We consider any human work organization always in its relationship with its environment, which varies with the rhythm of happy or constraining events and which impacts the work organization. It attempts to maintain its operating autonomy by adjusting its own operating rules. We distinguish three of them which participate in preserving autonomy and whose adjustment ensures the growth of the organization...  

We distinguish three operating rules that help preserve autonomy and whose adjustment ensures the growth of the organization:

1/ The social rules (it is the tradition, the culture, the beliefs which frame the behaviors and decision-making processes of the members of the system. It is an instance of systemic control in the sense that one submits to it because it is usage. In the case we have presented, the relational model that dominates is of the democratic-permissive type (everyone can do what they want without consequence, we have rights, we have no duties, when that works, it's great, but when it disrupts individual and collective efficiency, that's when we see all kinds of symptoms. In our case, the permissive democratic relational model dominates exchanges at all levels, both that between Philippine and Jeanne, than between them and the many actors mobilized by Jeanne).

2/ The formal rules which designate the law, the internal regulations and the system of sanctions. In our case, there are rules such as the annual evaluation interview and it is possible not to submit to it, just report it! what Jeanne does and what is relayed by Philipine. This body is therefore not effective and therefore causes its authors, the hierarchy, to lose its credibility.

3/ Relational rules are those that are played out in the concrete action between the members of the working community and which breathe flexibility into the systemic and formal regulatory authorities, the more flexible they are the more it is possible in the interactions of being in high complementarity (I take the leaderchip of the relationship) or low (I submit to the leadership of my interlocutor) or in symmetry (each one acts according to an egalitarian mode, in mimicry). In our case, the relational rule between Philipine and Jeanne is strictly complementary with Jeanne who can do what she wants and who dominates the hierarchical relationship and Philippine who is polarized in a low position. Their interactions do not find ways of regulation that would allow them to adjust in a more flexible relational mode. Their interactions conform to the social rule, of the permissive democratic type, Philipine despite all her attempts is unable to exercise her authority and Jeanne despite all her initiatives does not achieve her goals. Their relationship is in pain and each one suffers differently. Filipina because she loses more and more her credibility and loses control of her position and Jeanne ends up being recognized as more and more fragile which ends up making her claims legitimate in her eyes and making her annoying but also threatening in the eyes of others .

To better understand suffering, let's first look at when it doesn't suffer. In fact, what is well-being?

Well-being at work, but also well-being in general, will depend on the product of the possible interactions that take place between the individual and his context. That is to say the relationship that the individual has with what he does and lives and which depends on the resources and constraints related to himself (his body, his experience, his intentions), to others and to its context.

When the balance between all these interactions is satisfactory, we have the impression of being in good health because we feel able to maintain integrity and autonomy despite all the continuous variations that we undergo: those of our body which self-regulates, that of others who have their own autonomy, those of our environment (activity, work organization, the wider environment) which presents its own variations.

We believe that suffering at work is the expression of a rigidity in the interaction of the individual with his environment. And what suffers and causes suffering is this relationship that constitutes the link between the individual and his context.

S48 the malaise at work will correspond to a dysfunctional regulation of these interactions, which can be The relationship to oneself, the relationship to others and the relationship to the context and when it becomes pathological all these dimensions are affected.

How can this go wrong?

For example, faced with a difficulty one can try to avoid it (we want to avoid conflicts at all costs, for example, as an absolute rule, but since it is impossible not to encounter relational tensions, we end up finding ourselves to suffer the consequences of a rule of conduct marked by excessive caution).

Faced with a difficulty, one can, on the contrary of avoidance, favor confrontation and want to act on it. For this purpose we mobilize all our intelligence and our rationality in order to find solutions and if our attempts at control become excessive we can end up losing control because no living phenomenon can be totally controlled and we can therefore end up losing control by excess control So when attempts at control or avoidance dominate a relationship, they reveal their inefficiency and make those who initiate them vulnerable. But as their rule of conduct is consistent from their point of view, the impotence encountered is not called into question. These logics of action create knowledge and therefore beliefs. I can believe that I am able to cope with my work situation but if my experiences are unhappy I can lose sight of the fact that my systematic avoidance behaviors or my excesses of control are in question and then be led to make sense of it. which will be unrelated to any responsibility in what I live: others cannot be trusted, management or my manager is not doing the right thing, the rules that are in place are not working, I am incapable to face, etc.

Well-being at work.

A successful adaptation is one where we participate in transforming our environment and by acting on it we also transform ourselves. As long as these transformations can take place we actively experience health. What characterizes all our interventions consists in stopping the stopping of the suffering

An example of burnout:

Thus we expose in our book, a particular moment of the professional exhaustion, the burnout, which corresponds from our point of view to a culminating point where an adaptive rupture takes place between a person and his work situation. The person can no longer work. She is exhausted, and this moment is when the body takes back its rights over the person, stopping an escalation of demands (personal demands, a perfectionist nature) and that of the work situation (management demands, and/or or dense activity, etc.). From there, it is possible to do something about this accident, provided that we review the rules of the game of our interaction. Let's not forget that the phoenix rises from its ashes. This is the position that we support and that guides all our interventions.