thesis subject :

Thesis start date :

Octobre 2024

Name of thesis supervisor(s) :

Julien Cusin

Thesis abstract :

A “genuine global market for higher education” has emerged (OECD, 2011, pp. 19-74), creating competition between higher education institutions (HEIs) in different countries. This has been accentuated by reforms such as the Bologna Process signed in 1999 by the European Union (Musselin, 2008). At the same time, the influence of international rankings and evaluation and accreditation agencies has accentuated the hierarchy among HEIs (Altbach, 2006). France has positioned itself particularly well in this market, with schools such as HEC and others ranked among the best in the world (Masters in Management 2023 – Business School Rankings from the Financial Times – FT.Com, 2023). The French “Grande Ecole model” has therefore been able to hold its own (Abdessemed, 2007). However, so-called “excellence” programs are thus conditioned by market logic (Darchy-Koechlin & Zanten, 2005). The sector is nevertheless experiencing market distortions, particularly with the arrival of new private players from the for-profit sector (Batsch, 2023), which has led the public authorities to propose mapping all institutions in order to simplify and clarify the overall range of programs on offer (Descamps & Folest, 2024). Distinguishing between what falls under the term “Grandes écoles” and other types of institutions is therefore at the heart of current public concerns.
According to DiMaggio & Powell (1983), higher education and research is a constituted organizational field. To be legitimate, an organization must conform to the “rational myths” that populate its environment, “those beliefs that are taken for granted” (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). One of the myths of the Grandes Ecoles de Commerce Françaises (GECF), according to Blanchard (2015), is the preparatory classes for the grandes écoles (CPGE). However, institutional pressures push organizations operating in the same organizational field towards a certain form of homogenization and adopt convergent behaviors through isomorphism mechanisms (coercive, normative, mimetic) (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Nevertheless, several institutional logics can coexist, and organizations operating under constraints then respond to “constellations of institutional logics” (Goodrick & Reay, 2011): academic excellence (Ramanantsoa, 2007) and the requirement for graduate employability. At the same time, organizations are therefore forced to comply with several “rules of the game,” each prescribing a set of sometimes contradictory normative orders (Kraatz & Block, 2008, p. 243). This creates “institutional complexity” (Greenwood et al., 2011), particularly in the face of globalization and internationalization (Kodeih & Greenwood, 2013).
Although subject to institutional pressures, organizations do not remain passive: Oliver (1991) proposes a typology of strategic responses, ranging from acquiescence to manipulation, depending on the degree of resistance to these pressures. Pache & Santos (2010) enrich this model by taking into account the nature of institutional demands and internal interpretations and representations. In doing so, neo-institutionalism moves closer to the concerns of corporate strategy (Desreumaux, 2004).
To improve their positioning in the organizational field, organizations thus remain on the lookout for themes of differentiation. If anything, organizational identity is indeed a unique element, just like individuals. Organizational identity (OI), as defined by Albert and Whetten (1985), is a central element that reflects the perceptions of actors within the organization and plays a key role in institutional complexity (Glynn, 2008; Kraatz & Block, 2008, 2016; Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury, 2012). However, the notion of collective identity in organizations, which has been less studied, is presented as a polysemic concept, situated between differentiation and belonging.
Collective identity, according to Wittorski (2008), is both a process and a product, and differs from social or individual identity. Cornelissen et al (2007) emphasize its strategic importance in the collective actions of organizations, while Wry et al (2011) argue that the legitimacy of this collective identity is reinforced by a clear narrative of its history. The alignment between the self-referential identity of organizations as defined by their members (Gioia et al., 2010) and the collective identity prescribed by institutions (Besharov & Brickson, 2016) is crucial but can be disrupted during institutional change, requiring “identity work,” both internal and external, in order to achieve a new alignment (Michel & Ben Slimane, 2021).
The research in this thesis focuses on the evolution of French business schools (GECF), with the aim of understanding their collective identity and determining and analyzing how this can constitute a strategic response to institutional complexity to ensure their survival in a changing context. The neo-institutional theoretical framework used in this research aims to analyze the collective organizational identity of French business schools, taking into account historical developments and identity mechanisms, and their link to strategy.