The managers are psychologists
Eric Albert – Jean-Luc Emery (Médecins psychiatres) – Picture: Perpignan 2015 –
The understanding and good management of the human relationship, in its broadest acceptance, is one of the essential criteria for the competitiveness of managers.
It’s not enough to know-how: you have to know-being
Tthe KNOWLEDGE –> The KNOW-HOW –> The KNOW-BEING –> The MANAGEMENT (Savoir faire faire)
It is not only the performances that are evaluated but also the perceptions. The pharmaceutical industry no longer sees its role as solely drug-centric. Through the “disease management”, it is on the whole of the service distribution concerning the disease (from the prevention to the treatments) that pharma intends to position itself. Businesses understand it: the DURABLE link goes through the service. But behind the service, there are men able to create a relationship, and therefore to control their behavior.
Change involves adapting behaviors. The psy culture is an indispensable complement (passing from an esoteric discourse to a concrete world).
If managers know the principles of management, their behavior has not for that changed!
A motivated employee is more efficient. Motivation is also emotion. Affective investment translates into energy spent. This energy capital is limited. It is also necessary for the couple, the friendly life, associative, sports, etc. In fact, what the employee realizes only too late is that by capturing his energy, the company has impoverished him.
In exchange for his work the employee receives a salary, but in return for his emotional investment, what does he receive?
In a changing world, and faced with job insecurity, the company can offer its employees an improvement in employability. Know-how in the face of novelty: adaptation. Unfortunately employability is at work what prevention is to health. Important but never urgent since it is preventive.
The manager duties:
- To Optimize the working capacities of his team
- Of Being of support in case of difficulty
- To Give meaning to work
- To Assume the role of interface between service and company
- To Choose between different options
- To make Advancing employees
Customer demand, exacerbated competition, emergence of the service, pressure from shareholders, today organizations are forced to consider change as a permanent state.
At the heart of change, emotions. Researchers in neurophysiology (Damazio – the error of Descartes, the reason of emotions 1995) have shown that emotions have an indispensable role in most mental activities, in decision-making (meaning, ..)
Emotional intelligence, relational, assertiveness, ability to convey enthusiasm, representation of one’s future, self-esteem, … through recruitment, team work, training, …
For a collaborator, the legitimacy of his boss comes from his added value. What is his contribution, what does he teach him, how does he progress? If nobody is concerned about answering these questions, gradually a crisis of confidence sets in which can become negative for the company.
Gradually emerged the representation of a service provider manager. Quality of service assessment is usually done through an annual FtF interview. But beyond the numerical results, the feedback from the manager on its team is often subjective, fragmented, unreliable. To overcome these disadvantages, a “new” tool from the US: the 360 degrees.
it is a question of having an employee evaluate by the whole of his entourage: hierarchical superiors, colleagues, collaborators, internal customers. Most often the individual evaluates also himself. The results are compared and discussed face to face. This allows:
- to register the manager as a service provider
- to force the manager to take into account the eyes of others on him
- for employees to express themselves anonymously, within a framework
- a work to improve managerial qualities (and think about how he proceeds)
Beware of the shock that it can create. This does not replace the individual interview. Do not take the results literally (good or bad)
Finally, it seems to us essential to systematize an assessment of the team.