“We must introduce autonomy into employment,” recommends academic Pascal Lokiec

If this means the end of hours or a fixed place of work, not everyone wants that. When you have a small apartment and children at home, you don’t always want to work remotely. Additionally, not everyone is built to be self-reliant. Some need to be framed. Autonomy can generate stress and become a transfer of risks and responsibilities to employees. Some unions, including the CGT, have long been hostile to co-management, on the grounds that giving decision-making power to employees in management bodies would make them responsible for decisions. Including those of dismissal.

Some employees have too much autonomy, others not enough, you say…

Sometimes the autonomy is configured incorrectly. She seems unconstrained as she creates new ones. Some executives, in day packages for example, have a lot of freedom, but this is accompanied by work on formidable objectives, especially when these objectives are difficult to achieve. This is also why there is an annual review of their workload for these employees with objectives. As for teleworkers, they sometimes have no autonomy, but restricted schedules and increased surveillance.

Manual professions, those in the “second line” or production workers, are not very autonomous, and will be less and less so with the robotization of their tasks. In warehouses, workers are increasingly obeying the voices of robots who tell them what they must do without the slightest possibility of discussing the order given! Production employees are subject to new surveillance technologies, like teleworkers. It is absolutely necessary to find spaces of autonomy for these professions. Young workers want autonomy as much as young managers! The industry which questions its attractiveness would do well not to neglect these very high expectations.

Labor law bases the relationship of subordination on three components of the employer’s power: direction, control, sanction. Should we give it up?

This triptych is particularly frightening for young people, because it leaves no room for autonomy! The employer’s power of direction has lost its power, particularly for executives whose work is not strictly controlled. But it has been replaced by surveillance and target control. For autonomy in employment to develop, we must move away from this idea of ​​subordination and its triptych. The employee software has not evolved enough.

What can be done to offer more autonomy to employees?

We must tackle three layers. The first concerns working conditions. The French approach to power is very vertical: in law, it is the employer who sets schedules and leave; an employee cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, refuse them. Same principle for the workplace, although the employer’s power has been somewhat restricted in recent years. The employer decides, the employee can contest. This logic should be reversed, giving the employee the ability to decide on their working conditions, with the possibility for the employer to refuse. The English do it, with flexible work.

The second part concerns work. Employees for whom objectives are set must be involved in their definition. Who knows better than them what they are capable of doing? This is the only way to make them want to work. Finally, third layer of autonomy: better involve employees in the definition of the company’s objectives and its strategy, because their work will be organized to meet these objectives. These objectives cannot only be financial! Companies have understood the benefit of integrating environmental considerations into their strategy and are doing so more and more. But CSR is also social. However, this aspect is progressing more slowly than the environment! It is easier to communicate with customers and consumers about your environmental actions than about your social policy…

Doesn’t too much autonomy risk encouraging individualistic attitudes and killing the collective that is a company?

There is a risk if autonomy goes too far, if the teleworker is disconnected from the collective. But autonomy does not mean working alone in your corner, it means, among other things, being involved in the definition of your objectives. Autonomy requires collective action, to define common working hours, times for physical meetings, organize discussion spaces, etc.

What is the employer’s interest in granting this extra autonomy?

It gains more motivated employees. If they have a say in their work, they are more invested in it. Granting them autonomy in setting schedules, holidays and workplaces allows them to better reconcile professional and personal lives, and therefore to work better. Autonomous employees are also more innovative, as numerous surveys have shown. Finally, the company will become more attractive, especially for young people. Many no longer hesitate to accept a pay cut to move to an employer who offers them more autonomy.