ParkinsonFranceV1, Istex, Corpus, bibRecord, 002479

Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice

Identifieur interne : 002479 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 002478; suivant : 002480

Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice

Source :

Society and Business Review [ 1746-5680 ] ; 2010-02-09.

RBID : ISTEX:5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177

Abstract

Purpose Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes. Designmethodologyapproach The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive action scripts, performative actions themselves elements, and artefacts material productions. Findings The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing i.e. the implementation of action scripts is concerned. The study of practising i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity. Originalityvalue Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.

Url:

https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/pdf

DOI: 10.1108/17465681011017264

Links to Exploration step

ISTEX:5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177

Le document en format XML

<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<author><name sortKey="Mric, Jrme" sort="Mric, Jrme" uniqKey="Mric J" first="Jrme" last="Mric">Jrme Mric</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jardat, Rmi" sort="Jardat, Rmi" uniqKey="Jardat R" first="Rmi" last="Jardat">Rmi Jardat</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno>
<idno type="RBID">ISTEX:5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177</idno>
<date when="2010" year="2010">2010</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1108/17465681011017264</idno>
<idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/pdf</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">002479</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">002479</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<author><name sortKey="Mric, Jrme" sort="Mric, Jrme" uniqKey="Mric J" first="Jrme" last="Mric">Jrme Mric</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Jardat, Rmi" sort="Jardat, Rmi" uniqKey="Jardat R" first="Rmi" last="Jardat">Rmi Jardat</name>
<affiliation><mods:affiliation>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</mods:affiliation>
</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr></monogr>
<series><title level="j">Society and Business Review</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1746-5680</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2010-02-09">2010-02-09</date>
<biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="66">66</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="83">83</biblScope>
</imprint>
<idno type="ISSN">1746-5680</idno>
</series>
<idno type="istex">5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1108/17465681011017264</idno>
<idno type="filenameID">2960050104</idno>
<idno type="original-pdf">2960050104.pdf</idno>
<idno type="href">17465681011017264.pdf</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
<seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1746-5680</idno>
</seriesStmt>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract">Purpose Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes. Designmethodologyapproach The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive action scripts, performative actions themselves elements, and artefacts material productions. Findings The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing i.e. the implementation of action scripts is concerned. The study of practising i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity. Originalityvalue Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<istex><corpusName>emerald</corpusName>
<author><json:item><name>Jrme Mric</name>
<affiliations><json:string>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>Rmi Jardat</name>
<affiliations><json:string>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</json:string>
</affiliations>
</json:item>
</author>
<subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Induction</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Banking</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Retailing</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Management consultancy</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>Organizational change</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string>
</lang>
<value>France</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<language><json:string>eng</json:string>
</language>
<originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</originalGenre>
<abstract>Purpose Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes. Designmethodologyapproach The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive action scripts, performative actions themselves elements, and artefacts material productions. Findings The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing i.e. the implementation of action scripts is concerned. The study of practising i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity. Originalityvalue Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.</abstract>
<qualityIndicators><score>10</score>
<pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion>
<pdfPageSize>519 x 680 pts</pdfPageSize>
<refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative>
<keywordCount>6</keywordCount>
<abstractCharCount>2320</abstractCharCount>
<pdfWordCount>8284</pdfWordCount>
<pdfCharCount>52007</pdfCharCount>
<pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount>
<abstractWordCount>347</abstractWordCount>
</qualityIndicators>
<title>Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<refBibs><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. Antonacopoulou</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><author></author>
<title>International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies</title>
</host>
<title>Practice</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>Entre le Cristal et la Fume Essai sur l'Organisation du Vivant</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>Outline of a Theory of Practice</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>The Logic of Practice</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>The Imaginary Institution of Society</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>A Behavioral Theory of the Firm</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>La Logique de l'Honneur</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>M.S. Feldman</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>12</volume>
<author></author>
<title>Industrial and Corporate Change</title>
</host>
<title>A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>The Constitution of Society</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>The Constitution of Society</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>B. Levitt</name>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>J.G. March</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>14</volume>
<author></author>
<title>Annual Review of Sociology</title>
</host>
<title>Organizational learning</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>J. Meric</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>3</volume>
<pages><last>22</last>
<first>6</first>
</pages>
<issue>1</issue>
<author></author>
<title>Society and Business Review</title>
</host>
<title>Practices and dynamics of immobility the institutionalized control of induction in consultancy</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>Encyclopdie de la Philosophie</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>B.T. Pentland</name>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>M.S. Feldman</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>14</volume>
<pages><last>815</last>
<first>793</first>
</pages>
<author></author>
<title>Industrial and Corporate Change</title>
</host>
<title>Organizational routines as a unit of analysis</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><host><author></author>
<title>Gouvernance et Privatization</title>
</host>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>W. Sewell</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>98</volume>
<pages><last>29</last>
<first>1</first>
</pages>
<author></author>
<title>American Journal of Sociology</title>
</host>
<title>A theory of structure duality, agency and transformation</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>H. Tsoukas</name>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>R. Chia</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>13</volume>
<issue>5</issue>
<author></author>
<title>Organization Science</title>
</host>
<title>On organizational becoming rethinking organizational change</title>
</json:item>
<json:item><author><json:item><name>M. Zollo</name>
</json:item>
<json:item><name>S.G. Winter</name>
</json:item>
</author>
<host><volume>13</volume>
<issue>3</issue>
<author></author>
<title>Organization Science</title>
</host>
<title>Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities</title>
</json:item>
</refBibs>
<genre><json:string>research-article</json:string>
</genre>
<host><volume>5</volume>
<publisherId><json:string>sbr</json:string>
</publisherId>
<pages><last>83</last>
<first>66</first>
</pages>
<issn><json:string>1746-5680</json:string>
</issn>
<issue>1</issue>
<subject><json:item><value>Strategy</value>
</json:item>
<json:item><value>Business ethics</value>
</json:item>
</subject>
<genre><json:string>journal</json:string>
</genre>
<language><json:string>unknown</json:string>
</language>
<title>Society and Business Review</title>
<doi><json:string>10.1108/sbr</json:string>
</doi>
</host>
<publicationDate>2010</publicationDate>
<copyrightDate>2010</copyrightDate>
<doi><json:string>10.1108/17465681011017264</json:string>
</doi>
<id>5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177</id>
<score>0.8071217</score>
<fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension>
<original>true</original>
<mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/pdf</uri>
</json:item>
<json:item><extension>zip</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>application/zip</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/zip</uri>
</json:item>
<istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Insights from retail banking and management consulting in France</title>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority>
<publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher>
<availability><p>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</p>
</availability>
<date>2010</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<title level="a" type="sub" xml:lang="en">Insights from retail banking and management consulting in France</title>
<author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Jrme</forename>
<surname>Mric</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</affiliation>
</author>
<author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Rmi</forename>
<surname>Jardat</surname>
</persName>
<affiliation>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</affiliation>
</author>
</analytic>
<monogr><title level="j">Society and Business Review</title>
<idno type="pISSN">1746-5680</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1108/sbr</idno>
<imprint><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher>
<date type="published" when="2010-02-09"></date>
<biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" from="66">66</biblScope>
<biblScope unit="page" to="83">83</biblScope>
</imprint>
</monogr>
<idno type="istex">5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177</idno>
<idno type="DOI">10.1108/17465681011017264</idno>
<idno type="filenameID">2960050104</idno>
<idno type="original-pdf">2960050104.pdf</idno>
<idno type="href">17465681011017264.pdf</idno>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><creation><date>2010</date>
</creation>
<langUsage><language ident="en">en</language>
</langUsage>
<abstract><p>Purpose Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes. Designmethodologyapproach The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive action scripts, performative actions themselves elements, and artefacts material productions. Findings The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing i.e. the implementation of action scripts is concerned. The study of practising i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity. Originalityvalue Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.</p>
</abstract>
<textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head>
<item><term>Induction</term>
</item>
<item><term>Banking</term>
</item>
<item><term>Retailing</term>
</item>
<item><term>Management consultancy</term>
</item>
<item><term>Organizational change</term>
</item>
<item><term>France</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
<textClass><keywords scheme="Emerald Subject Group"><list><label>cat-STGY</label>
<item><term>Strategy</term>
</item>
<label>cat-BETH</label>
<item><term>Business ethics</term>
</item>
</list>
</keywords>
</textClass>
</profileDesc>
<revisionDesc><change when="2010-02-09">Published</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
</istex:fulltextTEI>
<json:item><extension>txt</extension>
<original>false</original>
<mimetype>text/plain</mimetype>
<uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177/fulltext/txt</uri>
</json:item>
</fulltext>
<metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus emerald not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration>
<istex:document><!-- Auto generated NISO JATS XML created by Atypon out of MCB DTD source files. Do Not Edit! --><article dtd-version="1.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">sbr</journal-id>
<journal-id journal-id-type="doi">10.1108/sbr</journal-id>
<journal-title-group><journal-title>Society and Business Review</journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="ppub">1746-5680</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1108/17465681011017264</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="original-pdf">2960050104.pdf</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="filename">2960050104</article-id>
<article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="type-of-publication"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">research-article</compound-subject-part>
<compound-subject-part content-type="label">Research paper</compound-subject-part>
</compound-subject>
</subj-group>
<subj-group subj-group-type="subject"><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-STGY</compound-subject-part>
<compound-subject-part content-type="label">Strategy</compound-subject-part>
</compound-subject>
<subj-group><compound-subject><compound-subject-part content-type="code">cat-BETH</compound-subject-part>
<compound-subject-part content-type="label">Business ethics</compound-subject-part>
</compound-subject>
</subj-group>
</subj-group>
</article-categories>
<title-group><article-title>Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</article-title>
<subtitle>Insights from retail banking and management consulting in France</subtitle>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Jérôme</given-names>
 <surname>Méric</surname>
</string-name>
<aff>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</aff>
</contrib>
<x></x>
<contrib contrib-type="author"><string-name><given-names>Rémi</given-names>
 <surname>Jardat</surname>
</string-name>
<aff>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</aff>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>09</day>
<month>02</month>
<year>2010</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>5</volume>
<issue>1</issue>
<issue-title>Practising socializing and institutionalizing: Perspectives on the societal, organizational and individual effects of staff induction practices</issue-title>
<issue-title content-type="short">Perspectives on staff induction practices</issue-title>
<fpage>66</fpage>
<lpage>83</lpage>
<permissions><copyright-statement>© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2010</copyright-year>
<license license-type="publisher"><license-p></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="17465681011017264.pdf"></self-uri>
<abstract><sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Purpose</title>
<x> – </x>
<p>Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Design/methodology/approach</title>
<x> – </x>
<p>The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive (action scripts), performative (actions themselves) elements, and artefacts (material productions).</p>
</sec>
<sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Findings</title>
<x> – </x>
<p>The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing (i.e. the implementation of action scripts) is concerned. The study of practising (i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts) shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title content-type="abstract-heading">Originality/value</title>
<x> – </x>
<p>Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of “not embedded” behaviors.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>
<kwd-group><kwd>Induction</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>Banking</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>Retailing</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>Management consultancy</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>Organizational change</kwd>
<x>, </x>
<kwd>France</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-group><custom-meta><meta-name>peer-reviewed</meta-name>
<meta-value>yes</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
<custom-meta><meta-name>academic-content</meta-name>
<meta-value>yes</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
<custom-meta><meta-name>rightslink</meta-name>
<meta-value>included</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-group>
</article-meta>
<ack><p>The authors would like to acknowledge the Financial Support received by the UK Research Funding Councils – ESRC/EPSRC Advanced Institute of Management Research, as part of the AIM International Project “Practice and Practising: A Comparison across Organizations, Industries and Countries” under Grant Number RES‐331‐25‐0024 led by Professor Elena P. Antonacopoulou.</p>
</ack>
</front>
<body><sec><title>Introduction</title>
<p>Any firm can be depicted as the intercept of several overlapping structures. For instance, it appears to be at the same time the <italic>locus</italic>
 of political, institutional, professional, and organizational activities, which form multiple dimensions of a same phenomenon. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b30">Sewell (1992)</xref>
 introduced this notion as the multiplicity and intersection of structures. Practices, as parts of what is actually said, done, and produced within the firm, result from coexisting and diverse logics of thought and action. As Feldman (2003, p. 747) contends, “organizations thus, have informal structures, hierarchical authority structures, and temporal structures, just to name a few”.</p>
<p>Organizational change and stability are considered as key issues of organizational studies. Indeed, providing managers with the consciousness and recommendations on how to facilitate the emergence, the adaptation or the renewal of practices has become of high importance to the organizational scientists' view (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b32">Tsoukas and Chia, 2002</xref>
). To that extent, the multiplicity of structures enlarges the scope of considerations on how to manage change in firms. Levers of action can belong to the strict organizational area (for instance change the structure from function‐based authority to matrix‐based approaches), but also to other specific fields, such as techniques (for instance, change in production methods), the profession (change the standards of capabilities), or politics (for instance the management of group dynamics).</p>
<p>The purpose of this paper is to explore the dynamics of change and stability in relation to the staff induction practices in two organizations in France. We present empirical findings of the case of induction in a consulting company (CCo) and in a retail bank. Our analysis will examine the way staff induction is designed to prepare newcomers in a company to integrate at least the way of working and collaborating in their new environment. We will draw particular attention to the role of staff induction as a key practice in organizations because of its contribution in shaping organizational identity. Hence, we focus on studying the patterns and performances of inductive practices to illustrate the double nature (i.e. both organizational and institutional) of such social activities. Our analysis of the two case studies will reveal the role of the institutional dimension, assuming that an institution is a normative complex (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b23">Montenot and Vattimo, 2002</xref>
) the principal elements of which are “aims of a higher order,” based on “rules which have force of law (are valid for everyone)” and are characterized by a high degree of stability (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b27">Pesqueux, 2007</xref>
).</p>
<p>Our point of departure is that practice lies at the intercept of organizational movement and institutional immobility. The existence of dynamic routines could let analysts think that there is room for organizational change (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b6">Cyert and March, 1963</xref>
; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b20">Levitt and March, 1988</xref>
; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b24">Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995</xref>
), whereas the institutional framework suggests that immobility can also derive from the same kind of constant interactions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b8">Feldman, 2003</xref>
).</p>
<p>We organize the main ideas in three sections. After a brief theoretical overview of the particular perspective we adopt in exploring practice, we outline the key methodological considerations that have informed the design of the research into staff induction practices<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1">[1]</xref>
 in the two case study organizations. We then present and analyze the main findings in each case study organization following a specific framework which articulates the analysis of ostensive and performative aspects of the studied practices, in order to show how active and constant interrelations produce a pattern of organizational immobility. We finally discuss the research outcomes as a specific expression of institutionalization processes that interact with organizational devices.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Practices and routines</title>
<p>Induction is considered as a practice, and not only as a routine. This epistemological and methodological choice deserves some explanations. There are, at least, two main approaches (including varied sub‐approaches) of what a “practice” can be. The first one, which can be depicted as from the “rationalist school” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Zollo and Winter, 2002</xref>
), consists in considering practices as determined and stable sets of elementary tasks or actions that are run by “actors”. According to this framework, changes in practices and learning can be described as rational and deliberate actions that are carried out at a specified time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b35">Zollo and Winter, 2002</xref>
). This definition presents the main advantage of being extremely simple, “stuck to what is observable” and naturally leads to descriptions of practices that can be based on the “process analysis” methodology (which is valuable for both researchers and professionals). Nevertheless, after a short exploratory view inside a company, it appears that this definition probably refers more to what we usually call “routines” than it does to practices (in their etymological meaning). Practices include not only a simple set of tasks organized throughout a script of action, but they also include action itself. Practice articulates patterns of action and the way they are actually performed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b3 b4">Bourdieu, 1977, 1990</xref>
). Indeed, the Greek word <italic>πραξις</italic>
 (praxis) denotes action and thought at the same time, or more precisely, it designates action as the context of thought and thought as the context of action. This statement leads us to consider a wider approach of what a practice can be, which embraces effective action and its interactions with a broader context (including thought, language, and material production). This second way of seeing practices also confers them the autonomy from which they are deprived in the previous approach: considering practices as sets of tasks induces defining change as an exogenous phenomenon, whereas practices as praxis are sources of change for themselves. Praxis does not only consist of applying acquired knowledge, it leads to its creation as well. As <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Castoriadis (1998)</xref>
 assumes, the subject of practice is constantly transformed from its own experience. This experience is shaped by praxis, but at the same time praxis shapes it. As far the study of learning and change is concerned, practices as praxis do not require the “invention” of exogenous forces like intention, “practices that change practices,” or other artefacts to understand why what we observe in action changes according to constant dynamics. This global definition embraces various sub‐approaches, like the ones based on constructivism (as an epistemological posture) or on “structurationism” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9 b12">Giddens, 1984a, b</xref>
, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b19">Latour, 1987</xref>
). The second sub‐approach, which can be summarized as from the “structuration and/or translation school” considers practices as an aggregate of ostensive (the explicit script of action), performative (the actual doing) elements and of artefacts (material productions on routines), which are run and produced by “actants,” and constantly interact. In this context, change and learning are permanent phenomena, and do not necessarily find their origin in intentionality or rationality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Pentland and Feldman, 2005</xref>
). Such a theoretical framework leads to consider both endogenous and exogenous dynamics in practising (as it shapes and reconfigures practices) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Antonacopoulou, 2009</xref>
):<disp-quote><p>Practice therefore, exists because it is in practise, not simply performed, but formed and transformed as practising attempts reveal different aspects that configure and reconfigure a practice on an ongoing basis.</p>
</disp-quote>
</p>
<p>As already mentioned, endogenous dynamics consist in the tensions between ostensive, performative aspects of practices, and their artefacts. Exogenous dynamics are based on the interactions with other practices, the organizational environment, and their overall context.</p>
<p>As a result, we consider what is called a practice<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn2">[2]</xref>
 as much more than the simple “action of doing.” It also includes what <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b5">Castoriadis (1998)</xref>
 alludes to as the “consciousness of doing” or what <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b9 b12">Giddens (1984a, b)</xref>
 depicts as reflexive control. We do not see practice as a simple routine, either. Dynamics and connections between action patterns, performance itself, and material productions is the framework we choose to understand how a specific practice can evolve, or on the contrary, keep “stuck” to a specific model.</p>
<p>The choice of this second approach led us to build a research project‐based comprising of several methodological considerations in empirically examining these issues.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Methodological considerations</title>
<p>Interviews provided exploratory data in a first step. In each case, the extension of interviews consisted in progressing by “bunches:” each interview suggested a short list of persons to be further met. Additional interviews and observation came thereafter. Interviews were run with different “actants” according to the company we had to deal with. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104005">Table I</xref>
 provides a short overview of interviews and observations phases in each of our case studies.</p>
<p>We also collected artefacts, like public and internal documents. Public documents consisted mainly in interviews in specialized media and web sites. Internal documents seemed to be a “scarce resource” for researchers in consultancy (probably because of the flat hierarchical system), whereas they provided huge amounts of information in retail banking.</p>
<p>The research process has been progressively designed around the data that could be collected. In fact, the first collected information was related to the artefacts and above all to the ostensive (in this case, declared) aspects of the studied practice. It helped define the main boundaries of what we called “induction.” These boundaries are also artefacts. For this reason, we did not try to cut inside the organizational activities with a hatchet, but we just defined a set of declared “core actions” around which we could consider performance as induction in a second step. These “core actions” could be classified as comprising of project management, training, feedback, and appraisal. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104006">Table II</xref>
 captures the main action sand boundaries around which staff induction could operate.</p>
<p>It is necessary to repeat that these items are not the only ones that we considered in our study. We tried to examine all the observable aspects that could reveal indicative of these actions, or that could influence these actions even if they were not directly related to them. Observation provided a wide range of data that tended to confirm or to contradict the ostensive aspects of the studied practice (depending on the studied fields). Afterwards, we could examine the interactions between the three dimensions of induction, and more precisely how these aspects could be produced as to maintain each other to a large extent. We finally tried to understand why such an organization is able to induce so standardized – say institutionalized – ways of running processes. In the sections that follow we present our main findings from each of the two case studies.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Findings and analysis</title>
<sec><title>Case study 1: The Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe (CMCEE)</title>
<sec><title>A ‐ Context</title>
<p>The CMCEE represents 70 percent of the Crédit Mutuel, which is the second French retail bank (capital stocks €12.5G in 2004), and is a very profitable company. However, at the same time, the CMCEE is also a highly decentralized organization and a federal democracy where powers are shared between professional managers and elected members of the civil society.</p>
<p>The CMCEE is a federation of 600 local <italic>Caisses</italic>
, each of them being an independent bank performing front office but also most of back office activities. From a legal point of view, the decentralized units are the parent of the federal ones, which is dramatically opposite to what usually happens in firms and protects the group from any takeover. Nevertheless, belonging to a federation allows to consolidate accounts and liquidity ratios, so that the independence of the federate entities does not hinder business development.</p>
<p>Moreover, this federation is a democracy with an unique institutional architecture: there is a set of written rights and statuses formulated in the terms of a constitutional law, based on the “separation of powers.” Official documents describe a set of checks and balances between the “executive power,” the “legislative power” and the “judiciary power” inside the CMCEE. The legislative power is located in the “syndicate chamber” or “federal parliament” of the CMCEE, whose members are elected members, managers, and employees from federate and (a little) from federal entities. This parliament plays a major role in the CMCEE's government system. Many operational as well as every strategic decision are submitted to its vote.</p>
<p>The spirit of this constitution is expressed as the “subsidiarity” principle, designed to maintain the local power as strong as possible:<disp-quote><p>[…] the nearest organ to the user should achieve all relevant tasks, leaving organs at an upper level [federations, co‐ordinations, groups] perform the tasks that it cannot sufficiently achieve by itself. On the contrary, the federal organ should not achieve the tasks that an organ at lower level could achieve sufficiently.</p>
</disp-quote>
</p>
<p>We can then understand that the decentralized management reflects the institutional principle of subsidiarity.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>B ‐ Description of the practice and analysis of ostensive/performative/artefacts aspects</title>
<p>Induction practice inside the CMCEE is principally a process for which interviewed persons give a quite homogenous description. This is the ostensive aspect of induction organizational routines. The information we could get about performances indicates a certain variety on the federate side, whereas federal performances are likely to be more homogenous. This interpretation is reinforced by the contrast existing between the richness of the ostensive and the poorness of the artefacts produced to codify the routine, confirming some Pentland and Feldman assumptions. It is then not a surprise that induction process is particularly low cost and efficient, compared with other banks.</p>
<sec><title>1 ‐ The ostensive aspect of induction: a simple decentralized process</title>
<p>Induction process in the CMCEE looks quite simple. It consists of a short series of steps performed partly by the <italic>Caisse</italic>
 and partly by the federal. Every interviewed person described exactly the same process, presented diagrammatically in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104001">Figure 1</xref>
. The first step is the identification of a need to hire a new collaborator inside the <italic>Caisse</italic>
. The <italic>Caisse</italic>
 has the right to make its own search for candidates. But, in almost every case, it seems more appropriate to ask the federal level for help. The next step is then performed by the federal level, which makes a pre‐selection of candidates and proposes this set of people to the <italic>Caisse</italic>
. If the federate board approves of the set of pre‐selected people, the candidates are then tested and interviewed both by the <italic>Caisse</italic>
 director an elected member and by the federal HR staff. After this selection step, the selected person works at the <italic>Caisse</italic>
 with a “precarious status” for one year, during which he/she is both “hardly tested” in operation and, in alternation, trained and coached by the federal staff. After this year of test in action, two steps of validation take place: HR department evaluates the candidate and <italic>Caisse</italic>
's board of directors validates the recruitment.</p>
<p>The HR management at the CMCEE is entirely funded on internal promotion. Every manager, whether federate or federal director, is supposed to have begun his/her career as a basic operator in <italic>Caisse</italic>
. That is why there is no parallel induction process (at the federal level for example) inside the CMCEE. That is also, why the induction process has such a major importance in the CMCEE's life.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>2 ‐ What about performances? Contrast with ostensive aspect</title>
<p>We have only indirect information about the performative aspect of induction routines, converging into two elements concerning the federate performances on the one side and the federal one on the other side.</p>
<p>First, the main part of the process is performed inside the <italic>Caisse</italic>
, principally involving the managing director and the elected president. This may favor a rather diverse set of performances from one <italic>Caisse</italic>
 to another, although the ostensive aspect of the routine proves to be extremely homogenous across the firm. This inference is very consistent with studies commented by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b26">Pentland and Feldman (2005, p. 799)</xref>
, according to which a low variety of ostensive descriptions inside an organization is correlated to a rather high variety of performances. Naturally, this does not mean that people lie when describing induction process, but that the performative aspect of the practice, has become “increasingly tacit<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn3">[3]</xref>
,” so that “when asked about their work in surveys or interviews, participants can only recover the general idea of the routine, which reflects the ostensive aspects.”</p>
<p>Second, as explained by <italic>Caisse</italic>
 managers, the <italic>Caisse</italic>
 take every key decision, although federal experts filter the candidates through a battery of tests. The role of federal HR department looks very similar to the way recruitment‐consulting firms operate with their clients. These views converge fully with the federal HR directors interview:<disp-quote><p>[…] the real HR Directors of the CMCEE are the <italic>Caisse</italic>
 directors. We are a small team which considers itself as a service provider to the federate, exerting no hierarchical power on the <italic>Caisses</italic>
.</p>
</disp-quote>
</p>
<p>It is then likely that federal induction performances are shaped by an <italic>ethos</italic>
 of service, which looks quite different from common central department practices in firms.</p>
<p>Taking the tension between ostensive and performative aspects of the induction routines into account leads to consider induction as a set of deeply interiorized practices, with a very homogenous common design of the practice on one side and a quite great level of performative liberty on the other side.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>3 ‐ Contrast between ostensive aspect and artefacts</title>
<p>The process we described is the result of interviews, knowing that all interviewees agreed with this description and with the related visual representations of processes. Although their talks were definitively convergent, none of the interviewed persons could rely on any official document to reconstruct the process: there is no induction standard operating procedure inside the CMCEE. Obviously there are meeting at different levels, as well as between the federate and the federal, where induction process is explained and discussed.</p>
<p>But nobody needed to codify it in any written procedure. However, people share in mind a common representation of the process. This contrast between ostensive aspect and artefacts of induction routines looks coherent with what we said about performative vs ostensive aspects. Probably, there is such a degree of consensus and interiorization about the process that nobody found necessary to write it. As it is engraved on memories it does not need to be “engraved on marble panels.”</p>
<p>Induction organizational routines inside the CMCEE look both deeply interiorized, both convergent in people's minds and varied in their performance. Such a situation is likely to favor a great efficiency, because the firm obtains both organizational consolidation and initiative in the field.</p>
<p>But can we get any assessment of the CMCEE's efficiency to confirm this assumption? Luckily, there is some possibility to make such an assessment inside the Crédit Mutuel Group.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>4 ‐ Comparison with the Crédit Industriel et Commercial (CIC's) induction practice</title>
<p>Before being purchased by the <italic>Crédit Mutuel</italic>
, the CIC was a classical banking firm ruled by the only social, penal and corporate ordinary law. Besides, it was nationalized in 1981 so that it could benefit from the so famous “jacobinic” influence from French traditional state culture. As a summary, the CIC was a perfect example of institution whose statuses and culture could be considered as dramatically opposed to the ones of <italic>Crédit Mutuel</italic>
.</p>
<p>When we interviewed the CMCEE's HR director, we discovered that he was also in charge of supervising HR management at the CIC‐side of the Crédit Mutuel‐Crédit Industriel et Commercial group and he accepted to describe the differences between induction practice inside the CMCEE and induction practice inside the CIC, as it was just at the time of the purchase. It appeared that induction practice dramatically differed from one bank to another, as summarized in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104007">Table III</xref>
.</p>
<p>Induction process at the CMCEE looks quite simpler (see the number of interviews) and cheaper (see the HR ratios), but the rate of successful inductions (that means: of inductees who stay in the firm for a long time and experience job satisfaction) are not different. Obviously, the CMCEE's model is a low cost one, in which decentralized entities are empowered and central department did not grow too quickly, neither in size nor in power.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec><title>C ‐ Specific discussion: induction, organizational practice and institutional democratic federalism</title>
<p>Paradoxically, the very soft power of the federal level leads to a very uniform process among the 600 <italic>Caisses</italic>
, despite the possibility for these <italic>Caisses</italic>
 to create and perform their own process. The paradox is all the more remarkable as this process is written nowhere, but simply activated every time according to the same guidelines. Obviously, this paradoxical success of the process is the result of harmonious relationship between <italic>Caisses</italic>
 and federal departments, and can be maintained across time because it satisfies both “degrees” – the federate and the federal. Such a situation explains why induction practice is quite stable through time, which apparently has been the case for the last ten years (1997‐2007).</p>
<p>In particular, interviewed managers insist on the fact that, concerning induction process as other management practices, federal entities act as service providers and not as a hierarchy. For example, the creation of new products and services is the responsibility of the federal marketing department, the production of core business software takes place inside special subsidiaries devoted to informatics, and the purchase of expensive key assets is performed at the federal level. However, like induction, all these organizational routines are performed through a non‐compulsory partnership between each federate <italic>Caisse</italic>
 and federal departments.</p>
<p>There is a sort of balance between the possibility of <italic>Caisses</italic>
 not to use federal services and the necessity for each <italic>Caisse</italic>
 to be as efficient as the rest of the network. As a consequence, if federal departments are good “service providers” and “service sellers,” their relationship with federates will be fruitful. Thus, the fact that HR department “considers itself as a service provider” must not be considered as an isolated phenomenon. There is a whole set of service provision practices, related to several functions, by which a service‐to‐customer <italic>ethos</italic>
 is produced and reproduced. To maintain their legitimacy, federal departments have to design and perform efficient low cost services for <italic>Caisses</italic>
, including service attitudes like openness to <italic>Caisses</italic>
' needs and concerns, which contribute to sediment day after day the idea that relationships between the federate an the federal are not a hierarchy but a partnership. The production and re‐production of induction practice influences and is continuously influenced by the production and reproduction of other functional practices involving <italic>Caisses</italic>
 and federation.</p>
<p>Induction practice looks stable, but the existence of a balanced relationship between the federate and the federal looks all the more stable. This so peculiar balance, that is so opposite to the natural trends observed inside other comparable banks like the CIC, is obviously related to the so peculiar checks and balances of the CMCEE's constitutional law. The service ethos of federal departments is nothing but the organizational translation of the institutional principle of “subsidiarity.”</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec><title>Case study 2: consulting company</title>
<sec><title>A ‐ Context</title>
<p>The CCo we studied operates in the area of corporate strategy. The CCo originally gathered former consultants from Mc Kinsey, Booz Allen, BCG, from all around the world, and recruitment patterns still apply the same standards as in “mother” companies. The objective of these consultants clearly was to work in a smaller structure and to go along with a more strategy focused consulting business. Today, the CCo Office in Paris is run by ten associates and 50 consultants. Owing to its small size, its organizational model can be described as a flat hierarchy. Partners are available to all consultants, and may answer their requests at any moment.</p>
<p>The main clients of the CCo are CEOs in big international companies and in smaller dynamic ones. Accordingly, CCo's offer is mainly based on strategic consulting. The opportunity to diversify in internal process analysis has always been rejected by partners from the beginning up to now.</p>
<p>The professional approach at the CCo can be depicted as “custom fit” as preferred to “ready to wear.” This means that partners prefer to promote shorter and immediately relevant processes. Their premise is that they do not have enough time to adapt pre‐existing methods. Moreover, adapting existing methods is considered as an unethical way of artificially increasing final bills. Projects are run according to processes that are shared tightly with clients. The role of clients generally increases as the project comes to its end, in order to facilitate appropriation instead of so‐called “turn key” deliveries. This specific method is unanimously declared to be one of the main key success factors at CCo and thus, reveals a strong need for highly adaptable consultants with high analytical skills.</p>
<p>After four difficult years, the consulting business faces a new boom, which started in spring 2005. For this reason, recruitment and thus induction are reactivated for a new flourishing period.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>B ‐ Description of the practice and analysis of ostensive/performative/artefact aspects</title>
<p>The ostensive aspects of induction at CCo can be depicted as a process. The fact that interviewees are for most of them consultants can provide an explanation to this first statement. The paradox in the way CCo runs induction lies in two contradictory ostensive aspects. First, induction is described by all interviewees as a fully standardized process, whereas there are no written rules (i.e. no artefacts explaining how to manage the different steps of the process). Moreover, it may sound surprising to receive so formal and consistent descriptions of induction in an organization that promotes informal relations between its members<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn4">[4]</xref>
.</p>
<sec><title>1 ‐ The ostensive aspect of induction: the paradox of informal formalism</title>
<p>As compared to other small structures in the consulting business, management (i.e. partners) particularly insists on a clear distinction between each step in the induction process. This is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104002">Figure 2</xref>
. We note that ostensive data and artefacts seem to be consistent in the meaning that they contribute to build a single perspective on the induction practice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b22">Meric, 2008</xref>
).</p>
<p>Moreover, both aspects of the studied organizational routine confirm the formal and informal (i.e. through discourse and representations) acceptance of a traditional (not written but highly formalized) way of running induction. Ostensive data and artefacts show a high degree of consistency. Consultants were asked to tell “their own story” of their own recruitment or of a recent one. Tools as organizers, pages of web sites, newspapers articles and other internal or external artefacts confirm all claims. It seems that ostensive aspects of induction and artefacts are produced and interact in order to maintain one another in a consistent and steady view of what induction is and should be. Internal documents, though scarce ones, are reproductions of ostensive views of induction. As far as organizers are concerned, they can be considered as something “between” artefacts and performative aspects of the observed routine: they are artefacts because they do not relate to direct observation, but at the same time, they constitute proofs that recruitment and induction principles are fully respected. The influence of artefacts onto ostensive aspects of the studied practice has to be found in external documents, especially in the production of newspaper and magazine articles. The interaction of artefacts with, respectively, ostensive and performative aspects of induction can be shown diagrammatically in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104003">Figure 3</xref>
.</p>
<p>From recruitment to the first steps of the promotion process, the induction practice appears to be highly formalized, though not engraved on the marble of procedure manuals. The main elements that can be drawn from the analysis of ostensive aspects and artefacts of induction are depicted according to seven main comments that converge to reflect an organization based on (oral) formalism, loyalty (or fidelity?), and some kind of elitism. We shall first underline that recruitment is highly targeted, with formalized job qualifications, and follows a strictly shaped process. Afterwards, post‐recruitment activities show that feedback methods follow strict rules, and training programs are designed in order to be followed by every junior consultant. Finally, induction seems to be conceived in order to preserve “generalist expertise” and to minimize the turnover among consultants.</p>
<p>All junior consultants have graduated in the best French business and engineering schools, which belong to the top list of the French “Grandes E´coles.” This elitist choice is declared to guarantee the ability of recent graduates to enter an extremely demanding professional activity. One partner acknowledges that “diversity is not really the objective.” In other words, homogenous recruitment is not only elitist. It also facilitates integration and mutual understanding among consultants.</p>
<p>Job qualifications are formalized neither in terms of knowledge nor in terms of technicality. The placing process focuses on behaviors and ability for analysis. Applicants are appraised according to benchmarks (archetypal examples of behaviors). These benchmarks can be described by any member in the consulting staff, but, once again none of them is written.</p>
<p>Recent graduates have to attend three rounds of two interviews. Recruitment criteria are divided into three categories, namely: motivation, experience, and skills. Partners particularly insist on analysis and synthesis abilities. Behavior and personality are secondary variables. They can change with cumulative experience over time. Each interview comprises a short case study. Graduates are chosen for their abilities, not for technical references. This is an important point, as far as many consultants and associates are engineers and have acquired their technical skills from experience. After each interview, recruiters rate the applicant. Graduates who obtain no veto, at least one enthusiastic rate, and no more than two “no” are hired.</p>
<p>The feedback system follows two distinct but complementary processes. Each project implies individual feedbacks, which are summarized during periodic interviews, called “semester synthesis.” After each of these individual interviews, the decision is made to determine if the consultant should go “up or out.” Training programs are organized “outside” the company, but they are entirely conceived to meet the requirement of extremely precise and exhaustive specifications. Except when specific projects require special syllabuses, training programs are pre‐determined for each hierarchical level.</p>
<p>Areas of expertise exist from a certain level of seniority. Nobody is supposed to “specialise” before four or five years of experience inside the company. And even though, consultants remain extremely polyvalent. Personnel management would get tangled in complex situations if people were overspecialized. The staff turnover among consultants is one of the weakest inside the consulting sector. This information is confirmed in specialized newspapers<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn5">[5]</xref>
.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>2 ‐ The performance of induction as a confirmation of ostensive elements</title>
<p>All observable changes and variances from the non‐written rule derive from “micro‐adaptation processes.” These processes can be depicted as the consequence of minimum flexibility prescribed by a large consensus on what is necessary to do under singular circumstances: adaptation to specific personalities of applicants, loosening of principles due to particular urgency, etc. Nevertheless, these adaptations never lead to contravene the “common law.”</p>
<p>For instance, the conditioning of applicants before interviews follows a strict pattern. Applicants have to wait at least 15 minutes by the welcome desk. They are left no opportunity to see the offices, and interviews are run in meeting rooms on another floor than the one of consultants. Though it may seem extremely natural and spontaneous, this sequence will be repeated exactly the same way for the next meetings. Observation thus, shows that the conditioning process places the applicant in a context of pre‐initiation, that is to say: the conjunction of a “long” wait, and of a specific organization of premises. As far as interviews are concerned, observation confirms many alleged (ostensive) aspects of recruitment. The first interview is focused on motivation and experience. When the applicant is inclined to technical speech, he or she is gently asked to undertake some rectification. Questions are adapted to the applicant, but they all converge towards the same objectives: appraise autonomy, measure analytic skills. The second interview is focused on case studies, and is much more accomplished as a rite. After a short introductive speech delivered by the partner or by the consultant, the applicant is presented a situation first orally, and thereafter on a short typed document. He or she is given a couple of minutes to think about his or her answer. Afterwards, the interviewers try to enlarge the scope of considerations, and ask for quick answers. If the applicant does not immediately identify the problem in the case, he or she receives no additional information, and subjects are changed at once. After the round of interviews, all partners attend a decision meeting, with the consultants who have taken part to the interviews. Each “interviewer” gives his or her opinion and rates the applicant. In one specific meeting we could observe, no veto was issued, but one consultant and one partner expressed their reluctance towards the integration of the applicant. The “2 no” rule should have implied an immediate rejection of the candidate. Nevertheless, it was necessary to hire somebody within three weeks because of a starting major project. Thus, the two “hostile” actors were asked to justify more precisely their conclusions. Finally, both of them acknowledged that their opinion was much more based on “relational feelings” than it was on tangible elements, and withdrew their negative rate. As a conclusion on this meeting, it seems obvious that the group imposed two stakeholders to revise their opinions. Nevertheless, all the process was designed in respect of the “common law” (i.e. the “2 no” rule).</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>3 ‐ Interaction of ostensive elements, artefacts, and performance: towards dynamics of immobility</title>
<p>Observation and discourse analysis tend to show that both interact constantly, not to create change, but to maintain a quite motionless system. In fact, it seems that each step of the processes described by partners is implemented by actants with a quite respectful attitude. Reciprocally, newcomers in the structure are not necessarily taught directly about those practices. They learn by doing, and implement practices in a quite mimetic way. This pattern of interaction contributes to maintain the practice of induction in a stable state. In fact, the script of action (the ostensive aspect of the practice) that newcomers deliver reproduces actual performance, and their future performance will reproduce the discourse on action. Newcomers at the CCo do not necessarily acquire the schemes of induction on any purpose. They reproduce what they actually experienced as applicants, and thereafter as junior consultants. Mimetism is supposed to be a frequent path for learning. But reproduction is only one part of interaction between practice and ostensive aspects of induction. Authority also induces compliance towards scripts of action. In such a small company as the CCo, authority does not consist in constant issues of orders and objectives, but it becomes visible when consultants move aside from standards.</p>
<p>The impact of authority on mimetism and compliance is strengthened by the conjunction of internal values and rational justification. At least, two values promoted at the CCo have to do with the induction process. First, conformity towards (even unwritten) rules and the group is laid down as a principle. Second, legitimacy (and thus authority) directly derives from seniority. As the “up or out” rule is fully applied, the status in hierarchy and the seniority are merely synonymous. At the same time, ostensive aspects, and most of discourse provide a rational justification of practices. The “up or out” rule, the choice of letting apparent autonomy to junior consultants, and other aspects of induction are always assumed to improve effectiveness and efficiency in the company. Examples and testimonies also take part to this rationalisation process, as so many evidence of that rules and non‐written procedures are based on common sense and valid reasoning. We could notice the frequent use of counterexamples (histories of what you should never do).</p>
<p>Such observations led us to think that interactions between performative and ostensive aspects of induction at the CCo consist in constant dynamics which are operated to maintain the practice as consistent as possible with a stable standard. In other words, they are dynamics of immobility, which could be easily compared with the ones of autopoietic systems. This is shown diagrammatically in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F_2960050104004">Figure 4</xref>
.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec><title>C ‐ Specific discussion: pure rationality or value‐based and traditional action?</title>
<p>The first paradox we could draw from this case study consisted in the coexistence of apparent informal relations between organizational members and their ability to produce a highly formalized discourse on practices.</p>
<p>A first reason for this paradox can be found with reference to external standards, which is clearly acknowledged by partners. One of them systematically refers to “what is done in the sector.” All founders experienced working for big consulting companies, more precisely they all worked for McKinsey & Company. Undoubtedly, this common experience shapes many of the studied processes. Nevertheless, it seems extremely difficult to understand the absence of change as a pure product of mimetism.</p>
<p>Formal processes set frameworks for controlling consultants. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to look for other factors of control than the only “feedback” system. As we already mentioned it, ostensive aspects of induction deliver many elements that indicate and testify the existence of shared values. We already noticed that the use of counterexamples or the importance given to seniority can be considered as typical of a value system. Whereas “coaching” is usually expressed to describe the relation between partners and consultants, a recurrent word in interviews is “companioning” (<italic>compagnonnage</italic>
): “I prefer to talk about compagnonnage instead of mentoring. It sounds much more to us” (a partner). Of course, when an interviewee is asked to say more about this specific concept, the explanation sounds extremely objective:<disp-quote><p>[…] Companioning contributes to improve teams' skills and ability. This works as an almost “peer to peer” education, due to the fact that the coach and/or evaluator [same person] had the same experience as the evaluated person before. Knowledge is transmitted from people who had the same jobs a few years before.</p>
</disp-quote>
</p>
<p>A Junior Consultant is supposed to be autonomous enough to propose his/her own work first. Thereafter, he/she can take some advice from designated partners (this only works if consultants have some personal solution to propose). For this reason (but not only for this one), partners are fully involved in projects, from the first selling contacts to the evaluation of consultants.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it seems that “companioning” (as used in a French context<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn6">[6]</xref>
) cannot be considered as a neutral way of describing the coaching process at the CCo. Such an approach conveys at least a traditional system if not a specific set of values. So appears the institutional side of the CCo.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec><title>Discussion: the institutional side of practices as a relevant framework for analysis</title>
<p>Induction is supposed to be a key practice for the firm, in so far as the institutional dimension of the studied firm is concerned. On the one hand, we may consider intuitively that induction is designed to set a border between belonging and not belonging to the corporation. The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process, as observed in the CMCEE as well as in CCo, may be interpreted as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. People have to prove that they are able to learn and then to reproduce the identity of the firm by themselves, trough interaction with colleagues and peers. In so doing, induction is part of the institutionalization process of the firm.</p>
<p>On the other hand, induction may a priori be looked at with a more counter‐intuitive lens. Induction, as a process of renewal of the employees with people from potentially different backgrounds, should be considered as a major vector of change in organizations. Throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models are not at all frozen. Induction nevertheless seems to be frozen as far as practising (i.e. the implementation and the repetition of action scripts) is concerned. A paradox may be found here. Practising is supposed to depict a constant flow of both repetitive and experimental tries designed to improve practice (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Antonacopoulou, 2009</xref>
). But the combination of this kind of repetition and mimesis leads to enhanced replication, and may change a practice into an institution.</p>
<p>A second paradox arouses when considering the dissonance between the declared teleological rationality of processes and the reference to values as “democracy” (Crédit Mutuel) or “companioning” (the CCo). Of course, when a model (democratic and mentorship) appears to work fine elsewhere, why should not the company apply the same principles? According to Weber's theory of social action, this would mean that the use of external references follows the principles of <italic>zweckrationality</italic>
 (goal‐oriented action). But, when considering, for instance in consultancy, formalism, external standards, and the coaching process altogether, it seems that companies offer a specific approach of induction, embedded in both <italic>wertrationality</italic>
 (value‐oriented action) and traditional action.</p>
<p>The ambiguity of practising may explain both of these paradoxical statements. Both case studies led us to emphasize the complex dialectic interaction between the performance, the ostensive schemes and the artefacts of the practice. Practising (as a flow of rehearsals) constantly renews these interactions, but not necessarily in the direction of change (or of emerging renewed practices). We could make the statement that constantly moving tensions, and durable interactions (endogenous as well as exogenous) can engender stable and immobile practices. Moreover, the possibility of people to adapt their own performances locally and personally proved to be a necessary condition for reproducing the practice without noxious rigidity. Thus, practising may not be pure testing, it may not be pure improving, it may not be pure replication either. It should also be seen as a constant flow of adaptive tries designed to respect a constant action pattern. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Atlan (1986)</xref>
 refers to this phenomenon as to “orderliness in noise” (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b2">Atlan, 1986</xref>
) dynamics: local changes, interactions and tries may seem accidental (this is what Atlan calls noise), but converge to an organized pattern (orderliness).</p>
<p>What constant factor may this complex order be correlated to? In the case of CCo, induction process can be interpreted as the corporate avatar of an exogenous tradition of mentoring and companioning, anchored in millenarian tradition and values of Capetian French culture. Some major component of the cultural background, as described through the “logic of honour” by Philippe d'<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b18">Iribarne (1993)</xref>
, exerts an indirect but deterministic influence on some management practices. In the case the Crédit Mutuel, we can observe a convergence of practice towards a radically countercultural decentralized model. The only fixed factor to which the dynamic equilibrium may be correlated is the existence of the so specific political constitutional law of the firm.</p>
<p>These two contrasted cases show that indirect institutional determinism is not a fatality. Whereas CCo reproduces an exogenous tradition, the Crédit Mutuel was able to build, decades after decades, an endogenous original institution that strongly determines management practices and efficiency.</p>
</sec>
<sec><title>Conclusions</title>
<p>Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depend on the lens by which we look at practices. If we take into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if we adopt a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.</p>
<p>Nowadays, it has become quite common to emphasize manifold discrepancies between managers' patterns and what people actually do. Nevertheless, beyond the irreducible gap between procedure and performance, we would like to pinpoint the structuring indirect – but real – influence that institutional factors exert on actual performances. Stakeholders and managers have to get conscious of their institutional responsibility beyond their organizational and contractual one. Change has to be operated at those three levels. Otherwise, we could observe uncontrollable tensions between discourse, scripts of action, and actual behavior, that can be traced back to institutional irresponsibility.</p>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104001"><label><bold>Figure 1<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>The CMCEE's induction process</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104001.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104002"><label><bold>Figure 2<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Full induction process in consultancy</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104002.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104003"><label><bold>Figure 3<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Induction in consultancy as a self‐maintained practice</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104003.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104004"><label><bold>Figure 4<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Induction as a self‐maintained practice in consultancy</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104004.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104005"><label><bold>Table I<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Field investigation for case studies</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104005.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104006"><label><bold>Table II<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Ostensive “core actions:” possible boundaries for induction</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104006.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
<sec><fig position="float" id="F_2960050104007"><label><bold>Table III<x> </x>
</bold>
</label>
<caption><p>Induction at the CMCEE vs induction at the CIC</p>
</caption>
<graphic xlink:href="2960050104007.tif"></graphic>
</fig>
</sec>
</body>
<back><fn-group><title>Notes</title>
<fn id="fn1"><p>Staff induction can be seen as a process designed to prepare newcomers in a company to integrate at least the way of working and collaborating in their new environment. It reveals a key practice in organizations for several reasons, and first of all because it contributes to shape organizational identity. Thus, studying the patterns and performances of inductive practices contributed a lot to emphasize the double nature (i.e. both organizational and institutional) of such social activities. It also helped to qualify and depict the interactions between the institutional and organizational dimensions of a same business.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn2"><p>A practice must not be confused with “Practice” (nor “Practise”), as <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">Antonacopoulou (2009)</xref>
 contends.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn3"><p>All the quotations here come from Pentland and Feldman's page signalized above.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn4"><p>Consultants refer to partners as if they were simple fellows. Hierarchical relations are never quoted.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn5"><p>A professional review proposes an article on “Consultants retention: a key success factor,” and this specific company is presented as an exemplarity.</p>
</fn>
<fn id="fn6"><p>In the French context, companioning refers to much more than a simple coaching method. Companioning refers to the relation between “masters” and “companions” (or “apprentices”) in societies of journeymen in certain craft trades in France.</p>
</fn>
</fn-group>
<ref-list><title>References</title>
<ref id="b1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Antonacopoulou</surname>
, <given-names>E.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2009</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Practice</italic>
</article-title>
”, in <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Clegg</surname>
, <given-names>S.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><surname>Bailey</surname>
, <given-names>J.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (Eds), <source><italic>International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Sage</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Atlan</surname>
, <given-names>H.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1986</year>
), <source><italic>Entre le Cristal et la Fumée – Essai sur l'Organisation du Vivant</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Seuil</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bourdieu</surname>
, <given-names>P.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1977</year>
), <source><italic>Outline of a Theory of Practice</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Cambridge University Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>New York, NY</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bourdieu</surname>
, <given-names>P.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1990</year>
), <source><italic>The Logic of Practice</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Stanford University Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Stanford, CA</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Castoriadis</surname>
, <given-names>C.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1998</year>
), <source><italic>The Imaginary Institution of Society</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>MIT Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Boston, MA</publisher-loc>
 (translated by K. Blamey).</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cyert</surname>
, <given-names>R.M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>March</surname>
, <given-names>J.G.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1963</year>
), <source><italic>A Behavioral Theory of the Firm</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Prentice‐Hall</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Englewood Cliffs, NJ</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b18"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>d'Iribarne</surname>
, <given-names>P.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1993</year>
), <source><italic>La Logique de l'Honneur</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Seuil</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Feldman</surname>
, <given-names>M.S.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2003</year>
), “<article-title><italic>A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Industrial and Corporate Change</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>12</volume>
, pp. <fpage>727</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>52</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Giddens</surname>
, <given-names>A.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1984a</year>
), <source><italic>The Constitution of Society</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Polity Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Giddens</surname>
, <given-names>A.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1984b</year>
), <source><italic>The Constitution of Society</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>University of California Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Berkeley, CA</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b19"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Latour</surname>
, <given-names>B.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1987</year>
), <source><italic>Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Harvard University Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Cambridge</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b20"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Levitt</surname>
, <given-names>B.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>March</surname>
, <given-names>J.G.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1988</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Organizational learning</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Annual Review of Sociology</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>14</volume>
, pp. <fpage>314</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>40</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b22"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Meric</surname>
, <given-names>J.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2008</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Practices and dynamics of immobility: the institutionalized control of induction in consultancy</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Society and Business Review</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>3</volume>
 No. <issue>1</issue>
, pp. <fpage>6</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>22</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b23"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Montenot</surname>
, <given-names>J.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vattimo</surname>
, <given-names>G.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2002</year>
), <source><italic>Encyclopédie de la Philosophie</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Librairie Générale Française</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b24"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nonaka</surname>
, <given-names>I.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Takeuchi</surname>
, <given-names>H.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1995</year>
), <source><italic>The Knowledge Creating Company. How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Oxford University Press</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Oxford</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b26"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pentland</surname>
, <given-names>B.T.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Feldman</surname>
, <given-names>M.S.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2005</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Organizational routines as a unit of analysis</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Industrial and Corporate Change</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>14</volume>
, pp. <fpage>793</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>815</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b27"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pesqueux</surname>
, <given-names>Y.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2007</year>
), <source><italic>Gouvernance et Privatization</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>PUF</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b30"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sewell</surname>
, <given-names>W.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1992</year>
), “<article-title><italic>A theory of structure: duality, agency and transformation</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>American Journal of Sociology</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>98</volume>
, pp. <fpage>1</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>29</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b32"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tsoukas</surname>
, <given-names>H.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chia</surname>
, <given-names>R.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2002</year>
), “<article-title><italic>On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Organization Science</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>13</volume>
 No. <issue>5</issue>
, pp. <fpage>567</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>82</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="b35"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zollo</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Winter</surname>
, <given-names>S.G.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2002</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Organization Science</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>13</volume>
 No. <issue>3</issue>
, pp. <fpage>339</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>51</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
<ref-list><title>Further Reading</title>
<ref id="frd1"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ferrary</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 and <person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pesqueux</surname>
, <given-names>Y.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2006</year>
), <source><italic>Le Management de la Connaissance – Knowledge Management, Apprentissage Organisationnel, Société de la Connaissance</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Economica</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd2"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gigacz</surname>
, <given-names>S.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1996</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Law's third dimensions: international associations and NGOs in the global legal order</italic>
</article-title>
”, mémoire présenté pour Master's Course in Legal Theory, <publisher-name>European Academy of Legal Theory, Katholieke Universiteit Brussel – Facultés Universités Saint‐Louis</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Bruxelles</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd3"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gueslin</surname>
, <given-names>A.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1982</year>
), <source><italic>Le Crédit Mutuel: De la Caisse Rurale à la Banque Sociale</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Coprur</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Strasbourg</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd4"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Habermas</surname>
, <given-names>J.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1997</year>
), <source><italic>Droit et Démocratie – entre Faits en Norms</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Gallimard</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
 (French translation).</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd5"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hauriou</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1925</year>
), “<article-title><italic>‘La théorie de l'institution et de la fondation’</italic>
</article-title>
”, <source><italic>Cahiers de la Nouvelle Journée</italic>
</source>
, Vol. <volume>4</volume>
, pp. <fpage>2</fpage>
<x>‐</x>
<lpage>45</lpage>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd6"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hauriou</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1929</year>
), <source><italic>Précis de Droit Constitutionnel</italic>
</source>
, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>
, <publisher-name>Sirey</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd7"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hauriou</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1986</year>
), <source><italic>Aux Sources du Droit: le Pouvoir, l'Ordre et la Liberté</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Centre de philosophie politique et juridique</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Caen</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd8"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jardat</surname>
, <given-names>R.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2005</year>
), “<article-title><italic>Stratifier/Modéliser – une archéologie française du management stratégique – Etude par la méthode archéologique de Michel Foucault</italic>
</article-title>
”, <publisher-name>Thèse de doctorat, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd9"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Macintyre</surname>
, <given-names>A.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1985</year>
), <source><italic>After Virtue</italic>
</source>
, <edition>2nd ed.</edition>
, <publisher-name>Duckworth</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd10"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Oppetit</surname>
, <given-names>B.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1999</year>
), <source><italic>Philosophie du Droit</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Dalloz</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd11"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Parkinson</surname>
, <given-names>C.N.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1958</year>
), <source><italic>1=2 ou les Règles d'or de M. Parkinson</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Robert Laffont</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
 (French translation).</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd12"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sadoun</surname>
, <given-names>B.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>2005</year>
), <source><italic>Les Origines du Crédit Mutuel</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Coprur</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Strasbourg</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd13"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sfez</surname>
, <given-names>L.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1966</year>
), <source><italic>Essai sur la Contribution du Doyen Hauriou au Droit Administratif Français</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>LGDJ</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd14"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Turpin</surname>
, <given-names>D.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1992</year>
), <source><italic>Droit Constitutionnel</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>PUF</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Paris</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="frd15"><mixed-citation><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Weber</surname>
, <given-names>M.</given-names>
</string-name>
</person-group>
 (<year>1922</year>
), <source><italic>Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Grundri<italic>β</italic>
 des Verstehender Soziologie</italic>
</source>
, <publisher-name>Mohr Siebeck</publisher-name>
, <publisher-loc>Erfurt</publisher-loc>
.</mixed-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
<app-group><app id="APP1"><title>About the authors</title>
<p>Jérôme Méric (PhD, HEC, 1998) is Associate Professor at the IAE (Institute of Business Administration), University of Tours and Vice‐Director of the Cermat Research Laboratory (Center of Management Research in Touraine). He is also Contributing Academic Professor at ESCEM Business School (Tours‐Poitiers). His main research interests cover formal and informal dynamics and practices of control in organizations. He has published in French speaking and international journals and books. He has recently completed a three year term on the executive of MED‐Academy of Management.</p>
<p>Rémi Jardat, PhD in Management Science, Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (CNAM), 2005, Master in Engineering, Ecole Centrale Paris, 1992, Master in cognitive science, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS), Paris, 1992. He currently is at the Head of research activities at the ISTEC. He also teaches humanities at the Ecole Centrale Paris and has been formerly management consultant for 13 years. His special interests are strategy, organization, institutional phenomena, Foucaults archaeological method and non‐profit business organizations. He has published articles in <italic>Sciences de Gestion</italic>
 (ISEOR), RECMA, <italic>Management and Avenir</italic>
, <italic>Society and Business Review</italic>
, <italic>Expansion Management Review</italic>
, and a book linking theory of power and change management practice : <italic>Les Lendemains qui Mentent – peut‐on Civiliser le Management</italic>
, <italic>les Empêcheurs de Penser en Rond, 2001</italic>
. He has been member of the Gnosis project supported by AIM Research and led by Elena P. Antonacopoulou. He is member of the organizing committee of ifsam 2010 global management science conference. He co‐organized the Colloquium “Coopératives et mutuelles: impact des statuts sur l'efficacité managériale” (ISTEC, Paris, September 20, 2007). Rémi Jardat is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: r.jardat@istec.fr</p>
</app>
</app-group>
</back>
</article>
</istex:document>
</istex:metadataXml>
<mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<subTitle>Insights from retail banking and management consulting in France</subTitle>
</titleInfo>
<titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice</title>
<subTitle>Insights from retail banking and management consulting in France</subTitle>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jrme</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Mric</namePart>
<affiliation>Cermat, IAE de Tours, Tours, France and ESCEM, Tours, France</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Rmi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Jardat</namePart>
<affiliation>ISTEC Business School, Paris, France</affiliation>
<role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre>
<originInfo><publisher>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher>
<dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2010-02-09</dateIssued>
<copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010</copyrightDate>
</originInfo>
<language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
<languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm>
</language>
<physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType>
</physicalDescription>
<abstract>Purpose Induction and institutions may have followed the same tracks for a long period of time, but their interaction is scarcely analyzed. On the one hand, induction prepares newcomers to work in an organization that is completely new to them. On the other hand, institutions apparently need induction processes to maintain themselves in the same time they renew their members. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze induction as a practice, and to show how this practice turns itself into an institution, in spite of the embeddedness of action scripts into rational schemes. Designmethodologyapproach The paper introduces the case of a retail bank and a consulting company in France. Both have formalized induction systems, but they show enough differences to be considered as offering two complementary approaches of a same practice. The same method is applied to both fields. It consists of analyzing induction as an aggregate of ostensive action scripts, performative actions themselves elements, and artefacts material productions. Findings The successive steps of selections and integration of induction process appear as ways of testing the compatibility of newcomers with the immunity system of the organization. Moreover, throughout both case studies, the ostensive aspect of induction has remained stable for years, although markets and business models have changed a lot. Induction seems to be frozen as far as practicing i.e. the implementation of action scripts is concerned. The study of practising i.e. the dialectic interaction of ostensive, performative elements, and artefacts shows that constant and individually lead adaptive moves preserve the institutionalized practice without any shape of rigidity. Originalityvalue Stability vs change, uniformity vs diversity depends on the lens by which the paper it looks at practices. If it takes into consideration the ocean of actions that are performed day after day inside the firm, diversity and change appear. However, if it adopts a longer range look at what happens and correlate it to appropriate institutional factors, stability, and uniformity emerge from permanent change. That disqualifies both technocratic attempts to standardize performance from abstract patterns and naive designs of spontaneous emergence of not embedded behaviors.</abstract>
<subject><genre>keywords</genre>
<topic>Induction</topic>
<topic>Banking</topic>
<topic>Retailing</topic>
<topic>Management consultancy</topic>
<topic>Organizational change</topic>
<topic>France</topic>
</subject>
<relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Society and Business Review</title>
</titleInfo>
<genre type="journal">journal</genre>
<subject><genre>Emerald Subject Group</genre>
<topic authority="SubjectCodesPrimary" authorityURI="cat-STGY">Strategy</topic>
<topic authority="SubjectCodesSecondary" authorityURI="cat-BETH">Business ethics</topic>
</subject>
<identifier type="ISSN">1746-5680</identifier>
<identifier type="PublisherID">sbr</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1108/sbr</identifier>
<part><date>2010</date>
<detail type="title"><title>Practising socializing and institutionalizing Perspectives on the societal, organizational and individual effects of staff induction practices</title>
</detail>
<detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption>
<number>5</number>
</detail>
<detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption>
<number>1</number>
</detail>
<extent unit="pages"><start>66</start>
<end>83</end>
</extent>
</part>
</relatedItem>
<identifier type="istex">5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177</identifier>
<identifier type="DOI">10.1108/17465681011017264</identifier>
<identifier type="filenameID">2960050104</identifier>
<identifier type="original-pdf">2960050104.pdf</identifier>
<identifier type="href">17465681011017264.pdf</identifier>
<accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© Emerald Group Publishing Limited</accessCondition>
<recordInfo><recordContentSource>EMERALD</recordContentSource>
</recordInfo>
</mods>
</metadata>
<serie></serie>
</istex>
</record>

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Sante/explor/ParkinsonFranceV1/Data/Istex/Corpus

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 002479 | SxmlIndent | more

HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 002479 | SxmlIndent | more

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri

{{Explor lien
   |wiki=    Wicri/Sante
   |area=    ParkinsonFranceV1
   |flux=    Istex
   |étape=   Corpus
   |type=    RBID
   |clé=     ISTEX:5EC4426D3904BE32062C70DD2090F03D061AF177
   |texte=   Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice
}}

This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.29.
Data generation: Wed May 17 19:46:39 2017. Site generation: Mon Mar 4 15:48:15 2024

	La maladie de Parkinson en France (serveur d'exploration)
	Attention, ce site est en cours de développement ! Attention, site généré par des moyens informatiques à partir de corpus bruts. Les informations ne sont donc pas validées.

La maladie de Parkinson en France (serveur d'exploration)

Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice

Induction as an institutionalized and institutionalizing practice

Source :

Abstract

Links to Exploration step

Le document en format XML

Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)

Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri