Change management in question[La conduite du changement en question]

The idea of leading change seems to have met with real editorial success (Audet, 2009). The starting point is that in an increasingly confused and uncertain environment, 'the ability to change behaviour at work is as complex as it is necessary' (Barel and Frémaux, 2009). For these authors, change management is therefore 'of central importance in the field of management' (Soparnot, 2004). And yet, a paradox is often explicitly expressed: while the need for change would never have been so great, there is a fairly massive report of failure in the approaches actually implemented (Combes and Lethielleux, 2008, Audet, 2009). The aim of the books and articles, sometimes based on successful experiences, is to give winning advice and to shed light on the obscure causes of failure. The essential steps and precautions are presented in a recurring manner. In the end, everyone finds themselves in a founding "theory-practice fold". Our paper aims to ask some essential questions about the 'rational myth' (Hatchuel and Weil, 1992, p. 122), or rather the rationalised myth of change management. It is therefore not a question of contesting the very validity of all change and all change processes, but rather of questioning some of their most salient features, which are not representative of all change, given the plurality of possible situations, which are always singular, but illustrative of an approach that is shared in general. Uncovering and questioning these edges will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the random and often ineffective results of change management processes, as well as certain recurring causes of failure.