Ce que le néolibéralisme fait au travail : une étude de cas en centre d’appels téléphoniques

How Much Stupidity Do Organisations Need? A Psychodynamic Perspective on Functional Stupidity

“…While it would be wrong, as Paulsen (2017) warns, to equate organisational stupidity with simple disengagement, since stupidity can be quite 'playful' and uninhibited, the fact remains that when suffering at work is disregarded, adaptive and defensive behaviours emerge, reinforcing further the atmosphere of insecurity and suffering. In these situations, it is indeed stupidity, in the sense of our definition, that prevails, with its share of behaviours that can range from euphemism to denial, or lying, cheating and even the explicit violation of professional ethical standards (Lay & Rolo, 2017).…”

“…Paradoxically, as Lay and Rolo (2017) insist, these working environments are not devoid of a genuine 'culture of fun' (Fleming, 2005;Fleming & Spicer, 2003), where cynicism translates into a joyous moral indifference and lack of concern for the consequences of one's actions. While it would be wrong, as Paulsen (2017) warns, to equate organisational stupidity with simple disengagement, since stupidity can be quite 'playful' and uninhibited, the fact remains that when suffering at work is disregarded, adaptive and defensive behaviours emerge, reinforcing further the atmosphere of insecurity and suffering.…”

“…The vignette that follows therefore nuances an interpretation of organisational stupidity that tends to equate it with purely operative behaviour, devoid of affect and leaning towards apathy. The study of call centres by Lay and Rolo (2017), which recalls that of Le Guillant (2010[1956) and his 'telephone operator neurosis', clearly exposes the coincidence of an unbridled form of enjoyment and the neutralisation of the moral sense as a defensive reaction of workers to the suffering generated by 'anti-sublimatory' devices.…”

“…More specifically, among the pathogenic devices that are pervasive in the erosion of ordinary sublimation, the psychodynamics of work mainly identifies individual evaluation (Gernet & Dejours, 2009) or the dislocation of trade collectives (Dejours, 2013); two trends that, through the mutilation of 'living work' that they imply, are likely to provoke a true 'discontent in civilization' (Lay & Rolo, 2017). While these trends are by no means definitive, and are opposed by forms of local, informal and multiple resistance based on professional solidarity (Dejours & Bègue, 2009), the fact remains that the breaking down of working collectives coincides with the proliferation of individual modes of evaluation.…”

L’archéologie préventive, une source de solutions pour demain? Réflexions sur les enjeux scientifiques et sociétaux de l’archéologie préventive face aux effets délétères du néo-libéralisme

“…Par ailleurs, l'ouverture des fouilles à la concurrence a progressivement plongé le secteur dans des travers dont les effets sont directs et évidents, à la fois sur les conditions de travail et sur la façon d'appréhender les opérations archéologiques par les professionnels eux-mêmes. Ce phénomène n'est pas propre à l'archéologie préventive : il n'est pas rare aujourd'hui de constater, dans des secteurs très divers, les conséquences néfastes de la politique économique néolibérale sur les conditions de travail et sur le rapport au travail [4,5]. Dans le cas de l'archéologie préventive tout particulièrement, il faut tenir compte d'une dimension supplémentaire : nous touchons à un bien commun sur lequel notre action est irréversible et implique nécessairement la destruction d'un héritage que nous nous devons pourtant de préserver et de transmettre.…”