Organizational Change: Narratives, Strategic Tools, and Complex Dynamics

Authors

  • Adil NEJJAR Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences, sale. Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco
  • Taoufik DAGHRI Faculty of Law, Economics and Social Sciences, sale. Mohamed V University, Rabat, Morocco

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10447827

Abstract

Management tools act as formal means to frame organizational activity, contributing to bureaucratic dominance by imposing operational rules. Despite their coercive nature, these tools are subject to joint regulation, where users resist, negotiate, and adapt tools to their needs. The appropriation of these tools does not occur through mere submission but through transformation, resulting in new patterns of use.

Chiapello and Gilbert (2012) emphasize that the tool, far from being criticized for its constraining nature, plays a crucial role in mediating collective action. It helps ease tensions during changes and deflect potential conflicts among actors, as illustrated in the case of high school reform. Thus, management tools prove to be more than mere coercive instruments; they become a vital element in organizational dynamics.

This dynamic is characterized by the continuous adaptation of management tools, resulting in a coevolution between user practices and imposed standards. Ultimately, this transformative approach to the appropriation of management tools leads to the emergence of new forms of organization and operation, establishing a delicate balance between necessary formalization and the inherent flexibility of organizational adaptation.

 

Keywords: Management Tools; Bureaucratic Dominance; User Appropriation; Organizational Dynamics; Coevolution

Classification JEL: O15

Paper type : theoretical research

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2023-12-31

How to Cite

NEJJAR, A., & DAGHRI, T. (2023). Organizational Change: Narratives, Strategic Tools, and Complex Dynamics. International Journal of Accounting, Finance, Auditing, Management and Economics, 4(6-1), 904–920. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10447827