Authors
- Franck Aggeri – Professor of Management, PSL Research University, Mines Paris – PSL
- Sébastien Gand – Lecturer and Researcher in Management and Organizational Sciences, Sciences Po Grenoble – Université Grenoble Alpes; Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Management is not merely that often-caricatured activity of monitoring, coordinating, and evaluating performance. It is also a more exploratory endeavor involving the leadership of unprecedented collective actions, such as organizing an ecological, digital, or health transition.
The objectives, resources, and methods are thus devised as the process unfolds. In such situations, the primary challenge for research is to understand what “managing” might actually mean.
To this end, our article published in the Revue française de gestion proposes an analytical framework—inspired by the work of Michel Foucault—that we call “mise en dispositif.” Why this term, and what are its principles? To answer this, let’s first revisit the meaning of the word “dispositif,” then examine how the philosopher used it, before illustrating its relevance using the example of the low-carbon transition.
The Two Meanings of the Term “Dispositif”
A very common word in the French language, “dispositif” is etymologically derived from the Latin dispositio, which refers to two things:
- the action of arranging elements toward a specific end,
- but also one of the dimensions of rhetoric—organizing arguments in such a way as to make them intelligible.
These two dimensions are reflected in the common usage of the concept: the assembly of elements forming a coherent whole to fulfill a function or achieve a goal (for example, we speak of technical or educational “dispositifs”) and the rhetorical strategies that accompany the implementation of any public “dispositif.”
The term has long permeated the field of management in a sense close to common usage. Thus, a management system is often described as an established arrangement of rules, tools, and actors forming a coherent whole aimed at a specific goal—for example, a competency management system.
The Legacy of Michel Foucault
Such a common conception is static. It says nothing about how the dispositif emerges: how and by whom was it designed? For what purposes?
The question of how dispositifs are formed was precisely at the heart of philosopher Michel Foucault’s reflections on the conduct of new forms of collective action. He highlights three essential points regarding the formation of a dispositif:
- its purpose-driven and situated nature, which responds to a strategic urgency within a specific context;
- its heterogeneity (it is composed of discursive, spatial, instrumental, human, legal, moral, and other elements);
- the collective activity that constitutes the “dispositif” by arranging these heterogeneous elements to give them meaning and the capacity to guide the behavior of actors.
In our article, we highlight the value of the “dispositif formation” framework for understanding the processes through which new forms of collective action emerge. Particular emphasis is placed on the activity of arranging heterogeneous elements (discourse, instruments, knowledge, actors’ roles, architecture, etc.) toward revisable goals.
We also emphasize that this process of “dispositif formation” never starts from a blank slate. New dispositifs overlap with or complement existing ones, articulating them and giving them a new purpose and new meaning for the actors.
The Low-Carbon Transition in Practice
Let us illustrate this approach using the example of the formation of a carbon dispositif within a major construction conglomerate. The low-carbon transition is one of the current mantras of both public and private decision-makers. But how can it be implemented?
The starting point for the study is as follows. In the mid-2000s, the group’s executives anticipated a regulatory change in Europe: the energy performance of buildings would be supplemented by a carbon footprint assessment. What is the difference between energy and carbon? The challenge is no longer just to improve building insulation, but to reduce the carbon footprint of their construction—that is, the choice of materials and building systems. This implies a complete overhaul of construction methods and supply chains.
However, at that time, the group had no tools for calculating carbon emissions and no solutions available. Rather than setting ambitious goals, management chose a more modest approach. It tasked an in-house expert with designing a simplified carbon footprint assessment that operational staff could easily adopt. After a testing and configuration phase, a calculation tool was developed. All project managers were then required to quantify low-carbon alternatives, whether the client requested them or not.
A calculation that makes sense…
To ensure this calculation is meaningful and produces concrete results, a painstaking effort is undertaken to integrate the tool with a whole series of complementary elements, turning it into a coherent management system.
Partnerships focused on designing low-carbon materials and solutions are launched and tested at pilot sites. Here are a few examples.
A low-carbon innovation committee is created. A sector-specific carbon accounting framework is developed alongside a “low-carbon buildings” label, which may foreshadow future regulations. The design of low-carbon pilot projects demonstrates the concept’s relevance.
Only after a lengthy implementation process does the group finally announce a strategic roadmap. It will be regularly revised in response to developments and the creation of other public or competing initiatives, which, in turn, will inform new arrangements.
This is what implementation entails: a multifaceted process resulting from local and central initiatives, and the researcher’s mission is to meticulously reconstruct the process, its expected and unexpected effects, and its transformative potential.
