Emerald logo
Advanced search

Toward a process and situated view of compromises

Anthony Hussenot (Department of Management and Organization, Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris, France)

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

ISSN: 1934-8835

Publication date: 7 November 2016

Abstract

Purpose

To understand how collaborative work practices emerge and evolve throughout activities, the purpose of this paper is to comprehend the making of compromises from a process view. Compromises are here understood as constantly evolving throughout activities.

Design/methodology/approach

The author relies on the Actor-Network Theory to define two dynamics participating in the making of compromises: the translation and the association. These two dynamics are then illustrated with a case study about the development of a Human Resource Management device that took place in a bank in Luxembourg. From this case, the author focuses on the emergence of various compromises about the project’s purpose.

Findings

Based on the insights brought by the theoretical framework and case studies, compromise is understood as a temporary result of the translations and associations between humans and non-humans. Compromise is also anything that is shared by actors (meaning, categories, objectives, etc). that enables them to make their collective activity possible. This process view of compromises makes three contributions: it fully recognizes that compromise is not stable but situated in practices, it highlights the mediating role of compromises and it insists on the interrelation between compromises throughout the activity.

Originality/value

The matter of compromise has mainly been studied from a moral standpoint as a stable agreement, whatever the context. This article also provides an alternative approach to understanding compromise as situated in practices.

Keywords

  • Case studies
  • Organization
  • Compromise
  • Work practices
  • Process analysis

Citation

Hussenot, A. (2016), "Toward a process and situated view of compromises", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 835-855. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-01-2015-0838

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2016, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you might not have access to this content

You may be able to access this content by login via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you would like to contact us about accessing this content, click the button and fill out the form.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2019 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication Sitemap

Policies and information

  • Legal Opens in new window
  • Editorial policy Opens in new window & originality guidelines Opens in new window
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald’s Library Advisory Network?

    You can start or join in a discussion here.
    If you’d like to know more about The Network, please email us

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Frequently Asked Questions

    Your questions answered here