Individual sense and collective sense, a co-responsibility

Fixed visions, where the individual entrusts the company with giving it meaning, where the company instructs its employees to adhere to the collective sense, are no longer enough. There is full co-responsibility for the relationship between the 2 parties. The individual is fully responsible for their well-being at work, without this taking away from the company's responsibility in this area. The company is totally responsible for the resistance it encounters, without this in any way taking away from the responsibility for the development of its employees. These sentences shake up many ideas that are rooted in our societies. They are simply tackling the good old fashioned search for the culprit.

Faced with complexity, let's remember, you have to think AND, not OR. In the relationship between the individual and the company, there is co-responsibility. This is where the problem lies when the meaning and framework of the relationship are questioned. While we can theoretically accept this co-responsibility, we don't really know what to do with it in practice. For centuries, the classical hierarchical model has shaped our understanding of things around the notion of ultimate responsibility. And even when you play with this vision of things, you run up against the fact that legally, there is a person responsible.

As a result, we do not perceive the full extent of co-responsibility. It is not a kind of division, where each could protect themselves from their own duty under the pretext that the other did not fulfill their own duty. Personally, there is no reason for me to move as long as the company does not move. As an institution, there is no reason for us to put things in place for those who are not involved. These two attitudes only lead to the discharge of responsibility, to immobility and to the absence of meaning.

Likewise, this co-responsibility does not mean that we should sit around a table and decide together to each do their part. The current movements of co-decision, co-construction, co-development and, more generally, collective intelligence, if misinterpreted, can lead one to believe that the main thing is to come together and move forward collectively. And in doing so, rely on the group effect to make things happen. However, the initiative is always an impulse given by an individual member of the collective. The construction that will follow will take place through interaction. It may have been facilitated by the fertilization of ideas. But it is the act of one of the two parties. When you go on a family vacation, you may have mixed up a lot of options all together. You will define the course or the activities by building with your partner and your children. But always, there will be one who has said the magic word, that of the place around which everyone will agree. The group magnifies creativity, yes, but it only works if everyone is fully committed to the process.

We can then speak here of full co-responsibility. All parties in a relationship are individually and completely responsible for the relationship.

It's not always very comfortable, you can't hide or rely too much on each other. But that clarifies a lot of things. If my at my job does not work, I am totally responsible for it. Without this taking anything away from the responsibility of the company that employs me. But first it is up to me to take action to take my full place. Conversely, the company is totally responsible for the fact that its members take their full place in its evolution. This too does not take away from their individual responsibility. But it is up to her to act without taking refuge in a kind of give and take contract. The concept of full co-responsibility is shaking up the codes according to which we each have our place and we agree on a common approach. This contractual vision of the relationship, which often remains in force in the world of work, was sufficient in a relatively stable environment. Clear guidelines could be used to define who was responsible for what. In a changing and uncertain environment, each part of the relationship is responsible for the initiative of all decisions that affect the relationship. Like that for the individual to define the meaning of their commitment and to make it concrete on a daily basis.

As responsibility implies freedom, this has concrete consequences. The company is responsible for setting up development programs in response to the changes it is experiencing. That said, she is free to do it or not. The individual does not have to wait for it. He is responsible for taking charge of his evolution. And he is free to do it or not. Are these statements bothering you? Above all, they challenge the notions of patronnalism and conditioning. These two principles certainly mark our culture and our history. But they are obsolete. Paternalism is based on a framework that is both restrictive and protective. This framework has exploded, it is no longer credible. Not much is determined in advance, we are heading into the unknown. Accepting this evolution has concrete consequences. Both the company and the individual have to act from their own point of view, hoping for a reward no doubt, but without prejudging the attitude of the other party.

Thus, when a company launches a training program in the face of the changes it is experiencing, it does so from its full and complete responsibility.

It does not have to ask for the consent of its collaborators. However, they have no idea what they will get out of it. Learning is as much a journey as it is a goal. If you go on a trip to a far away country, you can have it prepared as much as you want, it will define the milestones of your journey, but it will have little to do with the intimate experience you will have there. Travel is discovery. Travel is learning. It is therefore not an infantilization or forcing employees to put them in a situation of professional development. Theoretically, they are free to accept or refuse it. But since very few dare to say no to their employer, it is difficult for them to officially refuse to participate in a development program. On the other hand, once they are on the way, their freedom makes perfect sense. By discovering the reality of the learning path, everyone will position themselves.

On the other hand, individuals are free and responsible to find meaning in their actions.

Their professional development is theirs, to know how to combine their skills with their personal aspirations. They can benefit from programs put in place by their company, a university, an outplacement company or the state. They are also responsible for finding them in order to benefit from them. If they don't, it's a personal choice that deprives them of the right to complain about their situation for a long time. Being free also removes any notion of guilt. The company does not have to make them feel guilty by urging them to develop their “mental agility”; it can offer them actions in this sense but must accept their freedom.

What no longer works is behaving so that the other person acts in a certain way. What works is to act freely and responsibly from your own needs, and to deal with how the other party in the relationship did it on their end. To then make the relationship evolve towards more wealth, or put an end to it.

On an individual level, for each of us, this means knowing how to identify what we want in our professional life, and offering our added value. Then find the employer who will be the right partner, or positively influence the current relationship with our company. Finding meaning is a personal process. The company becomes a context, sometimes an opportunity, it is no longer a determinant. That is the whole point of self-leadership.