The Four Keys to the New Social Deal

The social "new deal" requires a fair arbitration of the four pillars of success: justice, benevolence, dignity and performance. The fairness of that arbitration can even be measured.

Can we really envisage such an alignment in a country where social demands resemble trench warfare? The objective for all the protagonists too often seems to be pulling the blanket to their own side. In this zero-sum logic, there is confrontation between those who want to extort advantages and those who want to concede as little as possible.

Faced with this very archaic vision that pits so-called "exploiters" against the "exploited" — who are forced to live together because they mutually need one another — can we imagine an alternative?

Aligning interests is not a utopia

Let us start with the shareholders' interest: they want to maximize the company's performance, which guarantees the sustainability of their investment and their income. They therefore expect the executives they have hired to maximize performance. It is, moreover, often the evolution of performance that determines (more or less well) executive compensation. Unsurprisingly, then, the executives' interest is also to maximize performance.

Engagement makes both sides' interests converge

It has, moreover, been abundantly demonstrated that engaged employees increase productivity and profits. According to PwC, this improvement can even reach 35%. It follows that the interest of leaders and shareholders is to have engaged employees. Without that, they would deprive themselves of optimal performance, which would sadly affect their income. To know whether they have optimal performance, shareholders and leaders should obviously measure the engagement level of the people who deliver that performance. Without this, there is no way to verify that the performance displayed is optimal — because it is delivered by genuinely engaged employees.

As it would be absurd for them to invest themselves in the company without finding their own interest in it, these conditions must obviously serve the employees' interests. Indeed, we cannot expect employees to give the best of themselves if they are not treated equitably. The same applies if they perceive an absence of benevolence, or if their activity carries no meaning. And the same is true, finally, if, being afraid, they do not feel safe. By measuring the level of engagement, we also measure — at the same time and indirectly — the sense of safety and equity, the perception of benevolence, and meaning.

A fairer world founded on equity and benevolence

Equity and benevolence are complementary. Equity requires a governance that enforces justice by ensuring the sense of safety. Not only justice as respect for the law, but above all the kind that ensures things are done "fairly." Without a mechanism that protects against abuses of power, fear is inevitable. Putting in place an internal justice system that ensures the psychological safety of employees is therefore in the interest of shareholders and management. This is not science fiction, and I know organizations that have successfully implemented such governance.

As we also cannot expect employees to invest themselves if they feel they are not treated with benevolence, benevolence appears to be a second prerequisite for obtaining their engagement.

To engage, one also needs an activity that carries meaning. It is up to executives to ensure this is the case and that the work performed is a source of pride. This can be true of almost any activity, including the most difficult. I have seen people happy doing work that seemed very thankless to me. What mattered more than the activity itself was being treated well and, above all, with dignity. People whose dignity is not respected will never be engaged. Doing a "bullshit job" — work devoid of meaning — is degrading.

Despite appearances, employees also have an interest in performance being at the rendezvous. It is indispensable for ensuring the sustainability of their jobs. It also contributes to their pride. It is obviously more gratifying and motivating to work for a company whose success is recognized than for one perceived as a lame duck.

The social "new deal" also rests on measuring engagement

Apart from strictly "bread-and-butter" jobs, it thus appears that a high level of employee engagement is the common denominator serving the interests of all parties involved: shareholders, executives, and even employees — who will only be engaged if the necessary steps have been taken for them to feel good and safe.

There is no single recipe for obtaining engagement. It is up to each executive to find, among all these levers, the mix that suits them and that is in phase with their values and beliefs.

In search of a fairer social balance

The only certainty is that, whatever the mix, the social "new deal" must include a fair arbitration of the four keys: justice, benevolence, respect for everyone's dignity, but also performance. Too often, those who measure engagement do so with climate surveys that are not the most appropriate for really measuring employees' level of engagement.

The social "new deal" is therefore clearly within reach. It requires few adjustments. Correctly measuring the level of engagement is a prerequisite, since it validates the relevance of the arbitration of the four keys. The reorganizations of work imposed by the pandemic thus represent a fine opportunity to introduce these adjustments and to start afresh on more gratifying foundations for everyone.

Entrepreneur, professor, author of bestsellers and of "Les leviers de l'engagement," Raphaël H Cohen is academic director of the entrepreneurial leadership specialization of the University of Geneva's EMBA.