotiation and is transformed throughout social life (Giddens, 1987). We emphasized that cooperation modes in collective action Favereau (1995) go beyond the framework of the organisation, the place of production and productivity, to move towards a more social space that combines norms, conventions, learning and collective knowledge.
Document type :
Conference papers
Complete list of metadatas

https://hal.univ-lille3.fr/hal-00825890
Contributor : Compte Laboratoire Geriico <>
Submitted on : Monday, July 22, 2013 - 3:21:49 PM
Last modification on : Monday, January 6, 2020 - 9:26:02 AM
Document(s) archivé(s) le : Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - 3:51:48 PM

File

axe_1_colloque_cmn_gardere_v2....
Explicit agreement for this submission

Identifiers

  • HAL Id : hal-00825890, version 2

Citation

Elizabeth Gardère. Normes et conventions : Des dispositifs de régulation aux formes organisationnelles de gouvernance. Communiquer dans un monde de normes. L'information et la communication dans les enjeux contemporains de la " mondialisation "., Mar 2012, France. pp.86. ⟨hal-00825890v2⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

458

Files downloads

994