“Recruiters face the uncomfortable challenge of reconciling the obligation to avoid discrimination with the need to promote diversity.”

While the Rixain Law (2021) sets quotas for women in corporate leadership, labor law prohibits discrimination based on gender. However, this seemingly paradoxical mandate is not contradictory, as recruiter Bruno Fadda explains in an op-ed for Le Monde.

–

Recently, about a dozen leaders of large companies pledged to promote women to positions of power[1]. Rightfully so, they highlighted the need to improve gender diversity at all levels of organizations, including at the top, while acknowledging the progress still to be made. 

This collective awareness led to the adoption in 2021 of the law aimed at accelerating economic and professional equality, known as the “Rixain Law.” This law imposes quotas for women in the governing bodies of large companies by 2030. 

The legislation stems from the observation that women are underrepresented in leadership and governance positions. By introducing quotas, it seeks to address this imbalance and promote gender diversity in boards of directors. Companies with over 1,000 employees must ensure that at least 30% of their senior executives and members of governance bodies are women by March 1, 2026, rising to 40% by March 1, 2029. Failure to comply may result in financial penalties of up to 1% of their payroll starting March 1, 2031. 

This societal movement is evident in recruitment processes, where executives often explicitly request their partners (recruitment or executive search firms) to identify only female candidates. 

However, recruitment players face a significant obstacle—the law. Article L.1132-1 of the French Labor Code prohibits any discrimination in hiring, including so-called “positive discrimination.” Concretely, gender cannot be used as a criterion to exclude a male candidate from a recruitment process. The risk is legal. Recruitment professionals assisting companies must remind their clients of this, if necessary, adopting a firm advisory stance that aligns with current legislation, even under significant pressure. 

Are we not facing a paradox here? How can we promote greater gender diversity and equality without considering gender? And when it comes to all aspects of diversity, how can we build more inclusive companies without acknowledging the criteria that define this diversity? Doesn’t this put companies in the uncomfortable position of having to reconcile the obligation to avoid discrimination with the need to actively promote diversity? 

In reality, the two laws can and must coexist, along with their respective objectives: equality of opportunity on the one hand, and gender diversity and inclusion on the other. This requires distinguishing between two approaches and two timelines. 

Recruitment Procedures: Ensuring Fairness and Equity 

The sole objective of recruitment procedures is to ensure fair and equitable practices, guaranteeing that the most suitable candidate, regardless of gender, is chosen based on their ability to assume the responsibilities assigned to them. In accordance with the principle of equal opportunity, only professional qualifications (skills, experience, potential) should matter. As it stands, recruitment is not intended to address inequalities deeply rooted in society. 

Other levers exist to address these cultural imbalances. These include education and initial training, which combat the early transmission of stereotypes, and daily corporate strategies to develop a pool of female talent through initiatives like mentoring, ongoing training, and proactive internal mobility. 

Attempting to use recruitment to address these disparities would not only be illegal (a sufficiently compelling reason to avoid it) but could also be counterproductive—for the selected candidate, who may feel chosen for reasons unrelated to their talent, expertise, and demeanor, and for the company, which risks compromising its competence. 

Occasionally, companies may face a choice between two equally qualified candidates. In such cases, they can responsibly make a decision based on other criteria. This is the proactive approach adopted by Christine Lagarde at the helm of the European Central Bank, with a compelling argument: “Otherwise, in 160 years, we will still be at the same point.” 

A Complementary Balance 

The paradox is only apparent. The two laws are indeed complementary: the anti-discrimination law protects against immediate biases, while the Rixain Law helps correct historical imbalances. Companies can and must respect the balance created by these two laws and, more importantly, embrace their spirit by adopting a comprehensive approach to diversity and inclusion. 

Human resources consulting and services professionals have a major responsibility in this broader effort. They must develop recruitment and talent management practices that not only comply with legal requirements but also strengthen collective commitment to equal opportunity, inclusion, and diversity. This is how we can truly transform our organizations and, ultimately, society itself.

[1] https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/leadership-management/pour-accelerer-la-mixite-limage-du-pouvoir-doit-changer-2116992 

Find the column published in Le Monde – 29th october 2024 (Article reserved for subscribers; only in French”)

In 2023, according to APEC, 1 in 4 companies had to abandon an ongoing executive recruitment process. In nearly 40% of cases, the candidates themselves withdrew! This was mainly due to a poor experience during the process. Such failures can have significant impacts on the company: wasted time and energy for the teams involved in the recruitment, the cost of an unsuccessful search, disorganization, and project delays. Fortunately, these risks can be significantly reduced by adopting a few best practices. 

Executives: A Profile with Specific Expectations 

It’s important to understand the current state of the job market. Executives, for good reason, can afford to be demanding: the unemployment rate for this group is around 3.5%, much lower than that of the general workforce. As a result, most of them are employed and rarely actively job-seeking. While they may be open to new opportunities, they are also aware of the advantages they hold due to talent shortages and the strained labor market. 

In this context, a fundamental principle emerges: the need to pay close attention to the candidate’s expectations. It’s not just about ensuring that their professional profile aligns with the company’s needs, but also about aligning their aspirations with what the company can offer. Understanding their motivation and professional goals is an essential prerequisite. Adopting this listening posture enables a tailored and personalized approach to attract them.  

It’s also crucial to recognize that beyond employer branding, salary, and the roles and responsibilities on offer, executive expectations—along with those of senior executives—have evolved in recent years due to significant trends, such as the shift toward more flexible work modes and the increasing importance of social and environmental values. Companies looking to recruit must be ready to discuss these topics with candidates and clearly explain their initiatives in these areas. Otherwise, they risk losing the candidates’ interest and commitment during the process. 

The Importance of Structuring the Process 

To maximize the likelihood of retaining strong candidates throughout the process, the structure must be well-defined. 

First, it is crucial to identify the stakeholders involved, clarify their respective roles in the selection process, and ensure alignment on the desired candidate profile and the job description. Unspoken or unidentified discrepancies can be detrimental, or even harmful, if they surface during the recruitment process. 

Next, it’s essential to clearly outline the different stages of recruitment to communicate them to candidates, who highly value this visibility. Information about timelines, the number of planned interviews, potential assessments, and the quality of interlocutors should be provided. The more defined and communicated the process, the greater the chances of engaging candidates and seeing the process through to completion. 

Careful attention should also be paid to the estimated duration of the selection process. Candidates, including senior executives, often grow frustrated with drawn-out processes (some of which involve up to 12 interviews and two evaluations!). Consolidating certain stages or even organizing joint interviews with multiple stakeholders can help. The goal is to offer candidates a clear and predictable experience, setting the best possible conditions for their engagement. 

Transparent and Regular Communication 

Maintaining an open dialogue, actively listening, providing regular feedback (positive or otherwise), and being agile and responsive to questions and requests are the behaviors expected of recruiters today. 

However, transparency must be mutual. It’s vital to ensure the candidate’s ongoing interest and full commitment throughout the process. While it’s reasonable for a candidate to explore multiple opportunities, recruiters must be informed to avoid last-minute surprises. Similarly, candidates should be encouraged to consider the scenario of receiving a counteroffer from their current employer to minimize surprises at the final recruitment stage. This vigilance must continue even during the notice period to reduce the risk of the candidate backing out. 

Lastly, the onboarding phase must also be carefully planned and anticipated. Often overlooked, this step is critical in boosting the candidate’s motivation and reducing the risk of premature resignation. Providing the selected candidate with a well-thought-out integration plan (dedicated workspace, prepared equipment, planned meetings) and assigning a mentor or even a coach is an excellent way to reassure and further engage them. 

In 2024, attracting top talent requires organizations not only to offer attractive conditions aligned with professional aspirations but also to demonstrate agility, attentiveness, and alignment with candidates’ expectations regarding their experience. In a persistently tight market where responsiveness and personalized approaches are key, leveraging the advisory expertise of a third-party partner can be a strategic asset for in-house recruiters. 

Bruno Fadda, Operations Director for the Executive Search activity of Grant Alexander

This topic raises a lot of questions, along with an equally substantial number of misconceptions. Which companies and situations may benefit from transitional management? What qualities should a professional in this field have? And is the cost of this solution truly prohibitive?

A Framework defined by three key factors

A quick online search shows that transitional management is “a managerial solution that temporarily entrusts the leadership of an organization, company, subsidiary, department, or division to an external executive, typically to initiate a transformation project or support a period of change.”

This definition, as provided by Wikipedia, emphasizes that transitional management is governed by three clear criteria:

• A specific objective (“a project” or navigating through “a period of change”), defined by the company;
• A fixed timeframe (“temporarily”), indicating a short-term, defined mission;
• The intervention of an external professional (“external operational executive”) to provide specialized skills not immediately available among current employees.

Moving Beyond the “Cost-Killer” Stereotype

With this framework in place, companies may use a transitional manager in a variety of situations.

As the name suggests, a transitional manager steps in during a period of transformation. Naturally, they are often called upon to handle crises, enabling the company to emerge quickly and effectively.

However, it would be a mistake to restrict this approach to crises alone. In today’s complex and unstable environment, many companies experience pivotal phases that don’t necessarily involve restructurings, layoffs, or site closures. Numerous cases actually involve companies in rapid growth, needing help to manage scaling, new hiring, and launching new services.

A closer look at real-world cases shows a broad range of applications:

• All types of companies, from mid-sized enterprises and large corporations to small businesses;
• Various sectors and job types;
• Different project durations, from a few weeks to several months, usually full-time but occasionally part-time.

The Distinct Profile of a Transitional Manager

Why, then, bring in an external professional? Why not assign this mission to an internal employee who might have the potential to take on the challenge?

There are at least three main reasons for this choice. First, urgency. The company cannot afford the time required for internal mobility, onboarding, or training. It needs specific expertise immediately and recognizes it may lack this skill internally. Second, stakes. The company is seeking a professional who has repeatedly demonstrated the necessary expertise, someone experienced in handling similar situations, who brings seniority that allows for nuanced analysis and a seasoned approach.

Finally, added value. The company wants not only a qualified and experienced professional but also an outside perspective. A transitional manager, in this sense, offers the advantage of being free from personal agendas, career ambitions, or existing relational dynamics within the organization. Their goal is to achieve professional growth horizontally (applying their skills across new organizations or sectors) rather than vertically (moving up in a hierarchy).

Thus, transitional management requires more than expertise! Beyond recognized professional skills and experience, a transitional manager’s strengths include agility, clarity, calmness, the ability to connect with teams, listen, communicate, motivate, take a high-level perspective, and look ahead.

A Tangible ROI

While we’ve clarified misconceptions that may discourage companies from considering transitional management, the question of budget remains: isn’t it an “overpriced” solution? In reality, it is an investment, and, like any investment, it raises the question of return on investment (ROI). Metrics such as cost savings, productivity gains, successful hiring rates, commercial results, and overall resolution of the identified problem are all factors in evaluating the effectiveness and relevance of this solution.

Still in doubt? Here’s another benefit of a transitional manager: you hire them through a Transitional Management Company (EMT) or a specialized firm. This provider will help you clarify your needs, validate (or invalidate) your approach, and suggest the right professional for the mission. With experience monitoring such projects, they support both you and the transitional manager throughout the mission, ensuring it proceeds smoothly. This advisory support is included in the cost of the mission.

———-

About Alban Azzopardi

Alban Azzopardi, an engineer with a Ph.D. in physics and an Executive Master’s degree from SciencesPo Paris, has held positions in R&D management, project management, and commercial management in the aeronautics and automotive industries. In 2007, he launched an entrepreneurial project by joining a Transitional Management firm as a Partner, overseeing the Industry division. In 2016, he joined Grant Alexander to establish and develop its Transitional Management division.

Grant Alexander, present since last spring in Switzerland, and already InterSearch’s exclusive partner in France, has enabled it to extend its network to the Swiss market

Paris, 18th of July 2024 – InterSearch, a premier global executive search network established in over 50 countries, is now extending its international coverage to Switzerland through Grant Alexander, a key player in the HR consulting market. A member of InterSearch since 2022, the group last spring acquired futura21, a major player in Switzerland’s HR consulting market present in Geneva, Lausanne and Fribourg.

Grant Alexander, a multi-specialist HR consulting expert, has been deploying an ambitious international development strategy for over two years, firstly through its membership of the InterSearch network (with 90 offices in more than 50 countries and a turnover of over $210 million in 2023), and secondly via company-operated sites.

Thanks to the strategic merger competed last April with futura21, a key HR consultancy in French-speaking Switzerland, Grant Alexander has given a boost to its growth outside France. At the same time, it is enabling InterSearch to invest in the high-potential market represented by Switzerland.
Within the Swiss teams, Romain Buob, who has held management and development responsibilities within futura21 since its creation in Switzerland, takes on the role of Business Operations Manager Switzerland for Grant Alexander and will be the InterSearch referent for Switzerland.

“Being a member of InterSearch is a major strength as regards our ability to assist our clients and applicants at international level. Since we joined two years ago, we have been keen to actively contribute to the network’s development, and we are now delighted to provide it with an opening in Switzerland. We are convinced that the virtuous dynamic created between InterSearch and Grant Alexander will continue and help us broaden our range of options”, says Henri Vidalinc, President of Grant Alexander.

“This presence in Switzerland strengthens our international network, which already has over 90 locations, and enables InterSearch to provide ever more business opportunities for its members. We welcome Grant Alexander’s international development and are delighted to be associated with it”, says Frank Schelstraete, Chairman of InterSearch Worldwide.

About Grant Alexander
For over 30 years, Grant Alexander has been a partner to organisations and their leaders seeking to improve their performance, providing comprehensive support for all their skills management and development needs with a consistently tailor-made response. A multi-specialist HR consulting and services group with four business units (Executive Search, Executive Interim, Leadership Development and Transformation Advisory), it operates in all sectors with all types of post (managers/experts/rare profiles) throughout the world. It has several locations in France (Paris, Aix-Marseille, Lille, Lyon, Nantes, Toulouse) and Switzerland (Geneva, Lausanne, Fribourg) and is also the exclusive partner in France of InterSearch, one of the top global executive search networks. A committed social player, Grant Alexander was awarded Lucie 26000 certification in the context of its CSR approach.

About InterSearch Worldwide
InterSearch Worldwide is an international organisation comprising HR consulting and services providers, regularly ranked among the top global players. Founded in 1989, the InterSearch network is now present in more than 50 countries, with over 90 offices. InterSearch members are carefully selected from the best players in their market for their faultless integrity, transparency, high level of service and extensive experience. InterSearch: ‘Global reach. Local impact’.
www.intersearch.org

More info on Intersearch. 

PRESS CONTACTS: ØCONNECTION AGENCY

Anne-Marie Boyault – amboyault@oconnection.fr – +33 (0)6 89 28 42 29
Emeline Réthoré – erethore@oconnection.fr – +33 (0)6 30 61 51 67

With whispers of Chat-GPT 5 just around the corner, generative AI continues to surprise with its many promises. For the time being, however, it is raising questions for CIOs, who are seeing some of their prerogatives slipping out of their hands, or even slipping away. To preserve strong integrity in corporate governance and anticipate the risks incumbent on AI failures, it is urgent for IT departments and human resources to apprehend new organizational modes and talent management in phase with AI projects. Clearly, successful AI-related projects are the fruit of a balanced marriage between the acculturation of all teams and the definition of clear orientations on the part of the management team. The latter must first acquire new skills and carry out an introspection of its organization to succeed in its strategy to platform services using AI technologies. It must also promote the integration of new, more cross-functional professions within CIOs and project groups dedicated to AI.

CHIEF DATA & AI OFFICERS: REDEFINING ROLES

This shift cannot take place without a priori training in AI and, at the very least, in the use of generative AI: even before knowing how it will be used by employees, they need to master its fundamentals. Because AI will inevitably be everywhere: it was the same with electricity, then the Internet. It is therefore by promoting its use that it will be possible to provoke new strategies, stimulate the creativity of teams and relieve them of low value-added tasks. According to Gartner analysts, implementing AI in IT services, for example, could reduce the volume of tickets by up to 30%. AI is therefore inviting CIOs not only to reorganize, but also to drag the whole organization along with them as they integrate new businesses. And this starts with redefining the roles of Chief Data & AI Officers (CDAIOs). In addition to developing AI strategies aligned with business challenges, they must ensure that teams are trained in AI issues, while guaranteeing the ethical, responsible and secure use of data, across the entire value chain. Needless to say, the need for cross-functionality in the AI governance professions is unquestionable.

Read the full article on the IT for Business website.

Paris Olympics Games perspective and the Roger Federer’s stirring speech, at the Dartmouth College graduation ceremony a few days ago, have prompted us to look again at the analogy between business leaders and top-class sportmen and women, and to ask ourselves a question that is no longer open to debate : would bosses and leaders benefit from drawing on some practices from the world of competition ? In other words, would they benefit of developing they athlete’s mind ?

Besides, what is an athlete’s mind ? If you ask many persons, the vast majority will tell you that it means displaying certain character traits such as strength, a taste for effort, unfailing determination and ambition… It means having the morale of a conqueror, « the win », « the stamina ».

TURNING VULNERABILITY INTO STRENGTH

But it’s not just that… We have to look beyond that if we are not to be locked into a rigid and mythified conception of power and success. In reality, there is a whole side to it that we too often forget or don’t want to see. While an athlete’s life is geared towards victory, it’s also includes counter-performances and failures. What makes champions so special is that they have been able to deal with them, to accep them. It’s about being fully aware of oneself and abandoning a delusion of superpower in favour of an humble, in-dept analysis of one’s strenghs and weaknesses.
It’s about accepting that the environment is by nature unstable and partly manageable. It’s about finding the resources to adapt to it, to gain perspective and stay focused on your objective. Lifting the veil on this little-know reality opens up a wider field of reflection on what a manager’s performance is and how to achieve it.
To do this, it is essential to get off the beaten track and explore the field of emotions, self-awareness and the personal resources that can be mobilised. It’s a process that requires openness, curiosity and also lucidity ! And it’s only when this work is done that we can turn our vulnerabislity into an assumed strength.

Read the full article on FocusRH

“Are you ambitious?” At the start of the coaching session, my interlocutor seems to hesitate between astonishment, contempt and disgust. He replies, in the expected manner, that he doesn’t ask himself the question in these terms, that he’s wary of ambition, that on reflection, yes, he may have ambitions, but that they are plural, collective, turned towards others and of course that they are “healthy”. I understand his reaction perfectly: like “power”, “ambition” is a taboo word in the corporate world. It’s only used with great caution, and never to talk about oneself. And, of course, the taboo plays its social role here: it reminds us that our behavior cannot be purely selfish, that it must be directly or indirectly directed towards something greater than ourselves.

You can’t just be ambitious for yourself, and above all you can’t be ambitious to the detriment of everyone else and your company’s project. So why ask this question? Precisely to encourage my interviewee to ask himself the right questions, to think outside the box, to “dig deeper” into the subject to better identify what makes him unique and reveal the full richness of his personality: his experience, his aptitudes, his aspirations, his way of working.

SELF-CENSORSHIP AS AN OBSTACLE TO TALENT DEVELOPMENT

Indeed, if we censor ourselves too easily and too often, contenting ourselves with reproducing commonly accepted interpretations without even paying attention, we sometimes limit our field of reflection. Asking the question of personal ambition in this way means breaking out of a comfort zone that confines this notion to upward mobility and its shortcomings. It means recognizing the polysemy of the word, and thus being able to evoke the diversity of the driving forces behind a person’s commitment. It lays the essential foundations for a fruitful, honest and deeply human exchange. The point is to identify what really motivates the person, what drives them forward, what are their driving forces and resources. Rather than getting stuck on a definitive moral judgment, the person is invited to express his or her ambition freely, whatever it may be: to progress in order to take on more responsibility, to achieve a better work-life balance in order to devote more time to the family while increasing productivity, to improve English in order to develop internationally… how are these various ambitions, in themselves, “good” or “bad”? The only question is whether, and under what conditions, these drivers can be reconciled with the company’s project and values.

ENCOURAGE EMPLOYEES TO PROGRESS

Let’s take another example. Many people pride themselves on being “influential”. On the other hand, no one will boast that they like to “manipulate” those around them! Admittedly, here again, the difference in terms reflects a difference in meaning: we can encourage influence that enables others to progress, that enables us to share a strong conviction, that federates a group towards a common goal; on the other hand, we must combat phenomena of psychological manipulation exercised in the interests of a single individual, which do not benefit the company and which create unease and even suffering in the workplace.

But there’s more. When we talk about influence, we always end up evoking a personal approach: a preferred tactic, a mastered technique, a well-established way of acting, a know-how nurtured by experience but based on a constant framework that reflects the strengths of the individual, the levers he or she knows how to use to get others to adopt his or her point of view. By daring to question the term “manipulation”, without making any a priori moral judgements, we are, on the contrary, giving ourselves the opportunity to evoke a whole range of behaviours and postures, scenarios and modes of operation. What am I trying to change in the other person’s state of mind or behavior? How might the other person react? Why or why not? How can I adapt to their reaction? In this way, we come face to face with the unexpected, even the unknown. We broaden our horizons, taking into account other ways of thinking, seeing things, even acting. This is how you become more agile, but also more energetic and convincing.

In reality, like many other terms used on a daily basis in the workplace, taboo words generate images and interpretations that are partly cultural, in the zeitgeist, sometimes sincere, but too often no longer even questioned.

UNDERSTANDING TEAM DIVERSITY

In coaching and training, one of the main objectives is to apprehend the complexity of situations and the diversity of a team – the coexistence of different profiles, viewpoints and behaviors – as a source of enrichment and personal and collective performance. The challenge is to recognize, accept, understand, appreciate and draw on the diversity of individuals and managers. To achieve this, we need to be willing to confront otherness. Questioning unfamiliar words and concepts, challenging our preconceptions and habitual interpretations, can help. To get answers, we first need to ask ourselves the right questions, the ones that get us out of our comfortable but all too reductive little boxes, stamped and categorized behaviors, Manichean approaches. Freeing ourselves from ready-to-think also means avoiding settling for ready-to-act.

Read the article on FocusRH

By talking to him about this managerial position, you thought you’d please him. The proposal was meant to be rewarding, but he saw it as stressful. So he turned it down, and promises of a change in status or a pay rise did nothing to help. How to explain this disengagement?

A LOSS OF INTEREST IN THE ROLE OF MANAGER

Let’s face it: managers are no longer the stuff of dreams. It suffers from a bad reputation, associated primarily with work overload, crushing responsibilities and increasing constraints. The development of telecommuting and the reduction of time-sharing within the company, the cohabitation of generations with different aspirations and attitudes, the growing expression of singularities within a weakened collective framework: recent societal evolutions are cited to explain this disenchantment. Because of them, managers are said to live under the weight of permanent and often contradictory injunctions on a daily basis. They are even said to be paralyzed in the face of psychosocial risks, in fear of doing the wrong thing, saying the wrong thing or reacting in the wrong way. While they naturally aspire to be recognized as effective, close and attentive managers, they say they are mostly faced with the hostility of disappointed, hurt and demotivated employees. Many are even asking the question: in an age of individualism, nomadism, distance, flexibility and agility, does managing still make sense?

MANAGING, GIVING MEANING TO PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE WORK

How can we restore the desire, the taste and even the pleasure of managing? First and foremost, we need to remember the essentials: managing is an opportunity. To manage is to support, encourage, energize and unite. It also means fostering team spirit, creating the conditions for sharing information, ensuring that skills complement each other, and giving meaning to personal and collective work. What could be more inspiring than being useful to both the company and each individual employee? What’s more, managing is one of the most complete and beautiful forms of development. By managing, you help others to grow, but not only that: by confronting a diversity of personalities, situations, experiences and issues, you grow yourself.

Without being exhaustive, this role helps develop the ability to listen and pay attention to each individual. It helps to better manage priorities. It encourages curiosity and creativity to find relevant solutions. It reinforces rigor and high standards with regard to others and ourselves. It encourages responsibility by making us face up to the consequences of each decision. In the final analysis, management means fulfilling oneself by helping others to fulfill themselves. Would young people really be indifferent to such a prospect? No! According to one study[1], 32% of students see themselves as team captains and 27% as coaches, compared with just 8% as referees and 1% as spectators. So the idea of being the captain (the manager) doesn’t put them off! Better still, it fits in perfectly with the quest for meaning so dear to their hearts.

MANAGER, A PLEASURE UNDER THREE CONDITIONS

Being appointed manager shouldn’t be seen as a poisoned chalice, or even as a painful but inevitable step in a successful professional career. It’s a tremendous opportunity to be seized. Yes, managing can and should be a pleasure. On three conditions, however. Firstly, it’s important to remember that not everyone is destined to become a manager. We don’t all have the same talents, aptitudes or aspirations. Being a manager requires know-how and professional skills, as well as interpersonal skills, certain dispositions and even an appetite. The right internal process or appropriate external diagnostics can ensure that the person identified really does have the potential to develop the skills required for the role.

Next, we need to “manage the manager”. He, too, needs to be supported throughout his assignment, with appropriate training when he takes up his new post, with recognition of his role through genuine career development, with recognition of his achievements, and with clear, relevant guidelines that will enable him to understand and calmly grasp societal changes. Beyond this support, managers have an essential role to play in re-enchanting the managerial function, by conveying a positive and enthusiastic vision of this mission, or by testifying to what they have learned and gained from exercising this function.

Finally, a suitable time frame must enable the manager to develop his or her leadership skills. Very often, managers are suffering… because they don’t actually manage, or manage only a little. Many are short of time, having been assigned this function on top of their previous responsibilities, without redefining their position or reorganizing their team. In the end, they are unable to invest fully in their new mission, devoting too much energy to administrative tasks such as coordinating telecommuting schedules. Management time must therefore be restored, up to a quarter or even a third of working time.

The role of manager is neither outdated nor doomed. It’s time to restore it to its former glory, and to make the adjustments made necessary by the profound changes underway!

[1] EDHEC NewGen Talent Centre © 2024 Sport and employability

Read the article on FocusRH

Team-building is under attack! There is a proliferation of articles casting doubt on the concept. A study conducted by two teachers/researchers has set things alight. The participants interviewed, young graduates of the prestigious universities, described moments that were judged to be in turn absurd, grotesque, uncomfortable and even humiliating. Employees felt manipulated and infantilised by “orchestrated fun”. The authors make no bones about it: “In the tradition of bullshit jobs, team building also contains its share of bullshit¹“. So should this exercise be condemned to oblivion? Absolutely not. As long as there is a clear understanding of its purpose and prerequisites.

RESPOND TO AN IDENTIFIED PROBLEM

Let’s clear up a misunderstanding: team-building is not about celebrating success or rewarding employees. An end-of-year event based around a cookery class, a good dinner and a thank-you speech may contribute to a good atmosphere in the company, but it is not team-building.

As the name suggests, the aim is to build a team. There are several possible typical situations: the installation of a new or renewed team following a reorganisation; or the malfunctioning of a collective, with recurring misunderstandings, opacity, a lack of cross-functionality, employee fatigue, etc. It can also concern a team that needs to be strongly aligned or re-aligned, to successfully carry out a transformation or get through a crisis; or that needs to strengthen itself further to perform better. In all cases, the challenge is to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the same team, cohesion, operating methods and the resulting commitment.

The consulting partner must therefore first endeavour to understand the customer’s precise needs and unique situation. This will enable them to design a programme that meets the company’s specific needs. This is why, in reality, there is no such thing as “turnkey” team-building: a proposal formulated in this way comes under the heading of events, not strategic consultancy.

CARRY OUT IN-DEPTH WORK

What is criticised about team-building is the cosmetic dimension that some people have unfortunately given it.

But “real” team building involves subjective, deeply human processes that are anything but superficial or purely sensational. Its aim is to create not just a good time, but a lasting positive energy, and to ensure that it is properly allocated according to well-defined and well-understood priorities.

First of all, the approach requires an effort to align the participants on a common base: a shared vision, an agreement on the image we want to project. This means looking at the most structuring elements of the company, its culture and its operating methods. Sometimes it even involves questioning the manager’s own communication.

In addition, it is essential to identify the sticking points and assess their recurrence, so as to be able to tackle these situations differently by redefining the roles of each person, beyond their functions. Quite often, the issues addressed are by no means minor: the loneliness of the executive is brought out into the open, and potentially deep-rooted conflicts need to be purged. The aim of this very delicate process is to free up the floor to restore fluidity and confidence.

Finally, team-building is not a one-shot deal. It’s a long-term approach: you can’t build a team in a single seminar. It is therefore essential to make commitments by drawing up an action plan. It can be followed up over time, which is just as vital, with “anchoring” sessions lasting a few hours at regular intervals to take stock of the situation.

INTEGRATE FUN WITH RELEVANCE

At the end of the day, we’re a long way from an accrobranche course, which is not team-building as such, or even a key stage in such a process.

But can a fun event still make sense? Yes, to bring work sessions to a close with an informal moment. Or to create a rhythm, provided that it fits in well with the approach, by highlighting and dealing with points of dysfunction by analogy. The aim is to get the participants to react and find an appropriate solution that can be applied to their day-to-day team life.

It is also important that these lighter sessions are designed to be consistent with the levels of responsibility and profiles of the participants. From this point of view, the sack race is probably not the best idea for management or executive teams…

Properly designed and run, team-building can be a tremendous asset to a company. In many situations, it is even essential, particularly at a high level. This is particularly true of the Executive Committee, which has a considerable impact on the other teams in the company through mimicry and modelling.

1- From laughter to tears: when team building goes astray, by Xavier Philippe, lecturer and researcher in the sociology of work at EM Normandie, and Thomas Simon, assistant professor at Montpellier Business School (MBS). The Conversation, 27 November 2023.

Read the article on FocusRH