Is the company responsible for meaning?

Advocating individual self-leadership could lead one to believe that individuals alone bear all the responsibility for the meaning of their action. Position rightly criticized by some current authors, such as Christophe Genoud¹. But then, would it be our organizations that are responsible for it?

There is a strong temptation to say yes for the collective sense, no for the individual sense. Everyone has their own job in some way. This was true at the time when the mutual commitment between an organization and its employees was relatively protected from external hazards. A job contributing to a service — healthcare, financial, computer, etc. — or to a product, and formalized by a relatively secure “time for pay” agreement. Today's reality is more complex. Historically rooted in contractual agreements with customers, suppliers and employees, the contemporary company must now engage beyond these formal frameworks.

The transformation of corporate responsibility from “contractuality” to a deeper involvement in social, environmental and ethical issues is a significant evolution of our time. This need was launched by initiatives such as Kofi Annan's Global Compact in 2000, aimed at encouraging companies to consider their impact on corruption and respect for human rights in their supply chains. It is now expanding to include environmental, social and good governance (ESG) goals. Even if through atavism, the company tries to contract this new responsibility again through specific objectives (SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals), she nevertheless navigates a context where her proactive actions are not enough in the eyes of the public. In 2015, Volkswagen was of course held responsible for the falsifications made to its engines in the Dieselgate case.² (the action) .Today the German company is also considered co-responsible - just like its competitors - for the damage caused by fossil fuel engines on citizens or on the planet (the impact). And the first complaints from citizens or NGOs are beginning to carry this moral responsibility on a legal level.³.

The concept of responsibility can finally be read through the prism of André Comte-Sponville, who combines power with responsibility and responsibility with risk.⁴. The responsibility of a system has expanded towards the risks that it poses directly or indirectly through its voluntary actions. It is not only these for which he is held responsible, but for their impact. This is not a question of setting out a principle of what it would be normal to expect from an organization, but to observe an evolution. Employees are sensitive to this. They are first and foremost human beings integrated into society, before being employed by a company. In the era of Like and the virtual impossibility of the right to be forgotten on the web, 50% of the candidates selected by one of Majors from the tobacco industry finally did not sign the contract that was offered to them. The benefits offered do not offset their own risk of undesirability, whether social and immediate, or professional and future.

It's not easy. Faced with constant changes, companies must innovate, review their strategy and adapt, a reality exacerbated by hyperconnectivity and socio-economic changes. If in terms of socio-environmental responsibility, it does so by focusing on actions (gender equality, soft mobility, etc.), it will only have done half the way. The new challenges actually require a questioning of traditional business models, requiring companies not only to improve but also to reinvent themselves in an uncertain and competitive environment. Les Business models need to be redefined based on impact, and no longer just by minimizing it.

This is a fundamental transformation in the way of thinking about the added value that is needed. Each time history has presented new challenges, both systems and individuals have adapted. Why is it so difficult today? Demographics play a crucial role in this dynamic, with an over-representation of people over 40 in developed countries. However, it is always the younger generations, born in the present context, who carry within them the seeds of renewal. The company's responsibility therefore extends to supporting its young talents and to implementing inclusion policies to facilitate the integration and valorization of diversity within its structures. These actions go beyond simple recruitment, requiring ongoing support to enable everyone to take their full place in the organization. But their impact is limited. When innovative ideas are drowned in a sea of conservative thoughts, they can only express themselves at best. There is no real transformative collaboration, the power of the acquis is too strong. So negotiations focus on very individual elements, part-time work, teleworking, etc. We are often far from inventing new substantive responses to common challenges. We are certainly playing here on the company-employee relationship, not on its meaning.

If we read these lines through the usual prism of looking for the culprit, we remain in a simple contractual logic. Who broke the pact? Or who should guarantee it? No, the company cannot alone be responsible for the meaning that everyone finds in their work. It is not responsible for the demographic imbalance, for example. Nor of the law of systems identified by James March⁵ This means that with less than 20% of new members in a group, the group will generally reproduce its own functioning.

‍‍

In summary, although the company plays a crucial role in defining its commitment to its employees and society, it operates in a framework where co-responsibility between the individual and the organization is fundamental to navigate in a constantly changing world. So, it will no longer be satisfied with a vision dictated by management based on the organization's core business. It will be around the commitment to continuously learn the meaning to give to the relationship between the two parties in the face of the environment. The company is not responsible for the meaning that everyone will find in their responsibilities, but for implementing approaches through which we will redefine together the meaning of collective action based on its impact on customers and society.

‍

‍

‍

[1] Genoud, C. (2023). Leadership, agility, happiness at work... bullshit! : Put an end to trendy ideas and (finally) revalue the art of management. Vuibert.

[2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Volkswagen

[3] https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/climat-plaintes-en-vue-contre-les-constructeurs-automobiles-allemands-20210903

[4] Comte-Sponville, A. (2012). Is capitalism moral?. Albin Michel.

[5] March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2 (1), 71-87.

‍