Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
may be prevented from exploring new skills, which will restrict his or her
cognitive development, leading to a potential deterioration of his or her
psychical state (Clot, 2008; Davezies, 2008).
In order to develop, the skills of the workers must also be open for dis-
cussion and confrontation, since the experience lived by each individual
takes on its full value if it acquires a collective dimension; the sharing of
experience opens up prospects for the development of skills in other indi-
viduals. To achieve this, it is crucial that the complexity of work should
not be denied at all levels in the organization, in the form of organiza-
tional silence (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). On the contrary, this com-
plexity should be open to discussion, and also for use in order to adapt
the organization. In other words, the concrete difficulties encountered
by the workers should potentially be an object of debate with colleagues
and with the hierarchy. By allowing workers to entertain debates about
their work, one can foster the empowerment that is essential to the devel-
opment of individuals and of the organization.
In order to address the organization, the theory of organizational
regulation, derived from work carried out in organizational sociology
(Reynaud, 2003; de Terssac, 1998), constitutes an appropriate starting point
for our argument. This sociological approach to organizations leads us
to view the organization as a living system with two faces: on the one
hand, the organizational structure, which is composed of procedures,
tasks, goals and organization charts, and on the other hand, human activi-
ties. From there, running the organization involves maintaining a balance,
allowing human activities and the organizational structure to evolve
jointly. This approach to organizations proves to be essential to the work
of ergonomists. It allows an understanding of the level of negotiation that
is required between the activity of workers and the organizational struc-
ture in order to achieve work goals. Furthermore, from a point of view of
health and efficiency of production, this approach to the running of an
organization allows us to define the operational leeway that is necessary to
operators (Coutarel, 2004; Hasle and Jensen, 2006; Vézina, 2010). Therefore,
designing a reliable organizational system requires taking into account
the fact that the job of the agents of the system consists of producing the
organization. Following this view, one cannot consider organizational
change as the adaptation of individuals and collectives to a new structure
(Caroly, 2010). Organizational change relates to a joint adaptation of the
structure and of human activities, both individual and collective (Béguin,
this volume). This joint adaptation in favour of organizational change can
only be achieved - and can only be efficient - if it allows a development
of the activity of individuals and collectives, through the acquisition of
new knowledge and skills in the future structure. In other words, orga-
nizational change must be viewed by the workers as a resource that can
