How the Materialization of a Managerial Model Contributes to its Take Up: The Case of ‘Liberating Management’ in France

  • Patrick Gilbert
  • Nathalie Raulet-Croset
  • Ann-Charlotte Teglborg
Part of the Technology, Work and Globalization book series (TWG)


There is a long-standing interest in managerial techniques and their effects on the behaviour of organizational actors. Several authors have shown that managerial techniques may influence human action by bypassing their original objective, developing an ‘agency’ effect. If their writings have stressed the underlying rationalities of the tools, they have not focused on the consequences of their materiality. We explore the hypothesis that the materiality of management tools amplifies their agency, as it leads to combining the determining effect of the tool, and the strength relative to its materiality. We propose then to analyse the progressive materialization of an innovative management model, that of ‘liberating management’ in France. We analyse to what extent this materiality influences its transposition and implementation in new contexts.


Agency Dispositif Dissemination Management philosophy Organizational model Self-managing Solidification Transfer Vision Materialization 


  1. Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254–285.Google Scholar
  2. Bayart, D. (1995). Des objets qui solidifient une théorie: l’histoire du contrôle statistique de fabrication. In F. Charue-Duboc (Ed.), Des savoirs en action (pp. 139–173). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, M. (1983). Une technologie invisible? L’impact des instruments de gestion sur l’évolution des systèmes humains, Rapport pour le Ministère de la Recherche et de la Technologie. Palaiseau, France: Centre de Recherche en Gestion, Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisherman in St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Callon, M. (1991). Réseaux technico-économiques et irréversibilités. In R. Boyer (Ed.), Figures de l’irréversibilité en économie (pp. 195–230). Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.Google Scholar
  6. Chiapello, E., & Gilbert, P. (2013). Sociologie des outils de gestion. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  7. Chiapello, E., & Gilbert, P. (2016). L’agence des outils de gestion. In F.-X. de Vaujany, A. Hussenot, & J.-F. Chanlat (Eds.), Théorie des Organisations: nouveaux tournants. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  8. de Vaujany, F.-X., Hussenot, A., & Chanlat, J.-F. (Eds.). (2016). Théorie des Organisations: nouveaux tournants. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  9. Foucault, M. (1977/2001). Foucault: Dits et écrits II, 1976–1988. Collection Quarto. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  10. Getz, I. (2009). Liberating leadership: How the initiative-freeing radical organizational form has been successfully adopted. California Management Review, 51(4), 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Getz, I., & Carney, B. (2012). Liberté et Cie: quand la liberté des salariés fait le bonheur des entreprises. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  12. Gilbert, P., Raulet-Croset, N., & Teglborg, A. C. (2014). Figures du client et management: un processus de structuration sous contrôle(s). Gérer et Comprendre, Annales des Mines, 118, 67–77.Google Scholar
  13. Girin, J. (1983). Les machines de gestion. In M. Berry (Ed.), Le rôle des outils de gestion dans l’évolution des systèmes sociaux complexes, Rapport pour le ministère de la Recherche et de la Technologie. Palaiseau, France: Centre de Recherche en Gestion, Ecole Polytechnique.Google Scholar
  14. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (1992). L’expert et le système. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  15. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Midler, C. (1986). Logique de la mode managériale. Gérer et Comprendre, Annales des Mines, 3, 74–85.Google Scholar
  18. Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Socio-material practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Teglborg, A. C., Gilbert, P., & Raulet-Croset, N. (2015). The management device in the blind spot to resistance to change. Revue de Gestion des Ressources Humaines, 98(4), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Thévenot, L. (1985). Les investissements de forme, Conventions économiques. Cahiers du Centre d’Etude de l’Emploi. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Gilbert
    • 1
  • Nathalie Raulet-Croset
    • 1
  • Ann-Charlotte Teglborg
    • 2
  1. 1.Sorbonne Business SchoolUniversité Paris IParisFrance
  2. 2.ESCP EuropeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations