Faut-il se soucier de ses professionnels pour les mobiliser ? Une réanalyse de données

Selon les perspectives théoriques de la mobilisation et du choc des cultures, un style de gestion trop directif ne répond pas aux attentes d’autonomie des professionnels, ce qui risque de se traduire par une démobilisation. Pourtant les conclusions d’une étude empirique (échantillon de plus de 2 000 professionnels du secteur public) remettent en cause ces perspectives théoriques en affirmant que les professionnels préfèrent davantage être enrégimentés par leur supérieur que d’être indépendants (ne pas être contrôlés par leur supérieur). Une réanalyse des données conduit à des conclusions plus nuancées. La satisfaction des professionnels envers le style de gestion de leur supérieur augmente au fur et à mesure que les styles de gestion sont plus ouverts. De plus, un modèle d’équations structurelles indique que la dimension humaine du style de gestion (participation) et la satisfaction des professionnels envers cette dimension jouent un rôle important dans la mobilisation des professionnels. Il est donc important de se soucier de son personnel pour le mobiliser.According to Julien (1991), there seems to be a feeling of demobilization among the professionals in Quebec’s public service. This feeling is caused, in part, by inappropriate management styles. For instance, professionals tend to express more discontent when their superiors adopt an abdicant management style. As a conclusion, Julien asserts that professionals prefer a directing style to an abdicant style of management. Since these results were not in line with theories (clash of culture, mobilization as a form of behavioural organizational commitment, empowerment), data were reanalyzed in order to shed light on this issue.The typology of management style proposed by Julien was constructed by using two empirical dimensions (concern for the accomplishment of work and concern for employee well being), and one unmeasured dimension (concern for power). By dividing each empirical dimension into three levels (low, medium high), Julien proposed nine different management styles. Given that arbitrary cut-off points were used for dividing empirical dimensions, it is possible that some of the nine styles do not exist empirically. Furthermore, it is possible that using the unmeasured dimension of power in data analysis may affect data results. This provided the rationale for data reanalysis.As explained by Julien (1991: 614), the data for this study were collected in November and December 1987 and in January 1988. A questionnaire was sent to a probability sample of 4,502 professionals, divided in three areas of employment (Greater Québec City, Greater Montréal and the remaining areas), and in 24 government departments and 48 agencies. This sample was picked at systematic random among some 13,000 professionals, whether or not they are members of a union, and who are under Quebec’s law on public service. No reminder was sent, and the overall reply rate reached 50,8%. The 2,289 professionals who took part in the research are proportionally representative of all the employees of that category, according to details such as sex, age, number of years in service, employment area, size of organization.Julien’s data were subsequently reanalyzed with traditional statistical techniques (such as exploratory factor analysis and cluster analysis) and with modern statistical methods (such as confirmatory factor analysis and structural equations). Cluster analysis showed that only five management styles emerged (instead of the nine identified by Julien). Among the five management styles, the abdicant style was merged with the directing style. Furthermore, data analysis showed that professionals were more dissatisfied with an abdicant/directing style than with any other management style.Since the issue of mobilization was at stake, a model based on Julien’s conceptual framework was tested with structural equations. This model related (1) the two measured management style dimensions (concern for the accomplishment of the work and concern for well being) to (2) professionals’ mobilization through (3) professionals’ satisfaction with management style. Data results showed that professionals’ mobilization was indirectly influenced by the concern expressed by their superiors for employee well being (interest for participation) through professionals’ satisfaction with the human side of superiors’ management style. In other words, satisfaction with management style was more influenced by the concern for employee well being than by the concern for the accomplishment of work (supervision). Furthermore, Julien’s conclusions about professionals’ desire to be controlled need to be interpreted cautiously since the dimension of power was not measured. As a rule, adopting a participative management style and caring for professionals are useful for mobilizing them.Segun las perspectivas teoricas de la mobilización y del choque de culturas, un estilo de gestion muy directivo no responde a las espectativas de autonomía de los profesionales, y esto puede traducirse en una desmobilización. Sin embargo, las conclusiones de un estudio empírico (muestra de más de 2000 profesionales del sector publico) cuestionan estas perspectivas teóricas al afirmar que los profesionales prefieren de lejos estar regimentados por su superior que de ser independientes (no ser controlados por su superior). Un re-análisis de los datos conduce a conclusiones mas matizadas. La satisfacción de los profesionales respecto al estilo de gestión de su superior aumenta en la medida en que los estilos de gestión son más abiertos. Ademas, un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales indica que la dimensión humana del estilo de gestion (participación) y la satisfacción de los profesionales respecto a esta dimension juegan un rol importante en la mobilización de los profesionales. Por lo tanto, es importante preocuparse de su personal para movilizarlo