Votez pour ce site au Weborama CHAPTER: I: CHANGE (conversion, transfer, fracture, adaptability ...).
Introduction
The change issue has become socially and politically. The change would be on the side of progress, the resistance towards the reaction of immobility.
I. THE SYSTEM OR ORGANIZATION After our first justification of the structure, we can say that "the organization is a system built and continuously produced by organizational actors. The concept of organization in this sense is inseparable from the production itself. This implies that the process is retroactive / recursive-product organization system and the product continuously in an uninterrupted recommencement which coincides with its existence. The production itself is inseparable from the ongoing restructuring that is to say the production process always repeated by itself.1. "From these facts, we say that an organization is a given that the process is the same with games of interaction and feedback. Finally, to clarify our point, we refer to the definitions JM Plane and D. Durand below.
a) Definition:
A system and organization While being aware that there is lack of unanimity on their concrete definition, we rely on the organization's explanation given by Jean-Michel Plane that support that "an organization appears as a structured response collective action, a relatively restrictive for individuals and together as a collective dynamics promoting the fulfillment of joint projects. It can also be seen as a place of self-fulfillment, accomplishment and fulfillment but also as a place of conflict in which often exercised dominion and pouvoir2. "Thus a system is an organized and structured effectively in levels and modules that can permanently maintain its relationship with its environment while retaining its identity despite the fact that it varies its behavior and change or "progress" especially when he is alive and socially. For his part, Daniel Durand noted that a system is perceived as the "structural aspects" that is to say a border more or less permeable between himself and his environment, "a network connection, transmission and communication vehicle to be solids, liquids or gases, or energy, or information in any form possibles3; heterogeneous elements within it that are hierarchical, countable and identifiable and reservoirs necessary for its operation in which the entire network is stored. The "functional aspects" of the system depends on: the flow of various components of the transit network in its tanks, centers where decisions are dealt with information, feedback (feedback loops) "which are intended to inform makers of what happens downstream, and thus enable them to take their decisions knowing, response times, considered reservoirs necessary treatment for its better functioning and inputs and outputs reports that embody This system with its environment, these reports are more or less numerous and intense as the system is more or less closed in on itself and outward.
b) Open System Votez pour ce site au Weborama
The concept of open system has expanded considerably with the work on living Cannon in 1930 and especially von Bertalanffy in the 1940s. [...] The most open systems are generally those that respond best and can adapt to changing conditions in this environment, but they must retain some degree of closure to ensure their preservation and identity, if they dissolve in so in this environment. Recall here that like other systems, this exchange system (in conjunction) with its environment three kinds of their inputs and outputs: energy, information, material, rejecting what is harmful in that environment which we refer to the concept of "interface" which is the admission and rejection of foreign bodies. Unlike the closed system which for its part does not trade with its environment that is to say with its outside world. This does not underpin it did not change as claimed by the authors are A. Bergmann and B. UWAMUNGU "is commonly believed that the source of change in organizations is best in their environment. But as living systems (closed systems and autonomous), they are homeostatic and mend as themselves (self-poiesis). And change in one area (technical, organizational, economic, social) inevitably affect the others change begets changement4. "However we know that both systems closed than open face of internal or external alterations or both at once.
c) Closed System
The concept of a closed system has been introduced in thermodynamics by the mid-nineteenth century: it is a system which exchanges only energy but not matter with its environment, while an open system exchanging matter and energy as we have said. When disturbances occur in this system, the agency will seek with all available means to regain its original strength, which can be fatal "in As the sequence of reactions, the entropy increases so irreversible. When thermodynamic equilibrium is reached, the entropy is maximum: the system can not provide travail5 "can deteriorate and eventually no longer exist. As we said, a system is never totally isolated from its environment is the place where it is constructed, is, self-organizing, moves ... Given that the environment is internal and that any what goes into and inside it, we can consider that there is no system strictly and almost closed. "Open and closed depending on whether or not they relate to their environment. In fact, it was noted that the closed system is a theoretical concept and only meet systems more or less ouverts6. "Thus, a system can not dispense with its regulatory environment. Environment made in meaning from what is inside or outside or both juxtaposed to its proper functioning. These different exchanges that the system performs, allowing it to change and / or to maintain. This internal and external regulation is called cybernetics (the study of art of governing) term which we shall return. But, as we said the open and closed systems are distinguished by whether they are related to their environment. What is it exactly? To answer this question we will rely on two effects of systems that are changing and homeostasis (steady state).
II. CHANGE AND HOMEOSTASIS
1. Paradox between change and homeostasis
Despite their seemingly opposite nature, these two terms as we have just announced, must be considered together. Permanence has often been considered a natural state that accepted evidence, which made the change to solve the problem. To better understand this paradox, it is important to note that while all human (individual, group, organization ...) can be defined as an open system interdependent with its environment capable of self-organization and self-reproduction. Which brings us to say that change is a necessary homeostasis is to say, the constant search for equilibrium with its surroundings. The theory of autopoiesis and operational closure of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, opposing the traditional command reminds us that "autopoietic machine continuously generates and specifies its own organization" and that "well autopoietic machine is a homeostatic system whose invariant principle is its own organization. " It was Gregory Bateson, figurehead of the School of Palo Alto, deserves the credit for bringing the elements crucial to understanding the process of change. His contributions, the fruit of interdisciplinary yours, have enabled the implementation of a new pedagogy of change. Bateson distinguishes two types of change in human systems: the change that occurs within a system he calls the Change 1, and the change that affects and changes the system itself, he calls Change 2.
a) The change.1:
homeostasis It is the American physiologist Walter B. Cannon (1871-1945) 7, which introduced the term homeostasis (homeo = similar and stasis = remain). "The coordinated physiological processes which maintain the most stable states in the organism are so complex and so peculiar to living things - including the brain and nerves, heart, lungs, kidneys, spleen, all working together -- I suggested a special designation for these states, "homeostasis". This assertion makes us recognize that change.1 is one that allows the system to maintain homeostasis, balance: the modification occurs only at the level of system components. The homeostasis of a system lies in its ability to exercise self-correcting phenomena on the internal or external elements which threaten its balance. The quip "the more things change the more they stay the same," we often hear in cafes and canteens on the measures taken by the management of a company or government, reflects how well the changes made only lead to level 1 solutions: solutions that specifically contribute to trigger regulatory mechanisms, called homeostatic because they maintain the system in his state. So we ourselves are we trying in most cases unwittingly, to change things always leads to the same thing. However change.1 by this feedback is insufficient in some cases. Indeed, when a human system can no longer regulate its trade by the usual measures of self-correction and adjustment when common sense solutions to create a little more permanence, then there is this crisis means that within the system, changes to another level, level 2, and required that they are not introduced, the system becomes ill, hence the need changement2.
b) The changement2: Votez pour ce site au Weborama
evolution Change 2 is characterized by the fact that the system itself is modified or amended. To use a metaphor borrowed from Paul Watzlawick, Change 1 is similar to the action of the thermostat that regulates the temperature based on thermal variables, or that of the accelerator the car can go faster but maintaining that regime change while 2 corresponds to an intervention on the gear lever which, when amending the rules of the car, will move to a higher power. So facing a very steep side (context switch), if the driver did accelerate a bit more, it would not make a change in level 1, a solution which would amplify the problem because his car (imagine a small displacement ) a pet, more power to court, would advance more and more difficult and probably would end up stalling. In this example, the option to shift gears to change the engine corresponds exactly to a change in level 2. Thus we say that access to changement2 in a human system requires that the rules that govern undergo transformations. And this change in a human system is, a reconstruction of reality, a change of premises, or even basic assumptions or présupposés8. Thus, we note that this change make some changes to the system, rules of the system or elements of this system which leads us to believe that many forms of change are independent of each other. 2. Some forms of change By "forms of change", we mean how the impact or at least the effect of changing the system, its environment or its elements. Thus, we can note that changing the system may lead to "a change which biology provides a particularly clear example: the characteristics of an organism is changing rapidly due to a disruption in the number or quality of the genes . This disruption can occur spontaneously or be provoked by the intervention of an external factor (eg radiation). "The second form is that the breakdown in which" an internal change to the system, beyond a certain threshold causes a complete transformation of one ci9. "revolution as an alternative form of change 2 comes from the social field" it posits a society in its operation develops internal contradictions in the existing gap between modes of production and social relations in which they organize themselves, beyond a certain threshold, these contradictions lead to a global transformation of the whole social system and therefore a system change (transition from feudalism to capitalism and from capitalism to socialism ...) 10. "Cropping is another category of changes proposed by the School of Palo Alto which is intended not to act on things but to illuminate a new way. It seeks not only to transform the meaning of the opening compared to a situation and the meaning it is to say, it involves changing the conceptual background and / or emotional situations, or point of view that it is experienced in placing it in another context, which is also good or even better, the "facts" of this concrete situation whose meaning, therefore, completely changes. Votez pour ce site au Weborama Thus, we can say that there are changes that are perpetrated within the system without having effects on the system itself and changes outside the system that have no effect on the internal elements this system. Regarding the change of data intrinsic to the system, we can cite the example of the structure in manic-depressive psychopathology of Palo Alto said that "this structure is that the subject passes through very contrasting states of exaltation and melancholy, apparently, it changes at all in all, but this change occurs within a personality structure permanente11. "we would say that change is a step that causes either a mutation or a rupture or a revolution, a crop as is done on the internal or external to the system or the system itself. But in general, we find that these different forms shape an order already established to create a new one, one might think, benefits the system or actor.
3. Order and disorder
Together the two wars in the twentieth century, an intense scientific activity has also disrupted our certainties about the world and how we interpret it. Although the formalization often do use conceptual tools and / or some abstract mathematical theories have already found practical applications in different areas of their chosen land. In particular, systems thinking following the work of Norbert Wiener, von Bertalanffy, the Palo Alto and later constructivism, is probably the biggest challenge to the traditional analytical approach founding of science "modern". But challenging does not mean removing the new and more comprehensive paradigm that removes the Cartesian precepts. Heinz von Foerster and Henri Atlan we have shown that disorder, traditionally regarded as a scandal methodology can be promoter of a new order, so is he, for example, learning by trial and error. Like we can say that "for a change 2, it is necessary to observe and describe the system by bringing together diverse elements in a certain disorder. The order appears when, paradoxically, the observer mentally prepared for the search 'disorderly'', set elements into a new order that will bring a new definition of problème12. "The order makes stability operations routine, if properly designed, can slowly accumulate progress. The change is a factor of opportunities and risks. But it is most often the disorder, poorly controlled change, which creates damage, including damage policy. The lack of order does not necessarily lead to revolution, the revolutions usually lead quite rapidly, by renewing the legitimacy of an order more rigorous than before. The Western democracies, but with a different magnitude from the schemes of communism, seem threatened by entropy, that is to say the deteriorating balance of political power constrained (corporatism, political categorical marginalization ...), the power diverted (fraud, corruption, interference ...), fought the power (ideological criticism, political assassination ...). All these forms of social malaise, possibly maintained by external factors of instability, undermine the essential factors for effective collective membership undisputed projects clearly visible, the capacity for coordination and flexible regulatory disputes. By cons, Mr. Crozier said that the consistency between systems and subsystems of a set is not as quote: "but the study of systems seems to show that the consistency of a set is not only relative, as though there are always mechanisms of integration, there is consistency between the various subsystems of a whole, any system that is full of contradictions and that there is little that a company , a social whole is less than in more integrated. Even a highly integrated organization never works on a single principe13. " For its part with Prigogine dissipative structures, another example of creating order out of disorder, invites us to reflect on the functioning of the enterprise open system continuously exchanging matter, energy and information with its environment. This implies that "no system is parfait14" insofar as we said to exist the system needs regulation without which it dies. On this, we can imagine that the order is potentially dangerous when the disorder is expressed not in one way or another, integrated in a higher order, or when order Majority loses the sense of measure and imposes its conception to the whole population and human (totalitarianism) or weaker neighbors (imperialism). It then creates the crisis, conflict, violent change, causing the brakes to the expected change.
III. THE RESISTANCE TO CHANGE.
1. Resistors
The brake resistors are generated (nt) or the (the) person (s) most often disagree with the process. Five centuries before Christ, Heraclitus of Ephesus, the philosopher of becoming, change, wrote: "The opposition is contrary to both the condition and become things together principle and law. The condition of stability, harmony and peace, that is confusing things in general ... embrace what is useful and is contrary to what it is that struggle comes the fairest harmony everything made by discord ... The battle is the father and the king of all choses15 ... "(quoted by Mr. Bonami, 1993 P.5 Management of Complex Systems) There is resistance when it is an organizational change despite the participation (proposal) of all players. See chap. approaches to drive change. Thus, proposals must be adapted to the magnitude of the problem and the degree of dissatisfaction it causes. The proposals involve systematic organizational resistance to change. The acceptance of new operating procedures is carried out progressively from the confrontation of divergent views and the introduction of additional measures. The groups to which individuals assimilate are places of change as outlined in V. Aebischer and D. Oberle: "For Lewin (1965), conformity is a major source of resistance to change: if we try to change the habits of an individual, without changing those of his group, faces his fear of be ridiculous, stigmatized or excluded from his group. [...] It is easy to change the norms, habits, opinions of people when they are in groups than when they are isolés16. "We must understand the resistance to find out what is their problem as Edgar Morin said: "As the barriers to understanding they are many and multifaceted: the most serious are formed by the loop ↔ egocentric self-justification ↕ ↕ by possessions and discounts, as well as the self-deception retaliation and revenge, structures indelibly ingrained in the human mind, he can pull, but it can and should overcome. The combination of incomprehension, the intellectual and human, the individual and collective, is a major obstacle to improved relations between individuals, groups, peoples, nations17. " According to Edgar Morin 'understanding of the meaning of the word of others, his ideas, his vision of the world is threatened everywhere "or: by parasites that destroy the transmission which generates the misunderstanding or non-course either by the polysemy of a word or by misunderstandings values and ethical imperative of the culture or the law of another, either through ignorance thereof, or "especially the impossibility of understanding a mental structure to another "that are" external obstacles to understanding the intellectual or subjective. By cons, "indifference and egocentrism (maintenance of self-deception, deception in respect of itself, caused by self-justification, self-aggrandizement and the tendency to reject others, foreign or near the cause of all evils), ethnocentrism, sociocentrism (feeding the xenophobia and racism which can remove up abroad as the human) that have the common feature to locate the center of the world and regarded as secondary or insignificant hostile everything étranger18 "fall within and are greatest. There may be a change when tensions over the reinforcing system, but the burst, when the crisis leads to innovative mechanisms. The change can be reduced to a hierarchical decision. It must be accompanied by applications of new types of relationships. The change can not be decreed is to say that "resistance to change are most often as an expression of appreciation entirely reasonable and legitimate for readers concerned about the risks involved for them changes designed without them and aimed primarily at rationalizing their behavior, that is to say to make them more predictable by eliminating incertitudes19. "Thus, we can say that the resistance avoids the passivity of the actors in the process of introducing change in an organization, it is necessary to best advance since it is for them a process of integration in contrast to what one may think as reported by the authors in the 'International' in fact, the real issue of a change effort is not to eliminate resistance, in which case we could end up with a passive mass of people, but to encourage the mobilization and ownership of change objectives . The real issue is therefore an adaptation to changement20. "Furthermore, we can imagine that the resistance that rejects the majority are nevertheless important for its progress since the resistance can make them think again the majority in the right direction and consider issues that may have not been studied, have been omitted or have been marginalized and underlined V. Aebischer / D. Oberle "Change is the eventual outcome of minorities actives21" For those statements, we understand that it is the commitment of the players in action for change that encourages them to be tough, sometimes because of not knowing master the new realities or to bring decision makers to reconsider the process. This means that there is no resistance when the players are passive. In this, it seems wise to know the causes of these reservations prior to the mobilization and ownership change objectives.
2. the reasons for these brakes
Switching from one mode of thought to reflect evolutionary change into the unknown is not easy for individuals or for groups, because it leads to constant questioning, questioning, uncertainty . It is, therefore, inherently generates anxiety. Thus, the change imposed from above is often an aspect of rationalization is, in fact, reduce or eliminate these areas of uncertainty, the opposition can easily become very deep as we said early in the game. It is noted that "anyway, whether or not opposition, the unconscious action of subordinates even well intentioned, seeking only to maintain their autonomy, is sufficient to completely distort the spirit of a réforme22." This implies that the change or more precisely the new skill to be acquired by the actor in the process is sometimes a shock to the employee identity, a strong earthquake in his beliefs and representations. Even in the most humble background, the decisive behavior is the game of power and influence which the individual participates in and through which he affirms his existence despite social constraints. "But any change is dangerous because it inevitably calls into question the conditions of his game, his sources of power and freedom of action by modifying or removing the relevant areas of uncertainty that contrôle23." Thus, as Christophe Dejours points out, the assumption (psychologist) admits, as opposed to the physicalist assumption (by which human behavior is subject to invariable laws), that human behavior can change and are dependent on social development and history. However, this assumption implies interchangeability subjectivist context and human adaptability to all environments. The motivation for example, modulated mainly by forms of power and handling of human relations in business, would be transferable to any activity, which again constitutes a considerable simplification, because even under ideal conditions of command or organization, it remains a place for human failures, errors and accidents, the only reference to the quality of labor relations and motivation do not explain. Thus said, we can imagine that any engineer or designer who has worked with a brilliant colleague, but particularly difficult knows the danger that this colleague is liable. His behavior is more easily lead to its exclusion from the group that the approval and acceptance of his ideas. But if a company wants to innovate should be able to grow all kinds of diversity within it. It would be wise to put it in place not only coaches to help this kind of creative individual to live in groups but also champions who can articulate and sell ideas internally individuals difficult to live for the simple reason that " when they are caught between two conflicting cultural systems, individuals may exhibit a range of variables attitudes between extremes of permeability, which is to be let in by the cultural elements that we are facing, and the impermeability or refusal of these elements. In accepting the invasion by foreign characteristics, the individual may cease to recognize themselves in the cultural system of its origins. He then assimilated into the newly discovered worlds. In closing the intrusion of the new culture, he created instead a separation of his being and it can be exclu24. Votez pour ce site au Weborama
