Does an Employee Have the Right to Think?
20 April 2009
Read by 2014 persons
Frank speech should be seen as an extremely rich resource of gray matter. The possibility of open communication in its internal functioning is one of the foundations of a company's performance.
The philosopher Alain stated that "to think is to say no." Yes, but… is this applicable to our work? Good Father Alain died in 1951, and his thoughts on happiness, it must be admitted, are not at the forefront of business literature. Not to mention that in our business models, since some 60 years, there have been evolutions that have not necessarily forged model companies! Hmm!
Let's be reasonable: by "saying no," we don't necessarily mean a revolutionary break in the relationship of subordination that legally links the employee to their company in general, and to their boss in particular. Of course not. But rather a healthy resistance to that insidious "always more" that never ceases to serve - legal and moral imposture - as a professional contract. A professional and personal resistance to anything that leads, through a logic of pure resource management and not of meaning, to a de facto contractual breach, to doing one's work badly, to practicing one's profession badly because, constantly and indefinitely, one must do more with less. But, you will tell me, the employee - as an employee, what! - must sacrifice to the holy pragmatism, which always wants the last priority stated by a manager, given the state of their liver, the pressure from the shareholder and perhaps even, sometimes, a good idea, to do what they are paid for: to say "yes." Yes again. Always yes. Why? Because that's how it is, period: "yes." Does the employee have the right to say no? No! A senior executive, a great man of experience, with whom I discussed the question one day, pointed out to me that, in a company, "you don't say no to your president." Alas, thrice alas! I'm afraid he's right. This is how this very damaging dichotomy - a mild euphemism - between the employee and… the professional is gradually established. Ordinary schizophrenia that would have demotivated a Carthaginian regiment on campaign as surely as today's human resources. For this is the result: the employee is no longer considered a professional. Forget the professional, long live the employee, and not for too long! The employee does not have to think, and the professional must be silent; as for the man… but what man? I imagine a modern-day Diogenes, a Chaplinesque HR manager in his spare time, walking around in broad daylight in the company corridors with a lit lantern and declaring to those who would question him about the incongruity of his behavior: "What am I doing? Well… I'm looking for a man!"
Companies that age are those where speech is forbidden.
Enough irony. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to make myself perfectly clear: a proven professional, who therefore possesses a certain mastery of the relationships between the causes and effects of an action, whatever it may be, and who guarantees its reproducibility and improvement over time, cannot remain passive in the face of options and orientations that they believe compromise their deontology, their ethics or their efficiency. This does not mean that they will always stick to their positions, never yielding to another opinion, possibly better supported; it means precisely that it is in mutual understanding and solid argumentation that their adherence and efficiency are conditioned, and not in the principled servility to a single way of thinking. Let's say it clearly: the possibility of openness in its internal functioning is one of the foundations of a company's performance. How can you maintain the motivation of a professional if you don't respect their expertise? And how can you respect their expertise by denying them their right, or rather their duty, to say "no," that is to say, to "think"? These are common sense questions. Groupthink too quickly reduces doubts and criticisms to "states of mind," believing itself then authorized to reject them with a certain disdain… or even to forbid them! Companies in which those who dare to speak should expect a backlash are very clearly aging and closing in on themselves. They are in danger in the medium and long term, and their most dynamic professionals are probably already looking elsewhere… Frank speaking, long before being impertinent or politically incorrect, should be seen as an extremely rich resource of gray matter. Daring to think is thus a quality that nourishes collective competence. Knowing how to suggest it and create the conditions for it is an art that is an integral part of management, on a daily basis, notwithstanding the tribal customs of opacity that prevail in our lovely offices. Instead of being an attack on our power or our prerogatives as decision-makers or managers, its explicit possibility reinforces, for our interlocutors, an authentic authority of substance that is undoubtedly one of the greatest key success factors. But, as Louis XIV said in his memoirs: "Oh how difficult it is, sir, when one can do what one wants, to want what one should!"
Published May 18, 2009
Posted online October 15, 2009
lavieeco.com
The philosopher Alain stated that "to think is to say no." Yes, but… is this applicable to our work? Good Father Alain died in 1951, and his thoughts on happiness, it must be admitted, are not at the forefront of business literature. Not to mention that in our business models, since some 60 years, there have been evolutions that have not necessarily forged model companies! Hmm!
Let's be reasonable: by "saying no," we don't necessarily mean a revolutionary break in the relationship of subordination that legally links the employee to their company in general, and to their boss in particular. Of course not. But rather a healthy resistance to that insidious "always more" that never ceases to serve - legal and moral imposture - as a professional contract. A professional and personal resistance to anything that leads, through a logic of pure resource management and not of meaning, to a de facto contractual breach, to doing one's work badly, to practicing one's profession badly because, constantly and indefinitely, one must do more with less. But, you will tell me, the employee - as an employee, what! - must sacrifice to the holy pragmatism, which always wants the last priority stated by a manager, given the state of their liver, the pressure from the shareholder and perhaps even, sometimes, a good idea, to do what they are paid for: to say "yes." Yes again. Always yes. Why? Because that's how it is, period: "yes." Does the employee have the right to say no? No! A senior executive, a great man of experience, with whom I discussed the question one day, pointed out to me that, in a company, "you don't say no to your president." Alas, thrice alas! I'm afraid he's right. This is how this very damaging dichotomy - a mild euphemism - between the employee and… the professional is gradually established. Ordinary schizophrenia that would have demotivated a Carthaginian regiment on campaign as surely as today's human resources. For this is the result: the employee is no longer considered a professional. Forget the professional, long live the employee, and not for too long! The employee does not have to think, and the professional must be silent; as for the man… but what man? I imagine a modern-day Diogenes, a Chaplinesque HR manager in his spare time, walking around in broad daylight in the company corridors with a lit lantern and declaring to those who would question him about the incongruity of his behavior: "What am I doing? Well… I'm looking for a man!"
Companies that age are those where speech is forbidden.
Enough irony. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to make myself perfectly clear: a proven professional, who therefore possesses a certain mastery of the relationships between the causes and effects of an action, whatever it may be, and who guarantees its reproducibility and improvement over time, cannot remain passive in the face of options and orientations that they believe compromise their deontology, their ethics or their efficiency. This does not mean that they will always stick to their positions, never yielding to another opinion, possibly better supported; it means precisely that it is in mutual understanding and solid argumentation that their adherence and efficiency are conditioned, and not in the principled servility to a single way of thinking. Let's say it clearly: the possibility of openness in its internal functioning is one of the foundations of a company's performance. How can you maintain the motivation of a professional if you don't respect their expertise? And how can you respect their expertise by denying them their right, or rather their duty, to say "no," that is to say, to "think"? These are common sense questions. Groupthink too quickly reduces doubts and criticisms to "states of mind," believing itself then authorized to reject them with a certain disdain… or even to forbid them! Companies in which those who dare to speak should expect a backlash are very clearly aging and closing in on themselves. They are in danger in the medium and long term, and their most dynamic professionals are probably already looking elsewhere… Frank speaking, long before being impertinent or politically incorrect, should be seen as an extremely rich resource of gray matter. Daring to think is thus a quality that nourishes collective competence. Knowing how to suggest it and create the conditions for it is an art that is an integral part of management, on a daily basis, notwithstanding the tribal customs of opacity that prevail in our lovely offices. Instead of being an attack on our power or our prerogatives as decision-makers or managers, its explicit possibility reinforces, for our interlocutors, an authentic authority of substance that is undoubtedly one of the greatest key success factors. But, as Louis XIV said in his memoirs: "Oh how difficult it is, sir, when one can do what one wants, to want what one should!"
Published May 18, 2009
Posted online October 15, 2009
lavieeco.com
