Behind this management term – and therefore suspect in France – lies quite simply the ability to work with others. Apparently a real “cultural” difficulty, for our politicians as in many companies.
Internationally, many factors of withdrawal
International news illustrates how hard it is for our country’s political representatives to accept a collective decision (involving Parliament, finding common ground with our allies…).
A simple political-media tactic for domestic consumption, a monarchical-Gaullist tradition, the weight of the “universalist” vocation inherited from the end of the 18th century, international stakes too sensitive to dare share them – or a mixture of all of these?
– in a tense domestic political context, and with the successful precedent of the intervention in Mali, the temptation may be great to send our soldiers – despite the continuous reduction of their resources and thanks to their unfailing, silent dedication – to gain a few points in popularity;
– the French presidential system legally gives an authority unmatched in other democracies to a single person, with few counter-powers. Consciously or not, the President may therefore be convinced of his personal “responsibility”. Legally, yes… but legitimately?
– the statements of the President of the Republic and other political leaders, from the majority or the opposition, refer to “sacred” principles, “universal” values, “special” responsibilities – without, however, spelling them out. Should the assertion of this “special responsibility” justify the pre-eminence of one’s own point of view? Especially when principles are sometimes asserted to conceal other, less “noble” stakes?
– because politics, particularly international politics, cannot be confused with morality. One defends interests, one enforces commitments; one does not “punish” – except when politics merges with a morality, whether “religious”, in the sense of openly declared religions, or “secular” when this is less clear. But Western democracies normally separate these two aspects: one defends points of view, backed by convictions, and one respects the other, because it is not a fight between “good” and “evil” but a debate, up to and including acknowledged disagreement.
And in the Syrian case, beyond a great game between Russians and Americans that reassures elected officials who grew up in the Cold War world – and are often utterly lacking in understanding of our multipolar world – are energy issues, for example, really taken into account, but also the politico-religious issues pitting Saudi Arabia, Iran and Qatar – so present in France – against one another?
Another option might be our country’s traditional vainglory – others call it pride – but this collective character trait borders on caricature.
There is one last hypothesis, not exclusive of all the others, which concerns collective psychology. In a crisis, faced with a very hostile context – France, like it or not, is losing its place internationally, diplomatically, culturally and economically – the most usual involuntary reflex is not to tackle reality head-on, but to deny it. In good faith. What psychologists call “repression” or “suppression”.
And in the world of work, too
“Cultural” studies show that, among the world’s peoples, the French are particularly “politicised”: regardless of their actual turnout at elections, “politics” is one of the most emotional topics of conversation.
So it is easy to draw a few parallels between the observations made about French postures internationally and the situations encountered in the world of work (in companies as in public and para-public organisations).
In France, “management” has a rather bad press – people talk of being “lost in management”, of the “black book of management”, of the “illusions of management”. People prefer to talk about administration, leadership, even “bosses” (which is dismaying when this aspiration, even demand, is voiced by someone in charge of teaching, and therefore involved in preparing the future of company managers…).
The distinction between management and leadership fills entire libraries, and fascinating debates – at least in the English-speaking world, uninhibited about this kind of debate of ideas applied to the world of work.
So, since the term “shared leadership” is emerging, it may be fruitful for fitting into the national intellectual framework while opening up these crucial questions of “working better together”. It reassures the admirers of “bosses” – for whom leadership can only be charisma – but it opens the debate, opens a few windows of thought and sketches avenues for action. It helps people grow.
What is it about?
If “leadership” is understood as the ability to formulate a vision, an objective, and to bring teams along in an often changing, sometimes “chaotic” context, as the world is, “sharing” this skill and practice has several consequences, both philosophical and operational.
– It means, in particular, believing in collective intelligence: we are more intelligent together than alone… In a country whose education system shapes successive generations for competition – from the best school to the best preparatory class, to reach the top-ranked “botte” of the “best grande école”, so as to obtain the “best job” and engrave that much-prized competitive exam on one’s business card for life – that is far from a given!
– Our country’s Cartesian tradition (“Descartes, useless and uncertain”, as Jean-François Revel nicely put it) does not dispose people to accept other people’s points of view either, especially when they do not fit one’s own “rationality” – and therefore the only possible one, or at least the only truly “rational” one.
– If leadership also means giving meaning to a collective dynamic, shared leadership must apply to developing a common project, based on common values. It is in-depth work. And if there is another characteristic of working relations in France, it is the unique place of “power” (collectively, between “classes” or “castes”, and individually, between formal and informal power).
Whereas elsewhere the academic world also explores other factors of influence at work, professional social relations in France are too often examined exclusively in terms of power: “the next post, how many people under my ‘orders’, and/or what budget under my signature?”.
So, when one has power, or seeks it – and in any case, as soon as one thinks only in terms of power – why “waste time”, and above all why reveal one’s deepest aspirations, at the risk of disappointing or frightening? At worst, one bows to the communication fashion by turning change, justified by one’s own stakes, into a show – superficial when not manipulative.
– Finally, shared leadership means “working better together”, weaving links between actors beyond silos, remits, even structures, when one dares to think in terms of the “extended enterprise”. As Yann Algan and Pierre Cahuc very aptly put it a few years ago, France has become a “society of mistrust” – a failure to really take into account what Alain Peyrefitte described nearly twenty years ago as the “third, intangible factor”. So how can people work together if they do not see the need to build trust – which, as we know, “cannot be decreed”? We are then often a long way from the issues of emotional and relational intelligence, and from the “soft skills” that are nonetheless widely promoted elsewhere, including in the best engineering schools – outside France.
Yet, under various influences, the business context makes shared leadership necessary, along with effective collaboration (and not just cooperation), between organisations and between individuals.
– “Societal” influences first, and not only because of “new generations”, X, Y or Z… Information circulates; the education system trains more and more young people to play with ideas, become familiar with concepts and prepare for possible responsibilities (even if the real job market quickly disillusions them); social networks and media practices make “participation” easier, familiar and encouraged… And all this should stop in the world of work? Or be limited, as in the “participatory democracy” praised here and there, to what is in fact a “consultative” role? Disappointment then leads to revolt, or flight (at least moral, if not physical), at the expense of the success of the collective project, and at the cost of immense waste, for the company as for individuals.
– “Organisational” influences too, with diverse but converging movements. Globalisation, first, and the rationalisation of structures under the effect of the economic crisis, which merges organisations and forces previously competing teams to share the same future. Agility, too, with logics of start-ups, freelancing and “extended” enterprises, to adapt to the market by escaping bureaucracy, or simply to earn a living. And finally matrix structures, which aim to set up a permanent swing of the pendulum between expert functions and profit centres, in a logic of “balance of powers” inherent in the Anglo-Saxon democratic tradition, but so foreign to the monolithic French approach…
France in failure?
Politically, France’s cultural and institutional transformation is not complete, and the options for leaving common structures voiced on both sides show that, in the face of difficulty, flight is often preferred. Sometimes rightly – but only if it is not a disastrous surrender.
To get out of the crisis, French companies – or the French structures of global companies – have no choice but to adapt, to change. “Growth” will not come back to benefit us in the name of our “universal vocation” or our “unique strengths”. In a competitive world, there is no lasting place for “free riders” who would benefit from the work of others.
Adopting the mental and practical consequences of “shared leadership” is one of the keys to regaining agility and momentum, or strengthening them. The resistance is plural, and varies with origins, training and functions (last year we carried out a revealing study on this theme, in France and in Europe, among more than 200 professionals).
It is no doubt a “cultural” transformation, in the medium and long term. But the first actions can be taken quickly. And that is reassuring.
Leave a Reply