A few days ago, someone reproached me for “endorsing” a LinkedIn post that “repeated Kremlin talking points”… Given my commitments in Euro-Atlantic associations, that was surprising indeed.
But on checking, it turned out that I had simply refused to give in to the famous “polarisation”… A habit in my life as a citizen, as with the companies and teams I support.
Once things were clarified, it emerged that I had “liked” (which, in my view, does not necessarily amount to an “endorsement”) a post that shared a publication by the controversial Pavel Durov about the French government’s communication after the theft of the jewels from the Louvre.
Being cautious on such matters, I had thought carefully before giving a “thumbs up” to the person who had shared it. Because it was indeed based on a publication by the founder of Telegram, a more than dubious figure – under formal investigation by the French courts and apparently having reached an “arrangement” with the Russian intelligence services to develop his encrypted messaging app…
But I largely shared my fellow member’s view of the current tribulations of the government, as well as of the opposition, after dissolutions and votes of no confidence.
So I remembered a saying that anyone under twenty cannot know – and which may earn me some controversy, given the mood of our times: “just because Le Pen (the father, at the time) says the weather is fine when the sun is shining, that is no reason to claim it is raining…”
Because even then, a common practice was to try to discredit what others said without debate, as soon as it had also been said by the leader of what was then the Front National – even if one did not reach the same conclusions or support his proposals.
Had I, by “expressing” (with a thumbs up, nothing more) a certain unease about government instability, been a “useful idiot” for the former KGB officer in charge of the Kremlin?
Polarisation and the “Overton window”
Since I first heard that saying in my youth, these rhetorical practices have hardly changed. Or rather, they have hardened, under the effect of several factors. Including, apparently, social media algorithms that supposedly favour “clashes”…
An analysis I doubt. Because, in my view, the guilty pleasure some take in insulting others from behind their screens and their (relative) anonymity does not need an algorithm. And political practices, including in the chamber of the French National Assembly, have returned to the age of insults – minus the oratorical talent and the settling of scores in the moat of the Château de Vincennes, and minus the friendly nudge to “René” (apologies to all the Renés) when he started going too far at the local café…
Yet in our democratic system, every voice must be able to express itself, as long as it does not break the law.
In theory. Because we increasingly see the opposite reactions, in more or less good faith.
On political and societal issues in particular, some people, to denounce certain statements, point to the widening of the “Overton window”: the range of subjects considered “acceptable” in public debate. And if they are sincere, their concern in the face of hateful ideologies is understandable. But is this the solution?
Because by denouncing the potential widening of this “window”, certain subjects are driven underground, and therefore exposed to manipulation and radicalisation.
And in our societies as in our companies, it is never a good idea, in my view, to multiply “taboos”. Provided, naturally, that there is the will and the practice of non-confrontational debate, to allow real discussion, including on very “divisive” subjects.
But it is worth it.
Why?
Distinguishing morality and politics?
It is a perennial question in philosophy, which therefore runs through all our social issues – a mere trifle.
The central question is whether the two fields are distinguished, and whether one is subordinate to the other.
It is, in my view, a very personal question, which probably cuts across today’s political currents. Because it involves the debate between “realists” and “idealists”, between “individualists” and “collectivists”… and no doubt other labels, claimed or attributed.
What seems decisive to me is at least being aware of these two fields – whether or not one subordinates one to the other. Because in no case is there a “safe good”…
One can decide not to accept debate on certain subjects. But if so, it must be done knowingly.
For “political” reasons, by deciding in this way to avoid disturbances to public order, for example – in which case it may be written into law.
For “moral” reasons, too. Which, in the personal sphere, translate into wanting or not wanting, without having to justify oneself, to talk about subjects that are painful for oneself or for others, for example.
And which, in the public sphere, reflect the subordination of one field to the other, in the name of a “public morality”.
Not simple, is it?
In companies or public organisations? One might believe (or claim without believing it) that these subjects are foreign to a “rational” world, subject only to the demands of profitability or the general interest… But that would be to ignore, knowingly or not, that all “policies” also rest on very deep convictions, acknowledged or not, from which one does or does not distance oneself in light of the objectives and stakes of the organisation to which one devotes one’s time and skills.
And this is in fact part of what justifies my own added value: identifying, in individuals and in groups, what is “rational” and what is less so.
Avoiding the “backlash”
Closing a window does not prevent the subject from growing in another room. And, if need be, gathering strength before coming back.
At the risk, of course, of provoking virulent reactions, I am thinking, for example, of some of the social dynamics that led, in the United States, to the re-election of Donald Trump, and to the violent policies emerging under his impetus and that of his entourage.
In American universities and companies, programmes promoting diversity, equity and inclusion – the famous “DEI” – had developed over recent years.
Living together is never easy, in our societies as in our companies. And the wish to “raise awareness” of these delicate subjects among as many people as possible is understandable, for many reasons.
But we have been able to observe, in many contexts, an implementation of these programmes that was felt to be brutal. With sessions perceived as accusatory, and/or felt by some to be close to “re-education” – sometimes openly so.
Yet in this field as in so many others, implementation matters as much as – or even more than – intention…
Because these painful “feelings” led some, once in power, to want “revenge”, with a policy that is just as polarised, but at the opposite end of the spectrum.
Is that what we want? Because unless one justifies one dictatorship to avoid another – or, in companies, ignores the fact that organisational life can always lead, under endogenous or exogenous pressures, to changes in governance – a change of power is always possible.
And also because, in the public sphere as in the world of work, there are always grounds for hidden revenge, “skeletons in the cupboard”.
In all these cases, “helping you work better together” – my credo and my added value – means identifying, acknowledging and healing these wounds in order to move forward, without dwelling on them but without neglecting them.
Drawing on collective intelligence
Accepting, or even encouraging, “polarisation” also means depriving oneself of that wonderful lever of performance and quality of life together: collective intelligence.
In his latest book, A-t-on besoin d’un chef ? (“Do we need a leader?”), Mehdi Moussaïd[1] explores, among the practical cases he discusses, the challenge of “managing to agree”. Taking in particular the very concrete debates around self-driving cars, and the “choice” the software should make in a critical situation (if lives are at stake, who should be sacrificed?).
These are obviously essential questions for many social issues. And, perhaps less dramatically but with just as much impact on how they work, they matter just as much in the life of our public and private organisations.
As Mehdi Moussaïd rightly points out – with scientific evidence to back it up – collective intelligence is not the most effective approach in every situation.
But polarisation never is. Because it prevents dialogue, compromise, and therefore collective work – whether it emerges spontaneously or is driven by “leaders”.
Barricading oneself inside a camp of perceptions and convictions makes it impossible to understand the other side’s stakes and motivations. And to respond to them – or at least to anticipate their antagonistic actions.
Because when, despite everything, people share a collective project (because they live, like it or not, in the same society, or because they work, under a contract, in the same organisation), it is necessary not to close the door – or the window.
Because even if a temporary conflict divides people over a question of strategy or implementation, they will eventually come back together, in the medium or longer term.
It is therefore essential not to “burn bridges” by rejecting the other with no hope of return. Accept the disagreement, record it. But on a specific, temporary basis – not “ontologically”.
So as not to deprive yourself of the wealth of skills, diversity and energy… of those who are part of your group.
And because, unless you want to leave society or exclude the other for good, you run the risk of turning them into competitors, or even enemies. Because they will decide so themselves, or because you will push them into the arms of those who act against you.
In such cases – so as not to break all ties, or to agree together on the principles of a peaceful separation that will, if need be, preserve the basis for later dialogue or even reconciliation – it can be useful to call on a competent third party.
A third-party mediator who will identify the conditions of each stakeholder and lead the process towards a peaceful and lasting agreement.
And this “mediation”, like leading collective intelligence towards a shared output, is also one of my areas of added value.
Mobilising those who hesitate
Finally, polarising means depriving oneself of a capacity for mobilisation. That of the greatest number, in every difficult project. That of the “hesitant”, those who say “yes, but”, or “no, but”…
This particular outlook, far from the “for or against” that polarisation reflects, and this attention paid to others, is what Jean-Christian Fauvet developed and formalised under the name of “sociodynamics”. I discovered it within the teams of Herbemont César et Associés, led by the late Olivier d’Herbemont and Bruno César, who regularly invited Jean-Christian to share with us his perspective, his knowledge and his kindness.
Because, as he used to say, “a project does not die from too many opponents, but from a cruel lack of allies”. And in every project, especially when it is humanly and/or technically complex, the focus is always on the “opponents” (what is also called the magpie syndrome, which directs attention exclusively at “whatever glitters”). Those who are “against”.
Often assuming, moreover, that “allies” are those who agree “100%” (and thereby depriving oneself of their ability, through critical but constructive thinking, to address the inevitable weaknesses and small flaws of your project).
And forgetting that the “great mass” of stakeholders is both “for” and “against”. Or rather, that it is divided, along the double gradient of synergy and antagonism. In agreement with some aspects of your project, opposed to others… what can also be called their “conditions for buy-in”.
Accepting and encouraging polarisation, in our society as in our organisations and companies, means depriving oneself of the levers of this mobilisation, of engagement, and therefore of the success of the project you are leading.
It means believing you are right on your own, shutting yourself away in a tower that is ivory in name only. And it leaves antagonistic projects all the room they need to pursue their own dynamic. One that will overwhelm you.
On the contrary, leaving a door open to discussion, listening to and hearing the other, means maintaining a relationship that will, if need be, make it possible to convince them and mobilise them in favour of a shared dynamic. One that can incorporate their “conditions for buy-in” to become a “lateral project”[2] – because building together also means taking a step towards the other, and believing in their “intelligence” too. Which brings us back to the central subject of collective intelligence.
These stakeholder strategies, this building of shared dynamics, are also skills and experience that I put to work for your challenges, your projects, your performance…
The art of leading difficult discussions
Finally – because all this is always useful, but indispensable when you feel you have already tried everything, or simply because you want to save time and energy – it is essential to master the art of leading difficult discussions.
What Theodore Zeldin describes as “conversations”[3]. Or Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay as “impossible conversations”[4]. I wrote about this on this site in an earlier article: Two-ways conversations
When you are a stakeholder yourself, this is complicated, even impossible. That is where a third party comes in. A trusted third party, a competent third party.
To defuse the conflict, between individuals or between groups, and build the foundations of a shared, renewed dynamic.
The prerequisite, however, is that you decide and accept that the other remains a potential partner. Including in a discussion that sets out the points of, and reasons for, a deep disagreement. A conversation partner at least, if not a partner in a shared project. To acknowledge, at the very least, a “civilised disagreement”, while refusing to enter into the dynamics of polarisation.
In our democratic societies, this is essential if we are to go on living together. Otherwise there will be fracture, even secession.
In our companies, it is essential too, because that is what an employment contract is for. Otherwise, it has to be ended.
But before it comes to that, let’s talk!
[1] Mehdi Moussaïd, « A-t-on besoin d’un chef – petit traité d’intelligence collective », Allary Éditions, 2025
[2] Olivier d’Herbemont, Bruno César, « La stratégie du projet latéral », Dunod, 2003. A new edition of their great classic, first published in 1996.
[3] Theodore Zeldin, “Conversation. How talk can change our lives”, Harvill Press, 1998; HiddenSpring Books, 2000.
[4] Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay, “How to have impossible conversations. A very practical guide”, Lifelong Books, 2019
Leave a Reply