IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-03270141.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Do Employees Participate in Innovation? Skills and Organisational Design Issues and the Ongoing Technological Transformation

Author

Listed:
  • Nathalie Greenan

    (LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] - HESAM - HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université, CEET - Centre d'études de l'emploi et du travail - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] - HESAM - HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université - M.E.N.E.S.R. - Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche - Ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Santé, TEPP - Travail, Emploi et Politiques Publiques - UPEM - Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Silvia Napolitano

    (CEET - Centre d'études de l'emploi et du travail - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] - HESAM - HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université - M.E.N.E.S.R. - Ministère de l'Education nationale, de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche - Ministère du Travail, de l'Emploi et de la Santé, LIRSA - Laboratoire interdisciplinaire de recherche en sciences de l'action - CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers [CNAM] - HESAM - HESAM Université - Communauté d'universités et d'établissements Hautes écoles Sorbonne Arts et métiers université)

Abstract

La littérature récente sur les conséquences de la transformation technologique la décrit comme un choc exogène entraînant une restructuration des tâches au sein des emplois et des compétences requises. Cet article adopte une position différente, selon laquelle la transformation technologique est façonnée par des choix organisationnels. De ce fait, le contenu des tâches ainsi que l'utilisation des compétences ne découlent pas mécaniquement de la diffusion des TIC et des technologies numériques, mais plutôt de décisions d'origine organisationnelle motivées par les nouvelles opportunités technologiques. La section 1 de ce document propose une revue de la littérature économique et de gestion décrivant comment des choix organisationnels spécifiques permettent de tirer un meilleur parti des technologies numériques. D'abord, elle pointe une dynamique de décentralisation accrue avec une plus grande participation des salariés aux processus de prise de décision. Un autre concept majeur pour comprendre la transformation technologique est celui des complémentarités productives. Elles impliquent qu'un avantage concurrentiel plus élevé peut être atteint en adoptant simultanément toute une gamme d'outils technologiques et organisationnels innovants dans un modèle d'entreprise davantage cohérent. Les complémentarités productives contribuent à façonner les structures organisationnelles ainsi que les faisceaux de tâches au sein des emplois. Les effets attendus de la décentralisation et de l'autonomisation évoquées par la littérature théorique en lien avec la transformation technologique ne sont pas clairement mis en évidence dans la littérature empirique basée sur des enquêtes sur l'organisation et les conditions de travail. Ainsi, les solutions en termes d'organisation et de conception du travail entraînées par les nouvelles technologies qui sont en théorie les plus rentables ne semblent pas se répandre aussi rapidement que les innovations technologiques elles-mêmes. Afin d'approfondir l'analyse, la section 2 offre une révision de la littérature économique et de gestion sur la conception de formes organisationnelles adaptatives. Cette littérature fournit des indices importants sur les défis associés au changement organisationnel. En effet, comme une organisation adaptative est conçue pour être flexible à faible coût, elle doit surmonter les obstacles habituels au changement organisationnel. Deux concepts y sont mis en avant, le concept d'organisation ambidextre et celui de bureaucratie habilitante. Se pose alors la question de savoir si les technologies digitales changent la donne concernant les formes organisationnelles adaptatives. Il y est montré que l'expérience des salariés est essentielle pour déterminer la mince frontière entre changement disruptif ou changement soutenable. En effet, les tensions et arbitrages existantes entre forces opposées dans des contextes de changement organisationnel ou de formes organisationnelles adaptatives remettent en cause l'hypothèse implicite décrite dans la théorie des complémentarités productives d'une solution gagnant-gagnant pour les différents acteurs et, en particulier, pour les salariés. En dernière section, on explore les conditions permettant de gérer la participation des travailleurs au changement organisationnel ou à l'innovation. La littérature propre aux relations industrielles sur l'organisation du travail à haut rendement ou à forte implication et celle relevant de la psychologie organisationnelle sur les comportements et les lieux de travail innovants fournissent des résultats empiriques utiles pour contribuer à l'élaboration de lignes directrices pour les praticiens. Rendre soutenable un environnement de travail changeant ou innovant à l'ère du numérique est primordial car cela a un impact à la fois sur les performances économiques des entreprises et sur la qualité de vie au travail et le développement des compétences des travailleurs. Cependant, cela repose sur la mise au point d'un équilibre fragile qui garantit un usage habilitant des technologies numériques et des nouveaux outils de gestion.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathalie Greenan & Silvia Napolitano, 2021. "Why Do Employees Participate in Innovation? Skills and Organisational Design Issues and the Ongoing Technological Transformation," Working Papers halshs-03270141, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-03270141
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03270141v2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03270141v2/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Luis Garicano & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2859-2885, December.
    2. Maarten Goos & Alan Manning & Anna Salomons, 2009. "Job Polarization in Europe," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 58-63, May.
    3. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    4. Edward Lorenz & Jacob Holm, 2015. "Has “Discretionary Learning” declined during the Lisbon Agenda?," Post-Print hal-01221061, HAL.
    5. Francis Green & Alan Felstead & Duncan Gallie & Golo Henseke, 2016. "Skills and work organisation in Britain: a quarter century of change [Fertigkeiten, Fertigkeitsanforderungen und Arbeitsorganisation in Grossbritannien: Trends über das letzten Vierteljahrhundert]," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 49(2), pages 121-132, October.
    6. Acemoglu, Daron & Gancia, Gino & Zilibotti, Fabrizio, 2012. "Competing engines of growth: Innovation and standardization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(2), pages 570-601.3.
    7. Raghuram G. Rajan & Julie Wulf, 2006. "The Flattening Firm: Evidence from Panel Data on the Changing Nature of Corporate Hierarchies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 88(4), pages 759-773, November.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/10093 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    10. Bob Walrave & A Georges L Romme & Kim E van Oorschot & Fred Langerak, 2017. "Managerial attention to exploitation versus exploration: toward a dynamic perspective on ambidexterity," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(6), pages 1145-1160.
    11. Erik Brynjolfsson & Kristina McElheran, 2016. "The Rapid Adoption of Data-Driven Decision-Making," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 133-139, May.
    12. Peter Gal & Giuseppe Nicoletti & Christina von Rüden & Stéphane Sorbe & Théodore Renault, 2019. "Digitalization and Productivity: In Search of the Holy Grail - Firm-level Empirical Evidence from European Countries," International Productivity Monitor, Centre for the Study of Living Standards, vol. 37, pages 39-71, Fall.
    13. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    14. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    15. Francis Green & Tarek Mostafa & Agnès Parent-Thirion & Greet Vermeylen & Gijs van Houten & Isabella Biletta & Maija Lyly-Yrjanainen, 2013. "Is Job Quality Becoming More Unequal?," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 66(4), pages 753-784, July.
    16. Martina Bisello & Eleonora Peruffo & Enrique Fernandez-Macias & Riccardo Rinaldi, 2019. "How computerisation is transforming jobs: Evidence from the European Working Conditions Survey," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-02, Joint Research Centre.
    17. Eve Caroli & John Van Reenen, 2001. "Skill-Biased Organizational Change? Evidence from A Panel of British and French Establishments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(4), pages 1449-1492.
    18. Davila, Tony, 2000. "An empirical study on the drivers of management control systems' design in new product development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(4-5), pages 383-409, May.
    19. Carlota Perez, 2010. "Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 185-202, January.
    20. Acemoglu, Daron & Autor, David, 2011. "Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 12, pages 1043-1171, Elsevier.
    21. Davila, Antonio & Foster, George & Li, Mu, 2009. "Reasons for management control systems adoption: Insights from product development systems choice by early-stage entrepreneurial companies," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(3-4), pages 322-347, April.
    22. Luis Garicano, 2000. "Hierarchies and the Organization of Knowledge in Production," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(5), pages 874-904, October.
    23. Adler, Paul S. & Chen, Clara Xiaoling, 2011. "Combining creativity and control: Understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 63-85, February.
    24. Nathalie Greenan & Emmanuel Duguet, 1997. "Le biais technologique : une analyse économétrique sur données individuelles," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 48(5), pages 1061-1089.
    25. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Mairesse, J., 1998. "Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 98.15, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    26. Neil M Kay & Sohvi Leih & David J Teece, 2018. "The role of emergence in dynamic capabilities: a restatement of the framework and some possibilities for future research," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(4), pages 623-638.
    27. Leiponen, Aija, 2005. "Skills and innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 303-323, June.
    28. Grabner, Isabella & Speckbacher, Gerhard, 2016. "The cost of creativity: A control perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-42.
    29. Rory Donnelly, 2011. "The Organization of Working Time in the Knowledge Economy: An Insight into the Working Time Patterns of Consultants in the UK and the USA," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 49(Supplemen), pages 93-114, June.
    30. Stefano Dughera, 2020. "Skills, preferences and rights: evolutionary complementarities in labor organization," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 843-866, July.
    31. Nathalie Greenan, 2003. "Organisational change, technology, employment and skills: an empirical study of French manufacturing," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-316, March.
    32. Francis Green, 2012. "Employee Involvement, Technology and Evolution in Job Skills: A Task-Based Analysis," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 65(1), pages 36-67, January.
    33. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    34. Stefano Dughera, 2020. "Skills, preferences and rights: Evolutionary complementarities in labour organisation," Post-Print hal-02472905, HAL.
    35. Luigi Marengo, 2020. "Organizational politics and complexity: Coase vs. Arrow, March, and Simon," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(1), pages 95-104.
    36. Melissa Mazmanian & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2013. "The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 1337-1357, October.
    37. Carlota Perez, 2002. "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2640.
    38. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    39. Alex Bryson & Erling Barth & Harald Dale-Olsen, 2013. "The Effects of Organizational Change on Worker Well-Being and the Moderating Role of Trade Unions," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 66(4), pages 989-1011, July.
    40. Eric Bartelsman & George van Leeuwen & Michael Polder, 2017. "CDM using a cross-country micro moments database," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1-2), pages 168-182, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohamed Ali Ben Halima & Nathalie Greenan & Joseph Lanfranchi, 2021. "Organisational changes and long-term sickness absence and injury leave: a difference in difference approach," TEPP Working Paper 2021-05, TEPP.
    2. Ben Halima, Mohamed Ali & Greenan, Nathalie & Lanfranchi, Joseph, 2023. "Getting sick for profit? The impact of cumulative ICT and management changes on long term sickness absence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 659-688.
    3. Nathalie Greenan & Silvia Napolitano & Imad El Hamma, 2022. "Digital technologies, learning capacity of the organisation and innovation EU-wide empirical evidence from a combined dataset," Working Papers halshs-03941735, HAL.
    4. Nathalie Greenan & Silvia Napolitano & Imad El Hamma, 2022. "Technologies numériques, capacité d'apprentissage de l'organisation et l'innovation : résultats empiriques à l'échelle de l'UE à partir d'un ensemble de données combinées," Working Papers halshs-03941324, HAL.
    5. Maarten Goos & Melanie Arntz & Ulrich Zierahn & Terry Gregory & Stephanie Carretero Gomez & Ignacio Gonzalez Vazquez & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "The Impact of Technological Innovation on the Future of Work," JRC Working Papers on Labour, Education and Technology 2019-03, Joint Research Centre.
    6. Phillipe Aghion & Nicholas Bloom & John Van Reenen, 2014. "Incomplete Contracts and the Internal Organization of Firms," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(suppl_1), pages 37-63.
    7. Filippo Belloc & Gabriel Burdin & Fabio Landini, 2020. "Corporate Hierarchies and Labor Institutions," Department of Economics University of Siena 827, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    8. Bloom, Nicholas & Van Reenen, John, 2011. "Human Resource Management and Productivity," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 19, pages 1697-1767, Elsevier.
    9. Burcu Fazlıoğlu & Başak Dalgıç & Ahmet Burçin Yereli, 2019. "The effect of innovation on productivity: evidence from Turkish manufacturing firms," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 439-460, April.
    10. Belloc, Filippo & Burdin, Gabriel & Landini, Fabio, 2020. "Corporate Hierarchies under Employee Representation," IZA Discussion Papers 13717, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Seetha Menon & Andrea Salvatori & Wouter Zwysen, 2020. "The Effect of Computer Use on Work Discretion and Work Intensity: Evidence from Europe," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 58(4), pages 1004-1038, December.
    12. Nicholas Bloom & Luis Garicano & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2014. "The Distinct Effects of Information Technology and Communication Technology on Firm Organization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 2859-2885, December.
    13. Simon Eisele & Martin R. Schneider, 2020. "What Do Unions Do to Work Design? Computer Use, Union Presence, and Tayloristic Jobs in Britain," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(4), pages 604-626, October.
    14. Andrea Salvatori & Seetha Menon & Wouter Zwysen, 2018. "The effect of computer use on job quality: Evidence from Europe," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 200, OECD Publishing.
    15. İ. Akçomak & Lex Borghans & Bas Weel, 2011. "Measuring and Interpreting Trends in the Division of Labour in the Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 159(4), pages 435-482, December.
    16. Doran, Justin, 2012. "Are different forms of innovation complements or substitutes?," MPRA Paper 44580, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Lukasz Arendt & Wojciech Grabowski, 2017. "Innovations, ICT and ICT-driven labour productivity in Poland," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 25(4), pages 723-758, October.
    18. Luis Garicano & Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2015. "Knowledge-Based Hierarchies: Using Organizations to Understand the Economy," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 1-30, August.
    19. Luis Garicano & Paul Heaton, 2010. "Information Technology, Organization, and Productivity in the Public Sector: Evidence from Police Departments," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 167-201, January.
    20. Andrea Salvatori, 2018. "The anatomy of job polarisation in the UK," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 52(1), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-03270141. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.