{"word_count": 461, "character_count": 3059}
Jennifer Urasadettan (2019)M@n@gement, vol. 22(1), p. 1507-1542Abstract. The aim of this article is to study how ambiguity, defined as the inability to clearly interpret a phenomenon or set of events, can affect the forms of cooperation developed within a team and make a project succeed. First, we tried to prove that the structuring of a project could generate ambiguity, called internal ambiguity, in a team. Second, we examined how the level of internal ambiguity felt by a project team could impact the shift from one form of cooperation to another. In order to test these two assumptions, we studied the merging of two medical units within a hospital, following a longitudinal analysis and an abductive approach. Our study led to the following results: internal ambiguity is a dynamic component of the project, but it depends on the team’s ability to make it intelligible to themselves, in particular, by breaking away from the guidelines of the parent organisation. The level of ambiguity of the project does not systematically constitute a factor of evolution of the form of cooperation because other factors, such as the ability of the team to distance itself from the parent organisation and the will to support or stabilise change, play a role in outlining a form of cooperation. Excerpt: "Cooperation is underpinned by the giving of a shared meaning to a situation, characterised by strong ambiguity or uncertainty, with both terms appearing to be used interchangeably to find the same answer to the situation. The sociology of conventions (Boltanski &#38; Thévenot, 1992), whose purpose is to show how different groups governed by specific conventions agree to seek coordinated action, thus highlights the role of situation uncertainty when using a common higher-order principle that can transcend existing conventions (Lewis, 1969). Any convention, defined as an interpretive framework developed and used to assess action situations and coordinate them (Diaz-Bone &#38; Thévenot, 2010: 4), will then serve to channel uncertainty from a common form of evaluation (Eymard-Duvernay, 2006: 6). According to Boltanski and Thévenot (1992), agents reflexively monitor their use, which allows them, in a situation that is ambiguous or characterised by strong uncertainty, to build bridges between the different conventions used and even make them evolve. Coming to an agreement is then possible through three processes: a) clarification—consisting in reinterpreting a situation in the light of another convention, b) criticism— describing the manner in which a situation, negatively viewed regarding its convention, is finally reassessed, and c) compromise—associating the components from different conventions to meet a transcendent common good. It all boils down to seeking an agreement that allows people to rise above the circumstances. Cooperation then appears as the product of the characterisation of the situation."p. 1509Keywords: complementary cooperation, community cooperation, project team, internal ambiguityLink to the reviewDownload link