In the “public authorities” as in companies, failure to implement transformation dynamics almost always stems from an archaic view of “power”. Changing certainly means deciding – but it no longer means imposing.
In everyone’s habits, as in a certain collective unconscious, “power” in France seems to be seen solely through the prism of domination and constraint: constraint on bodies, or on minds. Beyond the musty whiff of Bourdieu or Foucault, the dominant perception (so to speak) seems simply to have stayed with Max Weber’s typology and its three levers: rationality, tradition and charisma.
And yet: even if many today say they miss “authority” (but above all their own, or the kind they would directly benefit from), this view of relations between individuals and between organisations is ineffective, and even counter-productive.
The scorpion and the frog
In the political sphere, the incomprehension of a self-proclaimed “Jupiter” – as the French President liked to describe his conception of the office – at his failure to dominate the multipolar, polymorphous dynamics of European decision-makers, and then of those of the Atlantic Alliance, shows how archaic a vertical, sacred approach to monolithic power “à la française” is, beyond the promise of a “new world”.
In the field of local authorities and their agencies, the tendency is often more to play a role than to really act. Budgets entrusted to them are spent, with concern for the public or for personal recognition. In the worst cases, many who have dealt with them have faced attempts at authoritarianism and the status-conscious posturing of representatives who “do not allow you to…” speak, propose, imagine… At a time when resources are becoming scarce, when private-sector skills are asserting themselves in many traditional fields of local public action, and when it might be opportune to think about complementarities.
In companies with a monopolistic history or culture, or in those that have kept post-Taylorist management styles, change is often proclaimed, sometimes under way, occasionally forced through under outside pressure. But the old reflexes of “domination” resurface when it comes to customer–supplier relations, or relations with start-ups that one cannot help, in the end, deliberately or not, killing off or absorbing – thus putting an end to their originality – or managing generations or talents whose volatility is decried, even while agility is sought.
The syndrome of the scorpion and the frog, in every case…
Working better together
The recourse to vertical, hierarchical, status-based authority (that of “charisma” flattering the ego even more) is no doubt due more to an inability to work differently than to genuine nostalgia for traditional structures which, as a mere glance at one’s mobile phone or at daily interactions shows, are obsolete.
And in the face of failure, the reflex is so often to try “more of the same”: more aggressiveness, more violence, more spending, more contempt… and ever more isolation. Or crashing into that terrible wall of reality that refuses to give way…
In our multipolar world, in politics as in business life, the domineering approach has neither value nor effectiveness. What is needed instead is to forge alliances, to work better together. To draw inspiration from Hannah Arendt, who proposes an approach to power as a relationship (“acting with”), rather than from Max Weber.
Everywhere, the will to dominate runs up against the reality of the resources available – not against bluster. And when it comes to human relations, the result remains deeply rooted in the reptilian brain: “fight or flight!”. And the best talents will always find a better place to land, where their skills will flourish – unless they persevere and come back later to compete with you directly.
Including synergies and talents
In any case, if power is indeed the power to act with others, it is essential – and in any case infinitely more effective – to adopt truly “inclusive” strategies and practices: those that bring together the synergies that are expressed, and the talents needed to move forward, to progress, to win.
Because inclusion is not a Care Bears world, any more than collective decision-making and action always involve everyone. Synergies are identified, decided upon and brought to life.
The question of “meaning” is a recurring topic – a perennial favourite? – in the management world. Yet it is not a fad, but a fundamental question, especially when issues are complex and difficult. And it should be so in the public world too, nationally and locally, and not only because of budget constraints.
What objective are we pursuing? Why this choice? And which partners should we rely on to succeed? But this initial questioning is also one of humility, because it reflects the need for others. And it comes before a look at others aimed at understanding and supporting them, rather than conquering them.
Because power is not just a noun rooted in immobility, to be imposed. It must above all be understood as a verb, serving a dynamic, to be shared.
So – are you ready to “be able to act with others”?
Leave a Reply