IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-01492656.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mieux comprendre les difficultés d'une reprise externe grâce à l'approche des représentations sociales

Author

Listed:
  • Fabienne Bornard

    (CRE - Commission de Régulation de l'Energie - EM Lyon - EM - EMLyon Business School)

  • Catherine Thevenard-Puthod

Abstract

La transmission d'entreprise par voie successorale étant en constante diminution en France, les entreprises sont de plus en plus cédées à des tiers, souvent très éloignés de la structure transmise. Dans ce contexte, deux principaux défis sont à relever. Le premier réside dans la réalisation effective de la transaction. Il faut en effet que cédants et repreneurs se rencontrent et parviennent à se mettre d‘accord sur le transfert de l'entreprise. Or de nombreuses difficultés d'ordre psychologique peuvent perturber voire empêcher la réalisation de la transaction. Le second défi est celui de la pérennisation des structures transmises. Il apparaît en effet que la signature d'un l'acte de vente entre un cédant et un repreneur n'est pas un indicateur de réussite de l'opération, la survie des entreprises reprises demeurant précaire. Il convient donc de se préoccuper davantage des fondements de ces échecs : quelles sont les raisons qui expliquent que la greffe ne prenne pas entre un repreneur externe et une entreprise reprise ? Cet article tente par conséquent de mieux éclairer les difficultés rencontrées par les multiples protagonistes d'une reprise, en mettant en avant les aspects psychologiques qui sont en jeu dans ce long processus et qui peuvent contraindre, voire compromettre, le succès d'une opération de reprise. Pour ce faire, nous avons choisi d'utiliser le concept de représentation sociale qui, alors même que son intérêt a été souligné en entrepreneuriat, n'a pas, à notre connaissance, encore été mobilisé par les chercheurs dans le domaine de la transmission. Or il peut s'avérer fort utile pour comprendre les réticences de chacun des acteurs à s'engager dans l'opération et à en assurer son succès. Au-delà de son attrait conceptuel, il permet également de proposer aux professionnels des pistes d'accompagnement qui pourraient faciliter le déroulement d'une reprise externe.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabienne Bornard & Catherine Thevenard-Puthod, 2009. "Mieux comprendre les difficultés d'une reprise externe grâce à l'approche des représentations sociales," Post-Print halshs-01492656, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01492656
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01492656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01492656/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marshall, James P. & Sorenson, Ritch & Brigham, Keith & Wieling, Elizabeth & Reifman, Alan & Wampler, Richard S., 2006. "The paradox for the family firm CEO: Owner age relationship to succession-related processes and plans," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 348-368, May.
    2. B. Deschamps, 2009. "Reprendre une entreprise," Post-Print halshs-00526729, HAL.
    3. B. Deschamps & R. Paturel, 2009. "Reprendre une entreprise, de l'intention à l'intégration," Post-Print halshs-00542795, HAL.
    4. Busenitz, Lowell W. & Barney, Jay B., 1997. "Differences between entrepreneurs and managers in large organizations: Biases and heuristics in strategic decision-making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 9-30, January.
    5. Baron, Robert A., 1998. "Cognitive mechanisms in entrepreneurship: why and when enterpreneurs think differently than other people," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 275-294, July.
    6. Jean-Pierre Mouline, 2000. "Dynamique de la succession managériale dans la PME familiale non cotée," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 3(1), pages 197-222, March.
    7. Baron, Robert A., 2004. "The cognitive perspective: a valuable tool for answering entrepreneurship's basic "why" questions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 221-239, March.
    8. Thierry Verstraete, 2001. "Entrepreneuriat : modélisation du phénomène," Revue de l'Entrepreneuriat, De Boeck Université, vol. 1(1), pages 5-23.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dorian Boumedjaoud & Karim Messeghem, 2020. "Vigilance entrepreneuriale du repreneur externe et mentorat : rôle de l'accompagnement en amont," Post-Print hal-02569210, HAL.
    2. Dorian Boumedjaoud & Karim Messeghem, 2019. "Opportunity recognition by SME buyer: an approach by prototype [Identification des opportunités par le repreneur de PME : une approche par les prototypes]," Post-Print hal-02422937, HAL.
    3. Dorian Boumedjaoud & Karim Messeghem, 2019. "L'influence de la créativité sur la vigilance entrepreneuriale des repreneurs de PME," Post-Print hal-02570575, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ronald K. Mitchell & Lowell W. Busenitz & Barbara Bird & Connie Marie Gaglio & Jeffery S. McMullen & Eric A. Morse & J. Brock Smith, 2007. "The Central Question in Entrepreneurial Cognition Research 2007," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(1), pages 1-27, January.
    2. Erik Lundmark & Anna Krzeminska & Dean A. Shepherd, 2019. "Images of Entrepreneurship: Exploring Root Metaphors and Expanding Upon Them," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 43(1), pages 138-170, January.
    3. Dimo Dimov, 2007. "Beyond the Single-Person, Single-Insight Attribution in Understanding Entrepreneurial Opportunities," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 31(5), pages 713-731, September.
    4. Sascha G. Walter & Achim Walter, 2009. "Personenbezogene Determinanten von Unternehmensgründungen: Stand der Forschung und Perspektiven des Fortschritts," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 61(1), pages 57-89, February.
    5. Pérez-Centeno, Victor, 2018. "Brain-driven entrepreneurship research: Expanded review and research agenda towards entrepreneurial enhancement," Working Papers 02/18, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    6. Podoynitsyna, Ksenia & Song, Michael & van der Bij, Hans & Weggeman, Mathieu, 2013. "Improving new technology venture performance under direct and indirect network externality conditions," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 195-210.
    7. Andrew C. Corbett, 2005. "Experiential Learning within the Process of Opportunity Identification and Exploitation," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 473-491, July.
    8. Dietmar Grichnik & Alexander Smeja & Isabell Welpe, 2010. "The Importance of Being Emotional: How do Emotions Affect Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation and Exploitation?," Post-Print hal-00856603, HAL.
    9. Werner Bönte & Vivien D. Procher & Diemo Urbig, 2016. "Biology and Selection into Entrepreneurship—The Relevance of Prenatal Testosterone Exposure," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 40(5), pages 1121-1148, September.
    10. Heinrichs, Simon & Walter, Sascha, 2013. "Who Becomes an Entrepreneur? A 30-Years-Review of Individual-Level Research and an Agenda for Future Research," EconStor Preprints 68590, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    11. Andreas Hack & Frauke Bieberstein & Nils D. Kraiczy, 2016. "Reference point formation and new venture creation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 447-465, March.
    12. Pi-Shen Seet & Wee-Liang Tan, 2024. "The impact of positive and negative psychological affect and overconfidence from major family events on new venture survival," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1617-1647, September.
    13. Ronald K. Mitchell & Lowell Busenitz & Theresa Lant & Patricia P. McDougall & Eric A. Morse & J. Brock Smith, 2004. "The Distinctive and Inclusive Domain of Entrepreneurial Cognition Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 28(6), pages 505-518, November.
    14. James C. Hayton & Magdalena Cholakova, 2012. "The Role of Affect in the Creation and Intentional Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Ideas," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(1), pages 41-67, January.
    15. Deniz Ucbasaran, 2008. "The Fine ‘Science’ of Entrepreneurial Decision‐Making," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(1), pages 221-237, January.
    16. Arno Nuijten & Nick Benschop & Antoinette Rijsenbilt & Kristinka Wilmink, 2020. "Cognitive Biases in Critical Decisions Facing SME Entrepreneurs: An External Accountants’ Perspective," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, November.
    17. Megan K. Haller & Eric W. Welch, 2014. "Entrepreneurial Behavior of Academic Scientists: Network and Cognitive Determinants of Commitment to Grant Submissions and Award Outcomes," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 38(4), pages 807-831, July.
    18. Magdalena Markowska & Dietmar Grichnik & Jan Brinckmann & Diana Kapsa, 2019. "Strategic orientations of nascent entrepreneurs: antecedents of prediction and risk orientation," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 859-878, December.
    19. Fabienne Bornard, 2011. "« Je crée… une entreprise », mais à quoi pensent réellement les créateurs d'entreprise ?," Post-Print halshs-01089405, HAL.
    20. Oliver Thomas, 2018. "Two decades of cognitive bias research in entrepreneurship: What do we know and where do we go from here?," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 107-143, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01492656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.