
SUICIDE BY FRENCH WORKERS – A SYMPTOM OF SOMETHING DEEPER?
An interesting article in The Economist this week caught my attention (“Schumpeter”, The Economist, P.70, 10th October 2009). It discussed the 24 suicides which had occurred at France Telecom in the 20 months since early 2008. This is disturbing, but what is more disturbing is that this is consistent with the overall suicide rate in France (14.6 per 100,000 persons per year, males 22.8, females 7.5). France rates third in its suicide rates behind Japan and Finland.
There a close relationship between rates of depression and rates of suicide. A recent mental health survey in France (The Economist P.54, 10th October 2009) puts lifetime prevalence of depression at a whopping 40% (compared with 17%-20% in Australia, for instance). 10% of the French population is said to be on antidepressants at any given time.
This is all occurring in a country with excellent healthcare, job protection and generous welfare. However, since this situation predicates against companies creating “permanent” jobs, many young people work for years on short term contracts.
France Telecom was once a branch of the Civil Service, but now competes in the open market. It has a staff mix of ex-civil service people in permanent positions (having to deal with the change from a state run monopoly to a multinational company) and new people on shorter term contacts. Managing this mix (two thirds are permanent) would be difficult at the best of times.
Increases in work related suicides have also occurred in the US (up by 28% between 2007 and 2008). At the same time loyalty to employers fell from 95% to a staggering 39% during that period. More than half those in one survey described their jobs as “stagnant” (not interesting, little hope of promotion).
Because of the recession it is said, people are clinging to jobs they don’t like “until things improve”. This suggests that there will be major movements in the workforce (especially those in high demand) when the recession lifts.
“Schumpeter” highlights the particular problems in car companies (global overcapacity) and telecoms (technological change). These lead to increased distress amongst workers.
In Britain and the US a preoccupation with measuring worker performance has re-emerged. This is reminiscent of Winslow Taylor’s antics of the early 20th century. Having “big brother” looking over your shoulder sends a clear message to workers that they are no more than a commodity to be used in the production chain, as efficiently as possible.
Suggested responses to the existence of such a demoralised workforce include an increase in workers’ rights (in Europe especially, presumably by legislation). But the fact that in France many workers are unsackable, adds to the economic problems there. Some speak of the “human side of management” eg. being more open and transparent in communicating good and bad news to workers.
All of this, I believe, misses the point completely. The response to an unhappy workforce is to change management in a way which makes people more engaged with their work. The most popular company to work for in Australia is Google. People who work for that company are valued as much for their new ideas as for their core business performance. Management structure is flat and there is a real sense of workers at every level having an ear for their good ideas. These principles are applicable to any organisation, whatever size. However, it requires a major re-think of how things are done. Conventional management practices might just need to be questioned. This is where the answers to the management dilemmas of 21st century lie.