Plusieurs articles dans la Presse ont récemment repris le nombre de fermetures de restaurants et de cafés en France. La restauration représente maintenant un tiers des faillites françaises après les constructeurs de maisons et les agents immobiliers, avec 3000 établissements entrant en liquidation dans une période de trois mois, cette année 2008.
Les Français sont les exemples de l’équilibrent entre la vie et le travail avec des « déjeuners de deux heures et une semaine de 35 ».
Les Européens semblent être inquiets de la disparition de cet exemple français ; la crise financière nous conduira-t-elle tous à être des automates drogués du travail condamnés à secouer les miettes de nos claviers d’ordinateur à chaque déjeuner?
Peut-être que la France s'éloigne de ses racines culturelles? Est-ce un problème? Beaucoup de personnes en font la remarque, les Britanniques le font bien avec un « Cheese & Pickle roll » sur le coin de leur bureau, n’est-ce pas ?
Français ou Britannique… Nous pourrions sacrifier plus que nous pensons … Comme les études le décrivent, des ouvriers sans pause fonctionnent sur le principe du « diminishing returns » quant à leur énergie et productivité. À la fin de l’après-midi vous pouvez fournir énormément et rien en dégager.
Un autre élément important est que les invitations à déjeuner françaises sont l'occasion de nouer des relations significatives au travail. C'est un facteur clef dans la satisfaction et l’engagement des emplois, mais agit aussi comme un amortisseur important contre les tensions et pressions de travail et contribue au bien être.
Il est probable que les Français souffriraient particulièrement de cette disparition, parce que c’est rare de rencontrer les gens après le travail.
Alors que cela peut sembler un petit changement, les entreprises françaises devraient prendre garde: Le bonheur au travail et tous ses avantages associés (la créativité, la construction de réseau, l'appui pour d'autres) dépendent énormément de l'influence de « petites choses » - Les petits bonheurs plutôt que les changements majeurs de conditions de travail. Le déjeuner alors, peut être plus important qu’une augmentation de salaire.
"Perhaps in future it would be better if all involved accepted the age old adage that private parties are just that." So wrote Nathaniel Rothschild in his now infamous letter to the Times newspaper about George Osborne, the shadow chancellor. Rothschild's letter was short, sharp, punishment, meted out because Osborne broke one of high society's unwritten rules.
Unwritten rules surround us, some we are aware of and others we are not, because they are unconscious. In both cases there are consequences for breaking these rules. For example, stereotypes are powerful sources of unwritten rules. When you think of a leader what sort of person springs to mind? For most of us the answer will be a man, especially a tall man. Take the workplace. Recent research by the Cranfield School of Management showed that women held just 12 per cent of board seats at FTSE 100 companies. Meanwhile, Psychologists have found that tall men earn more than their shorter counterparts - a man who is 6 feet tall earns, on average, nearly $166,000 more during a 30-year career than a man who is 5 feet 5 inches.
This is because women, and short men, break our unwritten rules. We expect our leaders to show signs of 'strength' such as a large stature and a deep voice. However, these examples show that unwritten rules can be neither fair nor helpful. Importantly, we can also fall foul of our own rules. Take Warren Harding who was president of the United States from 1921-1923. In his book 'Blink', Malcolm Gladwell draws on evidence describing Harding as "Looking like a President"; his biographer wrote that his "lusty black eyebrows contrasted with his steel-grey hair to give the effect of force, his massive shoulders and bronzed complexion gave the effect of health." In essence, this was a man who appealed directly to out unwritten rules about what a leader should look like.Unfortunately for the American electorate, Harding has also been described as "one of the worst presidents in American history". His limited intellect and unclear direction meant that he was, in many respects, an ineffectual leader. The voters' unwritten rules blinded them to the rather disappointing reality.
This poses a real problem for organisations that can't (or won't) challenge and change these types of unwritten rules. The result is talent management, promotions, and hiring processes which play to stereotypes, hunches, and 'intuition', favouring those who meet the rules but not the real needs. The result, like Harding, can be someone who looks like they can do a job which, in reality, is beyond them, whilst those who are capable are either frustrated bystanders or are busy succeeding elsewhere. In the current climate who can afford that?
There are so many comparisons of the current recession with those of the past century. “This is going to be much worse than the 1929 depression” was the most recent idiotic sentiment being trotted out by yet another commentator on mainstream news.
For all the comparisons that we can make between different periods of recession, one thing is for sure. In 1929 we didn’t have 24 hour news channels, desperate to boost their viewer ratings with the latest shock headline. In 1974 we didn’t have the internet, peddling false alarm stories or stirring up fearful rumours for the average household saver. Even in 1991, breakfast news was still an emerging phenomenon and most of us received our daily dose of depression at six or ten in the evening. Now, it’s almost impossible to go anywhere without media intrusion.
So am I blaming the media for the recession? Of course not. That would be as foolish and as ill-informed as most of the opinion on the front of our daily national newspapers.
But I would suggest that they have played a strong role in shaping reactions to the current situation. And here’s why… Language – words, phrases, sentences – may not determine thought, but they do shape thought. They shape our interpretation of what is happening to us and they shape our emotions in response. To illustrate the point, look at the work of the psychologists Kahneman and Tversky. They put two scenarios to medical doctors (typically well educated and rational professionals we would assume) requesting funding for a health programme. The first was outlined with cautious language such as ‘saving the lives of 200 people out of 600 people who are vulnerable’, while the second was outlined with riskier language such as ‘resulting in the death of 400 people out of 600’. The vast majority of the health professionals opted for the cautious programme, even though there were no discernable differences in the actual risk.
Steve Pinker makes the point – in his book Stuff of Thought – that nobody is forced to construe situations in the way that a speaker presents them, but, when we have no prior knowledge of the situation, we are far more likely to be persuaded by the way that he or she presents them. In most instances, hard facts and figures reassure us that we are correct in the way that we are thinking about a problem.
But with the current financial situation, there are few real facts and figures. The numbers trotted out everyday are beyond comprehension. Few people have prior knowledge or expertise. Even the bank traders seem to struggle to describe some of the financial deals and techniques that have given rise to such inflated debts.
In the 1960s, Albert Ellis, a remarkable psychologist most widely known for his work in cognitive-behavioural therapy, made the point that if human beings focus on a problem, then not surprisingly the problem will seem to grow. He further illustrated his thinking when he defined a list of irrational thoughts that we all, to some degree or another, experience. These included ‘polarized thinking’ (where things are either fantastic or disastrous), ‘catastrophising’ (where what-ifs quickly turn into certain doom) and over-generalisations (where one-off events lead us into drawing generalised conclusions about the future). Do these sound familiar?
So where does that leave the recession in the media? In a frenzy, it seems. The television and newspaper media now resort to managing their own uncertainty about what is happen by over-speculating. In the process, they use words and statements that shape our thoughts in a very negative and emotional way. Words such as ‘crisis’, ‘depression’ and ‘edge of a precipice’ typically lead us into making emotional over-generalisations and catastrophising about the future. It leaves investors wanting to withdraw their money from the banks and adopt the very irrational tactic of stuffing in their mattresses.
News chiefs beware. Irrational language drives irrational thought, which inevitably drives irrational action.
Shame is a powerful human emotion which occurs when our self-esteem, social status or social attractiveness is diminished in some significant way.
The feeling of shame draws our attention to those things which threaten our power and standing. In that sense it can be seen as something which helps us to learn and adapt.
The Max Mosley privacy action against the News of the World is a fascinating public example of shame and the response to it.
In publishing the story about his sadomasochistic predilections the News of the World quite clearly wanted to shame the Formula One boss. The typical responses to shame are related to submissiveness, for example avoiding eye contact, hiding. The newspaper must have anticipated a response like this to its lurid headlines.
Instead, Mosley went against the grain. His anger and sense of injustice were so great that instead of withdrawing he did exactly the opposite. He met with all the key people in his organisation to ensure that he retained their confidence. Furthermore, he accepted that what he had done had caused great personal distress to himself and to his family. What he also succeeded in doing though was to make it clear that the acts themselves, whilst unusual, were not necessarily anything to be ashamed of. He therefore appears to be separating the cause of the shame from his self concept. The court case itself may have served as away of demonstrating his feelings about what occurred.
Unsurprisingly, shame is related to a range of mental health problems including depression. Mosley's response, however, displays a high degree of resilience which should mean he will recover from this experience quicker than most people would.
Will the verdict of unlawful killing by the jurors in the inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed end the conspiracy theories and if not, why not?
In 2006, the BBC carried out a poll that showed that nearly 60% of people didn't believe her death was due to an accident. The reason for this is due to what is known as the "major event - major cause" heuristic. In other words, the tendency to assume that when a high profile political or establishment figure dies suddenly it will be due to assassination.
A study carried out by Dr Patrick Lehman of Royal Holloway University of London presented participants with a number of scenarios about the president of a fictional country. In one scenario the president was shot and killed, in another the president was shot and injured, in the third the shot missed completely and in the fourth the president died of an unrelated cause. The participants were more likely to believe in a conspiracy when the president was shot and killed. When there is a major event we seek a major cause. The lone gunman is not a major enough cause for such a significant event and does not provide sufficient explanation for what happened. The same applies to the death of Diana and Dodi. A drunken driver, a speeding car and a tragic accident are not major enough explanations for the death of such high profile figures.
The research also found that some people are more prone than others to believe such conspiracy theories and we can assume the verdict recorded by the inquest will never satisfy them.
Feed