Parisa Dashtipour
email: parisa2@mdx.ac.uk

Bénédicte Vidaillet
email: benedicte.vidaillet@u-pec.fr

Reclaiming the shadow of leadership

published or not. The documents may come

Christophe Dejours' psychodynamic theory of work and its implications for leadership

Parisa Dashtipour,

Introduction

Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership centre on emotions and the role of the leader as the manager of emotion [START_REF] Gabriel | Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership[END_REF]. These perspectives have often focused on the dysfunctions of leadership, the way in which leaders contribute to 'dark' and unhealthy organizational lives. In contrast to such approaches, in this paper we draw from Christophe Dejours' psychodynamic theory of work, in order to explore what role leaders could play to facilitate health in organizations.

We first begin by providing a short overview of some psychoanalytic perspectives on leadership. We show that such approaches illuminate the emotions and fantasies entailed in leadership or in the bonds between leaders and followers. We then discuss Dejours' psychodynamic theory, which provides a different view. This theory does not focus on the emotions and fantasies associated with leadership, but insteaddemonstrates the role of work in the affective and social life of the subject and the implications this has for leading/managing workers.

Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership

Psychoanalytically informed approacheshighlight the emotions and fantasies involved in leadership [START_REF] Gabriel | Psychoanalytic approaches to leadership[END_REF]. A great deal of the psychoanalytic perspectives drawsonFreudian and Kleinian concepts (Baum, 1987;[START_REF] Cluley | The psychoanalytic relationship between leaders and followers[END_REF][START_REF] Kets De Vries | The Neurotic Organization[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | The Risk Taker as Shadow: A Psychoanalytic View of the Collapse of Barings Bank[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | Unbounded Irrationality: Risk and Organizational Narcissism at Long Term Capital Management[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | The Othello conundrum : the inner contagion of leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | Oedipus Rex at Enron: Leadership, Oedipal Struggles, and Organizational Collapse[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | When Does Narcissistic Leadership Become Problematic? Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers[END_REF][START_REF] Zaleznik | Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?[END_REF][START_REF] Zaleznik | Leading and managing : Understanding the difference[END_REF], but a minority of publications alsomake use of Lacanian theory [START_REF] Costas | The Return of the Primal Father' in Postmodernity? A Lacanian Analysis of Authentic Leadership[END_REF]Driver, 2013).

Much of the psychoanalytic literature focuses on the interior life of leaders and on leadership personalities (Lapierre, 1992[START_REF] Lapierre | Imaginaire et leadership, volume II (« Le contrôle, les affects et le leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Lapierre | Imaginaire et leadership, volume III (« Le deuil, la création et le leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Lapierre | La subjectivité et la direction[END_REF][START_REF] Lapierre | Affectivité, défenses et leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Obholzer | Psychoanalytic contributions to authority and leadership issuesnull[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | The Othello conundrum : the inner contagion of leadership[END_REF], often concentrating on the 'dark' sides of leadership.

Leadership dysfunctions have been a key focus of psychoanalytic perspectives, which includes, for example, studies that unveil the relationship between neurotic pathologies such as narcissistic leaders and organizational dysfunctions (Kets de [START_REF] Kets De Vries | Prisoners of leadership[END_REF]Miller, 1984, 1991;[START_REF] Maccoby | Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons[END_REF][START_REF] Rosenthal | Narcissistic leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Schwartz | Narcissistic Process and Corporate Decay[END_REF].

Others have focused on the issue of followership. [START_REF] Kohut | The Analysis of the Self[END_REF] popularized the idea that leaders are often viewed and related to by followers in ways that reflect earlier childhood relationships with parental figures. Gabriel (1997) studied various fantasies through the stories that followers tell about their leaders. Some have also studied the emotional bond between leaders and followers [START_REF] Cluley | The psychoanalytic relationship between leaders and followers[END_REF][START_REF] Kets De Vries | Prisoners of leadership[END_REF]Kets et Vries and Miller, 1984, chapter 3). Kets de [START_REF] Kets De Vries | Prisoners of leadership[END_REF] shows how this bondoften involves defensive and transference processes and the management of anxieties, all of which can often lead to dysfunctional behavior.

A psychoanalytic approach that somewhat differs from the above mentioned is [START_REF] Zaleznik | Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?[END_REF][START_REF] Zaleznik | Leading and managing : Understanding the difference[END_REF], who, focuses on the difference between managers and leaders. He advocates the development of leaders, rather than managers in organizations. While managers are focused on rationality, order and control, leaders are more intuitive, emotional and creative, and they have passion and vision. Managers "dedicate themselves to process, structures, roles, and indirect forms of communication and [they] ignore ideas, people, emotions, and direct talk" (Zaleznik, 1991, p. 97). Managers are practical and focus on order and control, but leaders are emotional and can cope better with disorder.

Managers feel detached from the substance of business and task and they prioritizeprocess, interest politics and self-interest overthe content of work (Zaleznik, 1991: 112). This makes them very manipulative, devious and calculative. One of the key problems with modern business today, Zaleznik (1991: 116) argues, is the "managerial orientation, with its emphasis on form over substance, on structure over people, and on power relationships over work".

Leaders develop a personal relationship with their teams, while managers adopt an impersonal, bureaucratic style. Management, [START_REF] Zaleznik | Leading and managing : Understanding the difference[END_REF] implies, discourages individual responsibility and assertiveness, while leadership evokes passion, commitment and dedication.

As an alternative to the predominantly Klein/Bion/Freud perspectives, a small number of scholars have drawn on Lacan. Driver (2013) focuses on the imaginary construction of leadership identities that ultimately fail. [START_REF] Costas | The Return of the Primal Father' in Postmodernity? A Lacanian Analysis of Authentic Leadership[END_REF] discuss the now popular'authentic leadership' approach, and its focus on positive emotions such as love.

Drawing from Lacanian concepts, they show how authentic leadership, while seemingly offering a more just leader-follower relations, can in fact conceal leader-follower inequalities and relations of dependency. It could be argued that the Lacanian perspectives provide a more critical view of leadership than the Kleinian/Bion/Freud approaches, given the focus on discourse and power. However, Driver (2013) and [START_REF] Costas | The Return of the Primal Father' in Postmodernity? A Lacanian Analysis of Authentic Leadership[END_REF] still centreon the leader, on the fantasies associated to his/her role or on complex, unconscious, emotional leader-follower relations. A radically different psychoanalytically informed theory is Dejours, which we will turn to in the following.

Dejours theory of work and its implications for leadership

Although Dejours' perspective is Freudian, hedoes not provide a psychoanalytic theory of leadership. His theory is primarily concerned with work and the relationship between the activity of working, subjectivity and health. This is not to say, however, that he is not concerned with the issue of leadership in work organizations. He nevertheless departs from the existing psychoanalytically informed literature on leadership in many ways. Dejours does not focus on the person of the leader, his or her inner life, pathologies and dysfunctions.Neither is he interested in the emotional bonds between leaders and managers. Rather, his main concern is to delineate the role of work in the affective and social life of the worker and the implications of this for leading workers. It is important to note thatDejours does not speak of 'leaders' but of 'managers', and he focuses mostly on 'middle management' or 'team managers'. This choice of terminology and focus is not insignificant. It does not suggest that he concurs withmanagement's concern for rationality, order and control. Rather, it could be said thatthe choice of the word 'manager', rather than 'leader', reflects the view that the primaryrole of the person in charge of a group of workers is not to inspireand evoke passion and commitment to the organization, but to focus on work itself, and to support workers in the 'doing' of work. Indeed, Dejours theory does not shy away from making normative claims. He insist, for example, that work can be beneficial for health and subjective enhancement, and to a large extent, Dejours' work is concerned with identifying the conditions that turn the experience of work either into one of health and pleasure, subjective expansion and freedom or one of pathological suffering and unhealth. The manager/leader plays a crucial role, not because he/she can help to develop personal relationships or to encourage creativity, but because they can support workers in dealing with the real while working, and thus contribute towards health. The real of work is the objective world that poses a challenge to the subject and puts a limit to action. The planned organization of work -or prescriptions, guidelines, or instructions -is never the same as the actual reality of the concrete work activity; something(s) interrupt(s) the direct application of rules and guidelines. For Dejours, to work is, first, to experience the 'real' (which is not the Lacanian real). 'The real is experienced by the one who works by its resistance to know-how, to procedures, to prescriptions; more generally it reveals itself under the form of a breakdown of technical know-how and even knowledge ' (2009b: 27). The real may include fatigue, insufficient skills/experience, contradictory organizational rules or instructions, or the occurrence of unexpected events (for example, breakdowns of machines, tools, materials and systems, or disruptions that arise due to other colleagues, bosses or subordinates). The real implies 'the experience of the world's resistance' (Dejours, 2009b: 21). As a consequence, for Dejours:

working consists [for the subject] in bridging the gap between the prescriptive and the real. But what has to be done to bridge this gap cannot be planned in advance. The way to go from the prescribed to the real must always been invented or discovered by the working subject. Hence, for the clinician, work is defined as what the subject must add to the prescriptions to reach the objectives that are assigned to him (2007: 14).

In order to conquer the resistance of the world, the subject needs to apply effort. Even the most thorough guidelines require some degree of resourcefulness on the part of the worker, who mobilizes intellect and affect and 'gives' himself or herself to the task.If the worker feels unable to cope with the real, he/she will experience pathological suffering [START_REF] Dejours | Souffrance en France[END_REF](Dejours, , 2014(Dejours, , 2015a)). It is here that the psychoanalytic perspective of Dejours becomes most clear.

Dejours develops the concept of 'ordinary sublimation ' (2011: 137). [START_REF] Freud | Civilization and its discontents[END_REF] states that working can be for human beings a very efficient way of sublimation because it enables them to inscribe themselves in the community and to contribute to its development. But

Freud refers here to a very specific kind of work: the Great Work of artists or researchers, and he underlines that ordinary work is avoided and hated by most people and conducted merely to earn a living. According to Dejours, the process of sublimation occurs also in ordinary work in the form of 'ordinary sublimation', when the worker must use his body, his intelligence, his subjectivity to overcome the difficulties coming from the occurrence of the real. This concept of ordinary sublimation also indicates how work and sexuality are linked in Dejours' conception (2009a): it is always the sexual drive that is at the origin of the desire to move, to act. The drive is a concept that is at the frontier between the body and the psyche and is closely associated with affect (because the drive cannot be 'directly' visible: affect is a translation of the drive into a feeling). The drive has to renounce its sexual component to be transformed into the involvement of the worker in the process of answering to the real. And the affect of suffering (as pathos) refers to the stopping of the movement of the drive when it is suddenly interrupted. For Dejours, the working process enables the drive to be transformed and sublimated (Dejours, 2009a). The subject at work, while working with tools and technologies, and deploying the body and thought to 'work on' something, is also carrying out a kind of 'psychic work' on the drive.

Define priorities andmake choices and trade-offs

This is not to be confused with the classic managerialistidea that managers set goals and targets. From the Dejoursian perspective, the priorities and choices concern the elicitation of what has to come first in case there are contradictions between the various prescribed rules and targets -what Yves [START_REF] Clot | Le travail à coeur[END_REF] calls "the conflict of criteria". For instance, very often the criteria of rapidity and productivity for hospital doctors are contradictory with the criteria of care quality. Manager's role is to prioritize among contradictory criteria, but in doing that, he/she takes into account the rules discussed and elaborated by the work collective. The manager needs to outline and defend these trade-offs. A consequence of this is that when a worker decides not to apply a prescription because of itsincompatibility with the real of work, s/he knows that s/he can refer to the rules and priorities supported by the work collective and by the manager. The doing of workers takes place within a safe professional frame.

Enable cooperation, rather than coordination

The classic conception of the manager is one whoorganizes coordination between team members, i.e. he organizes and allocates tasks among colleagues in order to complete the assigned work. However, [START_REF] Dejours | The Lack of Power or the Power of Lack in Leadership as a Discursively Constructed Identity[END_REF] asserts that the main mission of the manager is "to enable cooperation" (p.166).His theorydifferentiates between coordination and cooperation. While coordination implies a system of domination that artificially imposes how people should relate through their tasks, cooperation implies a 'deontic activity', or a collective activity of producing 'work rules' and agreements between workers that enable them to answer to the real of work and most of the time contrasts with the formal rules and prescriptions implied by coordination.The capacity of work organization to produce cooperation, instead of coordination, is a decisive factor here. Working effectively implies changing the prescriptions. Workers answer to prescribed coordination by engaging in effective cooperation.

As a consequence a role of the manager is to support spaces of deliberation between members of his/her team. These may include formal spaces, such as team meetings, staff meetings, debriefing meetings, in which the decisions on how work has to be done (to answer to the real of work) are elaborated, registered, and collectively defended. It may also include informal spaces (at the cafeteria, coffee break, reception, cloakroom, etc.),that can facilitate the development of trust and mutual knowledge between colleagues, and where these decisions can be commented, discussed, and internalized. Trust between colleagues is here very important if one wants people to accept engaging in such collective deliberation (trust because it implies to explain what does not work, the difficulties people encounter when they work, the prescriptions people follow, which makes it difficult to follow other prescriptions etc.).

Dejours underlines that a fundamental role of the manager is to finally decide when the deliberative process does not allow workers to reach consensus concerning the definition and use of work rules. This possibility of referring to the arbitration or the final decision of the manager prevents the work organization from collapsing in case of dissensus.

However, according to Dejours, a specific quality of the manager is here required for workers to respect the choice made: his or her authority has to be recognized by them. This authority is the "supplement" that will give the "manager's voice" (Dejours, 2009b, p. 141) a different status than the voice of the other workers. This authority is based on: first, the ability to engage oneself in listening (what Dejours calls "risky" or "engaged listening"); and second, the manager needs to have the appropriateabilities and the know-how in the professional field in which workers themselves are engaged, i.e. a recognized competency in dealing with the real of work. Authority is this special character of power that gives power its legitimacy. Dejours recognizes that authority always entails the risk of authoritative deviation, but the collective encounter with the real is supposed to limit this possibility of arbitrariness.

Dejours also underlines that every authority has to be incarnated in a living body (2009b, p. 147); according to him even the authority of an institution cannot last without the incarnation in a physical and human body. He strongly criticizes organizations in which it is difficult to identify who is supposed to incarnate and exercise authority.

Mediator between the hierarchy and the team

The manager is accountable for the choices made in the work collective and he has to take responsibility, over the long run, for the consequences of these choices in front of the workers as well as in front of his/her hierarchy. Another role of the leader/manager is to translate the directives and instructions from the hierarchy to the team (and not transmit them), explaining what it implies for the concrete work of the people in the team, what it changes. It means also that the manager has to interpret those instructions according to his/her knowledge of the real of work and as a consequence, s/he may take (and assume) a risk with regards to his/her hierarchical superiors. The manager/leader's responsibility is also to transmit to his/her superiors his/her knowledge of the real of work of his/her team, of their efforts, and of the collective interpretation of directives and prescriptions. The manager is the 'depository' of such knowledge, and has to transmit to his/her hierarchy the difficulties people encounter when they work. It may even imply strong negotiations with the executive management or committee when s/he considers that some instructions or orientations are incompatible with the work of the team.

It must be underlined that Dejours has since long defended such an ethical involvement of managers at work. In Souffranceen France (1998) he insisted on the fact that people are responsible for what happens at work and that they cannot always transferto the upper level the responsibility of what they do (he made the comparison with the banality of evil during WW2 thus using Hannah Arendt's concept). At that time (in 1998), Dejours asserted that people should not stay as passive transmitters of directives, but that they had to engage themselves ethically and politically if they did not agree with the decisions taken by the top-levels. In his 2015 book, he seems to insist more on the fact that everyone has to take their share of the responsibility at the level of the doing of the real of work. This is less of a 'moral' position, and instead refers to deontic activity as ethical activity (because it raises questions about what a 'good job' is and 'how a good job should be done').

Conclusions

In this paper we have clarified the contribution of Christophe Dejours' psychodynamic theory of work and its implications for leadership. We have argued that Dejours does not provide a psychoanalytic theory of leadership; he is not concerned with the inner life of the leader or the emotional bonds between the leader and the follower. Rather, he draws from psychoanalytic theory to understand the impact of work on the life of the subject, and hence, provides a normative theory of the role of the leader/manager that takes into account the real of work and the importance of sublimation through work.

As such, Dejours approach also differs from the authentic or collaborative leadership perspectives [START_REF] Avolio | Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positiveforms of leadership[END_REF][START_REF] Ladkin | Enacting the 'true self': Towards a theory of embodied authenticleadership[END_REF], which seek to establish more equal and empowering relations between leaders and followers. Such approaches focus on the emotional relationships between leaders and followers and promote empathy and love. Rather than advocating a specific leadership characteristic that promotes the establishment of harmonious sympathetic relationships, Dejours approach centres on work. Therefore, [START_REF] Dejours | Travail vivant -Tome 2 : Travail et émancipation[END_REF],if he does focus on the manager, points out the necessary subjective involvement of the manager in the managerial process: he must apply his intelligence, his affectivity and his body -his subjectivity -in the process of managing. It is perhaps at this level that we should explain that managing is a working process in itself, and as a consequence, the considerations of Dejours about the necessary subjective involvement at work also apply here.

From

  the perspective of Dejours, what enables a worker to work properly (i.e. answer to the real of work by mobilizing his/her subjectivity) are work rules, and the support of a work collective. However, Dejoursclearly adds in his recent books,Travail vivant (second volume, 2009b)andLe choix -Souffrir au travail n'est pas unefatalité (2015) that the worker and the work collectives also need the support of a manager whose role is very specific. The leader's, or manager's, principal role is to beaware of the importance of the process of sublimation in work. This implies that they need to recognize the difficulties encountered by his/her team members when working and support workers in the 'doing' of work with his/her technical knowledge and know-how. It entails acknowledging the contradictions enclosed in the prescribed organization, the difficulties and failures that occur in the work process. In what follows, we elaborate further on the role of the manager from the perspective of Dejours.


"Two days, one night" or the objective violence of capitalism Bénédicte Vidaillet (University Paris East Créteil, Institut de Recherche en Gestion, France)

Violence is omnipresent in the Dardenne brothers' film Two Days, One Night. But does the violence lie with the characters, willing to sacrifice one of their already vulnerable colleagues, or does it lie with the system, which forces them to make an impossible choice where everyone, ultimately, has something to lose? Using the works of philosopher Slavoj Žižek as a framework, I shall attempt to ponder this question of violence and how it might be overcome.

MORAL DILEMMA AND REDEMPTION

The position of having to make an impossible choice, in which the characters of the movie are placed, could not, under current labour law, occur in France, Germany or Belgium. In this small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) of seventeen employees, including one working under a fixed-term contract, the workers are asked by their boss to decide by vote whether they would prefer to receive a €1000 bonus, or to reinstate Sandra, a permanent employee due to return to work after long-term sick leave (the two options being irreconcilable for economic reasons related to international competition). Indeed, according to employment regulations, the dismissal of an employee cannot result from such a choice. Moreover, in reality it is the fixed contract position that would be eliminated in such a case, a solution which Sandra's boss only considers at the very end of the film.

However, this situation of being forced to make a choice, though fictitious, does refer to an already large number of cases in which employees have been placed in such a dilemma and made directly responsible for solving such a problem. For instance, in France, in 2004, the German Bosch group asked its employees to vote between a reduction in wage costs or 400 job cuts. The 2013 National Inter-sectoral Agreement (ANI), or "competitive employment agreement", allows employers to negotiate with their employees whether to increase working hours without increasing wages, or to cut wages without reducing working hours. Thus, in 2015, the management executives of the Smart factory of Hambach (Moselle) organized a referendum in which its 800 employees were asked to vote for or against a proposal to increase their working hours (i.e. to work 39 hours a week and be paid for 37) in exchange for guaranteeing their jobs until 2020. Such situations are likely to become more common in France, as the government wishes, through the new labour law, to give more weight to local agreements at company level than to sector-wide agreements and legal codes, and to encourage the widespread use of company referendums. Such local arrangements risk creating the situation described in the film. The film can therefore be understood as a fiction built around a very simple plot line 1, which strongly brings to light the implications of the practical application in the workplace of a neoliberal paradigm based on deregulation and individual choice, and the way in which workers may confront it.

The movie could at first be perceived as conveying a message about individual morality. Indeed, the decision each of Sandra's colleagues faces can be understood as a moral dilemma which conflicts personal interests with values of solidarity. The movie shows individuals absorbed by a pressing need to earn money, some having to moonlight at weekends to make ends meet; some with materialistic motivations, such as wanting home improvements, to buy new household appliances or a bigger house (such as Sandra and her husband, for whom moving back to social housing is out of the question); and some with problems such as an unemployed spouse, debts or school fees to pay. But, beyond the diversity of these individual situations, the movie paints the portrait of an individualized and weakened contemporary subject. The film depicts a range of possible responses, which often affect the workers' families, to an extremely difficult moral dilemma: from support, avoidance, denial, remorse, ambivalence, and finally to violence. This violence can be direct, in the form of criticism of Sandra, for instance for "asking us to give up that bonus we so badly need for our children", or for "taking our bonus from us"; or in the form of a physical attack, when someone attempts to hit her. But it can also be more subtle, as when a coworker disqualifies Sandra by mentioning the depression she went through and his doubt as to her ability to work again.

The series of scenes in which Sandra meets with each of her colleagues to ask them what they have decided, does seem to reduce the situation to a direct face-to-face in which one of the two characters necessarily loses something. But each face-to-face interaction also serves as an opportunity for the characters to identify with each other, in terms of the co-worker imagining Sandra's risk of losing her job on the one hand, and Sandra's understanding of her colleague's personal reasons for wanting to receive the bonus on the other. Exhortations to "put yourself in my shoes", for instance, punctuate all these sequences, and each party has the same argument: the need for money, either the salary or the bonus. "I'd like you to vote for me; we need my salary", "without my salary, we can't make it", Sandra repeats, which meets responses such as: "I can't, I need my bonus". This confinement within a closed-door encounter during which, through a mirror effect, Sandra and a co-worker are set up to identify with each other, makes it difficult to condemn their decisions (except in the case of the few who respond malevolently). Sandra frequently responds with "I put myself in their place: one thousand Euros", "I understand, don't apologize", "that's too bad for me but I understand" when people try to apologize or ask her to "not take it the wrong way". When the reasons given for preferring to receive the bonus are "understandable" and human, the only argument likely to make them change their mind seems to be one of a moral nature, arguments that counterbalance the others based on values of solidarity, which invariably involve some form of sacrifice.

Analysed from this perspective, the movie can be seen as depicting Sandra's journey to redemption. The beginning of the movie describes a woman in a state of vulnerability, who relies on drugs to cope, is about to give up everything, including life, but who gradually starts fighting back (beginning with her meetings with co-workers), and in so doing regains health and dignity. Initially beset by a feeling of loneliness, she realizes that she is loved and supported by her husband, but also by some colleagues. When Sandra's boss eventually proposes to reinstate her once one colleague (who had voted for her reinstatement in the second round) employed on a short-term basis has completed his contract, she is faced with the same dilemma with which she has relentlessly confronted her colleagues. Sandra then makes the decision to leave the company and the final scene shows her beginning her job hunt and moving on.

OBJECTIVE VS. SUBJECTIVE VIOLENCE

This initial interpretation of the movie might suggest that the only right choice to make when faced with such a dilemma is to choose the option that involves sacrificing oneself in the name of solidarity. The idea being that this selfsacrifice allows subjects to keep their dignityeven if this means losing their money or joband keeps them from behaving like the bastard the system relies on to survive. The movie can thus be seen to be teaching the ethic of reciprocity: "Treat others as you wish to be treated", "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you".

But this limited interpretation of Two Days, One Night would not seem to do justice to the Dardenne brothers' work overall. The first of their films that met with international success and recognition, Rosetta (1999), portrays a young woman desperate to find a job and a way out of poverty, following a first failure which was the result of an injustice. Despite Riquet being the only person to have given her comfort and support, Rosetta betrays him to his boss in order to get his job. The point of the movie is not to condemn Rosetta, but to question the system that causes the characters to go to such lengths. Similarly, Two Days, One Night shows the system to create situations in which everybody loses. This -system‖ is not referred to directly, but is implicated, for instance, in the references to the competitive situation and financial difficulties in which the company finds itself, as well as the pressure the company's management is under. This pressure is passed down to Sandra's colleagues who are forced to make a difficult decision within a short timeframe. The cinematic technique of repeated close ups of characters' faces during their one-to-one confrontations with Sandra conveys the strain of their struggle with this. Because Sandra's appeal to her co-workers takes place outside working hours (please see Gazi Islam below for more on this), the fiction of common objectives around work is dissolved, and all that remains is a fight for the job (de Gaulejac, 2014).

One can infer from this analysis that the only way out would be to challenge the rules of the system, by, to begin with, refusing to be placed in this dilemma. Although they understand that the rules are unfair, no one directly disputes them. When Juliette one of Sandra's colleagues, who supports her from the start, calls on the managing director of the company to hold a new vote, she contests the validity of the first poll's results, but not the principle of the vote itself. Whatever their ultimate choice, the characters implicitly agree to participate in what philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2009, p.2) refers to as -objective‖ violence. Objective violence is -systemic‖, cannot be attributed to an identifiable agent or agents (e.g. global poverty or the sexism embodied in some habitual forms of language), and exists insidiously and almost invisibly within the system and "the 'normal' state of things" (Slavoj Žižek 2009, p.2).

According to Žižek (2009), -subjective‖ violence, however, is more immediate, physical and can easily be attributed to a specific agent (subject) or agents (States, groups, etc). One example of subjective violence in the movie is a fight initiated by a son against his father because he chooses to support Sandra. Subjective violence produces a sense of horror, revulsion and fascination, and, above all, disrupts a "zero level" of violence. Thus, subjective violence is seen to disrupt the normal state of things, whereas objective violence remains within it, and is thus, barely visible or recognizable, while, ironically, simultaneously working to sustain the illusion of the existence of the zero-level. Žižek compares objective violence to the "dark matter" of physics, a major constituent of the universe, which seems undetectable but which is the only explanation for certain gravitational effects on visible matter. Similarly, objective violence is the only way to make sense of outbreaks of subjective violence which otherwise seem irrational and gratuitous. Žižek argues that such violence has, with global capitalism, come to occupy an unprecedented central place in our society. Therein resides the fundamental systemic violence of capitalism, much more uncanny than any direct pre-capitalist socio-ideological violence: this violence is no longer attributable to concrete individuals and their ‗evil' intentions, but is purely ‗objective', systemic, anonymous. Here we encounter the Lacanian difference between reality and the Real: ‗reality' is the social reality of the actual people involved in interaction and in the productive processes, while the Real is the inexorable ‗abstract', spectral logic of capital that determines what goes on in social reality. (Žižek, 2009, p. 11) One aspect of the fundamental violence of capitalism is that it creates a social space experienced as "worldless", in the sense meant by Alain Badiou, which is a space in which the subjects are no longer endowed with the mental representation that helps them make sense of the world they live in. ‗Perhaps, it is here that one of the main dangers of capitalism should be located: (...) it sustains a stricto sensu 'worldless' ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful cognitive mapping. Capitalism is the first socio-economic order which detotalizes meaning' (Žižek, 2009, p. 67). Capitalism deprives individuals of the cognitive references that could provide a framework of intelligibility. Thus, objective violence must be understood as what, within this system, prevents the subject from contesting or actively resisting it (see Yoann Bazin below). The Dardenne brothers' movie shows how the objective violence of capitalism creates an internal struggle between employees in the same team. It creates in them a sense of guilt which they try to justify (-("understand my situation"), or deflect by blaming Sandra, who takes on much of the responsibility: "It's my fault; I'm the one who causes this violence ", "It is because of me that they are prepared to get into a fight".

THE POSSIBILITY OF A POLITICAL COMMUNITY?

However, the film seems to outline the beginnings of a possible shift beyond this boxed-in position. First, each of the characters eventually expresses some opposition. Sandra, who eventually rejects the rules of the game she initially thought "normal", overcomes her sense of guilt and refers to the responsibilities of her superiors in the matter: "I'm not the one who decided that you would lose your bonus if I stayed"; "It's not my fault that they force you to choose." She overcomes her fear, confronts her foreman and makes him face up to his actions: "You called them on the weekend; you tried to scare them" (it is almost regrettable that she accuses him of being "heartless", because this continues to situate the problem at the level of the subjects' identification with others, of individual choice and subjective violence, rather than at the level of objective violence and political struggle). Eventually she opposes her boss altogether by refusing his offer. Some opposition also emerges among those of Sandra's co-workers who publically support her even though the vote is secret. Their choice to forgo their anonymity and accept the consequences possibly creates the conditions for the birth of a political community. This is what one of the final scenes, when Sandra meets her waiting colleagues in the factory's canteen to say goodbye, seems to suggest. Sandra no longer addresses individuals one by one, but faces a group of people who have dealt with a difficult choice in a similar way. This shared experience, which they will always have in common, makes their choice collective, rather than individual, and marks the possible beginning of a community. They no longer face Sandra alone, but instead she seems to have been the condition for their coming together, and it is a group that she leaves behind and feels bonded to: "I will never forget what you did for me". The seeds of this outcome can be found in other scenes in the movie. For instance, when Sandra's colleague, after being confronted by her, becomes conscious of the need to make choices and stop being a victim, thus decides to leave her husband; and then, when the same colleague unexpectedly offers her support, it inspires Sandra to choose to fight for herself. Other examples occur when another colleague reminds Sandra that she once took the blame for a mistake he had made during his trial period, and when Sandra realizes that another colleague is "afraid of Jean Marc [the foreman], just like me". All these moments posit the possibility of building a human community endowed with selfawareness, made of bonds, relationships, reciprocity, with a common memory and a common history; all conditions for the formation of a political community.

In this regardthe link between the ability to fight and building a community -Two Days, One Night can be compared to Mark Herman's movie Brassed Off (1997). When a group of miners is rendered helpless in the face of the closure of their pit, a prospect which threatens their identity and their sense of belonging to a community, the characters focus on saving their colliery brass band at all costs and participating in a national music competition. While this objective may seem futile in the context of a struggle for the survival of their livelihood, it becomes a symbolic challenge, and while the mine is eventually closed, their community, symbolized by the band they belong to, remains, and this belonging is itself an act of affirmation of their fidelity to their political struggle. As one of the miners puts it, "when there's no hope, only principles remain". In this respect, Žižek (1999: 472) notes that fidelity to such principles keeps the political subject, a subject that belongs to a community, in existence. In the Dardenne brothers' movie, hope, and the potential creation of a new, symbolic community, stems from the characters' fidelity to the ordeal they go through and to what develops between those who support Sandra. Those who choose to keep their bonuses, however, are left alone to face a world that remains unchanged for them, and in which there is no possible mediation. But another possible outcome can be illustrated by the film directed by Gustave Kervern and Benoît Delépine, Louise Michel (2008). When the workers of a factory in Picardy discover with dismay that the factory has been relocated overnight, despite the efforts and concessions they had been making for years, they meet at a local coffee shop and decide to pool their small severance pay to hire a hit man to kill the boss. One of the workers, Louise, takes it upon herself to find a suitable professional -Michel, who has never actually killed anyone beforeand together they set off in search of the unscrupulous boss. But as their adventure unfolds, they discover that the man they have just killed was not the person responsible but merely the executor of a decision made in a company which itself was owned by another company, and so on. This leads them into an endless series of murders. When they identify the -real‖ boss, hiding in Jersey, they appear to have reached the end of their search. But it turns out that this boss is in fact under the thumb of an American pension fund, and so the series of murders continues.

In this caustic movie, the main theme, which is the difficulty of identifying, and thus resisting, the ultimate source of power and responsibility, goes hand in hand with the reactions this causes: initial acceptance, resignation and apathy, which give way to a form of violence which, because it remains non symbolized, can become radicalized and directed towards all those who, at some time or other, have played a partinadvertently or notin the system. This subjective violence, terrifying and visible, emanates from the objective violence of the system, which had been invisible and is suddenly revealed for what it is. ! Although this is a fictional case, the gap between fiction and reality may not be that narrow. For instance, in France and other countries, recent outbreaks of anger and violence have followed sudden announcements of factory closures or mass layoffs. A human resources director of Air France once had his shirt ripped off his back, for example, and there was an explosion of violence in 2009 when some employees of a Continental plant in France heard that a court of justice had rejected their request for the suspension of the plant closure procedure, which resulted in the immediate destruction of the Sous-Préfecture 2. In the years prior to this outbreak, the factory's employees and trade unions had made a number of concessions and accepted significant pay cuts in the hope of saving the site. As in the Louise Michel film, the ultimate outbreak of destructive violence was the outcome of a long period of acceptance of and participation in the system. The sense of having been fooled, and of being personally affected, can generate a level of anger that can no longer be mediated or controlled. It is as though the objective violence (Žižek, 1999, 2009) which for years was directed from within the system is transferred to the employees themselves. What will the Two Days, One Night employees who choose to sacrifice Sandra for their bonus do when their turn comes around?


Bénédicte Vidaillet

Understanding the Strange Growing of Individual Performance Appraisal

Envy, Schadenfreude and evaluation : understanding the strange growing of individual performance appraisal

Introduction

Some studies on workplace envy have explored the consequences of specific managerial and organizational practices, tools, and systems on the development of this emotion [START_REF] Dujarier | Envy in organizational life[END_REF]Nickerson & Zenger, 2008;[START_REF] Schaubroeck | Comparing lots before and after: Promotion rejectees' invidious reactions to promotes[END_REF]. In particular, some researchers have looked at the effects of contemporary systems of performance evaluation [START_REF] Stein | Winners‖ training and its trouble[END_REF]Vidaillet, 2008a) based on the definition of key performance indicators, the formulation of individual objectives, performance measurement, -rewards‖ or -sanctions,‖ generally accompanied by a staged comparison of employees that often leads to a ranking in which everyone is assigned a position. In such a performance appraisal system, the evaluation process is no longer just an aspect of the profession but the pivotal element supposed to structure certain aspects that, until now, were relatively independent of it: The relationship between a working individual and his/her activity on one hand (i.e., the very definition of the activity, the conception of the tasks, the organization of labor), and the institution s/he works for, on the other (i.e., what one gains from one's occupation-recognition, remuneration, etc.-in return for what one contributes) become here entirely dependent on evaluation. Conventional thought about individual performance appraisal has addressed it as a process intended to provide a rational basis for managerial decision-making about people-for instance, to determine whether employees require further training and exposure; or whether they qualify for additional pay, promotion, or some other related benefit. However, it has also been shown how harmful these practices could be to organizations, by reinforcing envy among team workers (Vidaillet, 2008a) and, as a consequence, by preventing workers from functioning collectively, by generating tension and conflicts [START_REF] Stein | Winners‖ training and its trouble[END_REF], and by preventing bonding.

The Development of Envy Is Not the Only Problem Resulting from This Type of System.

First, in spite of the widespread practice of performance appraisal, its effectiveness is frequently questioned [START_REF] Taylor | Due process in performance appraisal: A quasi-experiment in procedural justice[END_REF]: Conflicting purposes often undermine attempts at evaluation, and the flaws of the procedures used-including the use of vague qualities, irrelevant measurement criteria, superficial checklists, lack of rater training, low levels of supervisory motivation-lead to unfair evaluations [START_REF] Baron | Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General Managers[END_REF][START_REF] Nurse | Performance appraisal, employee development and organizational justice: Exploring the linkages[END_REF][START_REF] Rice | Performance review: The job nobody likes[END_REF]. More importantly, -behind a mask of objectivity and rationality, executives [may] engage in much manipulation in an intentional and systematic manner‖ (Longnecker et al., 1996, p. 183) because -the formal appraisal process is indeed a political process, and . . . few ratings are determined without some political consideration.‖ Hence, managerial discretion and effectiveness, not accuracy, may be the primary concern of the practicing executive in appraising subordinates. In this approach, organizations are arenas in which negotiations, networking, and the development of political strategies play an important role in determining who gets what, and within what context. What matters might very well -turn out to be not . . . how well one performs, but whom one knows‖ [START_REF] Nurse | Performance appraisal, employee development and organizational justice: Exploring the linkages[END_REF](Nurse, , p. 1179)). The strategies aiming at influencing the judgement of one's manager can be extremely diverse: self-staging, flattery, self-promotion, over-zealousness, or information manipulation [START_REF] Gardner | Impression management in organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Prendergast | A theory of -yes men[END_REF].

Second, these evaluation methods, like any management tool, can negatively affect workers' behavior and undermine their performance [START_REF] Adler | When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings[END_REF][START_REF] Anderson | The effect of creaming on placement rates under the Job Training Partnership Act[END_REF][START_REF] Courty | Measuring government performance: Lessons from a federal job-training program[END_REF]. Thus, economist Maya [START_REF] Beauvallet | Les stratégies absurdes: Comment faire pire en croyant faire mieux[END_REF] compiled an inventory of the research studies showing the absurdity of many performance evaluation and incentive systems. For example, finding that a certain type of patient died regularly on the operating table, a hospital fixed a maximum quota of -losses‖ per surgeon; as a result of this, none of the surgeons was willing to operate on this type of patient when that fatal quota was almost reached. In the United States, a research study in the field of educational sciences [START_REF] Linn | Assessments and accountability[END_REF] examined the States in which there existed a system whereby teachers and schools were remunerated or penalized according to the performance of their students on their tests. It appeared that in those schools, the teachers focused on teaching their students how to correctly answer the questions in the tests, rather than on teaching them fundamental knowledge and skills.

Third, although the advocates of such evaluation methods insist on their -fairness,‖ Castilla and Benard [START_REF] Castilla | Gender, race, and meritocracy in organizational careers[END_REF][START_REF] Castilla | The paradox of meritocracy in organizations[END_REF] show that the opposite is often true: When an organizational culture promotes meritocracy (compared with when it does not), managers in that organization may ironically show greater bias in favor of men over equally performing women in translating employee performance evaluations into rewards and other key career outcomes. They call this the -paradox of meritocracy‖: -an organizational culture that prides itself on meritocracy may encourage bias by convincing managers that they themselves are unbiased, which in turn may discourage them from closely examining their own behaviors for signs of prejudice‖ (Castilla & Benard, 2010, p. 567).

Fourth, researchers in the field of work psychology have shown that individual performance evaluation practices and the associated series of indicators, means of standardization, contractualization, and individualization have contributed to the deterioration of people's health at work [START_REF] Clot | Le travail à coeur[END_REF]Dejours, 2006;[START_REF] Dujarier | Envy in organizational life[END_REF]: by intensifying work, by constantly raising production targets and tracking and eliminating -downtimes,‖ which were actually periods of physical rest, of information exchange or knowledge sharing between colleagues; by reinforcing one's impression of coping alone with the increasingly testing physical and mental demands of work; and finally, by generating the discouraging feeling, among employees, of not being able to -do one's work well‖ because the targets to be reached are more and more constrained, standardized, and monitored.

Finally, if one looks at the situation from Foucault's perspective, one can denounce these evaluation systems as a particularly disturbing form of the -liberal art of governing‖ [START_REF] Foucault | Naissance de la biopolitique[END_REF]:

We have engaged in a society in which the power of law is not diminishing but is being integrated into a far more general type of power: that of normalization. Which implies a completely different supervision and control mechanism. Permanent visibility and classification of individuals, hierarchisation, qualification, the establishment of limits, diagnosis. (Foucault, 1994, p. 77) Under the guise of evaluating, the aim is actually to normalize, control, and impose behaviors. In this perspective, evaluation tools pertain to new techniques used in a society in which supervision is generalized [START_REF] Gori | L'idéologie de l'évaluation: un nouveau dispositif de servitude volontaire?[END_REF].

The number of highlighted issues and criticism should in theory lead to the decline of such evaluation methods. Quite the opposite happens, in fact. A study of the human resources management practices of more than 800 American companies shows that more than 95% used individual performance assessment methods in 2002, versus 45% in 1971[START_REF] Dobbin | Someone to Watch Over Me: Coupling, Decoupling, and Unintended Consequences in Corporate Equal Opportunity[END_REF]. In France, a recent study of a representative sample of 1,000 staff working in private companies of more than 50 people shows that, in 2010, 73% of the staff were evaluated by such methods (Methis/IFOP, 2011). From a small initial number of American private companies such as General Electric, IBM, Rank Xerox or McDonald's, they have spread across countries to all sorts of organizations: private, public organizations, associations; German, French, Danish. Originally restricted to specific jobs (sales) or specific functions (CEOs of publicly listed companies), they can now apply to everyone, from layman to management.

A key question is therefore to understand why, paradoxically, despite the harmful effects of the evaluation systems and the complaints they generate, most people are favorable to their development. What are their reasons? Why would people support practices that end up affecting them negatively? In this chapter, we will make the case that envy is one trigger that explains the growing demand for individual performance appraisal. Such a statement leads us to look with new eyes into the link between envy and contemporary evaluation systems: Envy is not only a consequence of those systems, but also may be partly at the root of their development.

A Brief Detour via Lacan

We base our reasoning in this chapter on the conception of envy developed by French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. This conception helps analyses very precisely one's double relation to -the other,‖ a relationship that plays a role in envy and is very useful for understanding envy in organizational contexts [START_REF] Vidaillet | A Lacanian theory's contribution to the study of workplace envy: A case study[END_REF](Vidaillet, , 2008a[START_REF] Vidaillet | Psychoanalytic contributions to understanding envy: Classic and contemporary contributions[END_REF]): according to Lacan, envy puts into play the envious, an almost identical other, which Lacan calls the -little other,‖ and an Other which Lacan calls the Big Other and whose gaze is captured by the little other because the latter is supposed to possess something that the envious lacks and needs in order to capture the Other's gaze and hence exist in His eyes.

Lacan addressed the question of envy by commenting on a statement by Saint Augustine (Confessions, 1, chapter 7): -I have myself observed a baby to be jealous, though it could not speak; it was livid as it watched bitterly another infant at the breast‖ [START_REF] Lacan | L'identification[END_REF], session of March 14th p. ?). For Lacan, the child in this scene is not jealous, but envious. He points out that the very young child who is watching his or her infant sibling has been weaned for a long time and does not need the maternal breast any longer. It is the sight of the non-weaned brother that creates envy because this sight reminds the child of his/her own weaning; i.e., of the first severance. It is when he can see that another is usurping his own place in the relationship with the mother that the child apprehends for the first time what he is deprived of and experiences an unbearable loss [START_REF] Lacan | L'identification[END_REF], session of March 14th). The envious child cannot find the support he needs to be able to separate from his mother, to bear the omnipresent anxiety resulting from his separation from her, and from the fact that he no longer knows what he is in her desire (or in -the Other's desire‖) [START_REF] Lacan | L'éthique de la psychanalyse[END_REF][START_REF] Lacan | Le séminaire[END_REF]). In the case described by Saint Augustine, the envious child suffers from understanding for the first time that s/he has been separated from the mother and from losing what s/he was in her desire. This approach emphasizes that envy is deeply related to the gaze and that it is a three-part play [START_REF] Vidaillet | A Lacanian theory's contribution to the study of workplace envy: A case study[END_REF] involving the envious, the envied, and the third one who gazes at the envied while the envious himself gazes at this gaze. Envy must not be mistaken for jealousy, which also involves a triangle of three people. From a psychoanalytical perspective, jealousy is an emotion that is more -mature‖ than envy: it requires that the child be already separated from his/her mother for him/her to accept that she has relations of love with other people. Whereas in envy, the child suffers from understanding for the first time that he/she has been separated from the mother. This approach also insists on the fact that the envious does not envy the other's possession of the prized object as such, but rather the way the other is able to enjoy this object, which is why it is not enough for him simply to steal and thus gain possession of the object. His true aim is to destroy the other's ability to enjoy the object. As Lacaninspired philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2009) underlines, Envy must be placed within the triad of envy, thrift, and melancholy, the three forms of not being able to enjoy the object. . . . In contrast to the subject of envy, who envies the other's possession and/or jouissance of the object, the miser possesses the object, but cannot enjoy/consume it. . . . As for the melancholic subject, like the miser he possesses the object, but he loses the reason that made him desire it. (p. 77)

Let us now talk about the demand for evaluation: our hypothesis is that the latter is partly motivated by envy. We must therefore closely examine what, in the demand for evaluation, is at play in one's relation to the little other and to the Big Other, to the gaze, and to enjoyment.

Envy, Feeling of Injustice, and Undue Enjoyment

What is really remarkable about contemporary evaluation practices is the wish for -transparency.‖ Of course, who would be against transparency? But if one looks a little closer, one realizes that the wish for transparency is not necessarily motivated by a noble sentiment towards others.

What facet of the other is shown to us in contemporary evaluation? Evaluation, such as we know it today, almost always goes hand in hand with open comparison; the results of the evaluation are visible, displayed in the name of transparency. One's relationship to the other is largely simplified here: it is an other that is comparable to oneself, an other whose singularity is eradicated; of this other, one only keeps what can serve as a benchmark for comparison. The aim is to differentiate oneself from this other, using well-defined criteria, thanks to which we can be openly compared, measured; to show that we can -distinguish ourselves from the rest.‖ The aim is not so much to find out what marks we have obtained, as to compare our marks with others; it is less to get gratification for oneself than to find out exactly which gratification the others could obtain. Evaluation, in this sense, is of no interest if its results are kept secret; it is a means of situating oneself in relation to, of comparing oneself to, the other, to watch the other.

Why such a desire to watch the other, to know exactly what he does and what he gets?

This, according to us, is where envy may come into play.

Envy is strongly related to the supposed enjoyment of the other. What the infant desires is what he/she believes the other possesses: the total and absolute enjoyment of what he/she is deprived of. The child is all the more frustrated as he/she imagines that the other enjoys all possible satisfactions. This enjoyment cannot be shared: it is not available to the child precisely because the other has -stolen‖ it from him. This is in keeping with the hypothesis according to which envy contains resentment [START_REF] Heider | The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations[END_REF][START_REF] Parrott | The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy[END_REF][START_REF] Schoeck | Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior[END_REF][START_REF] Smith | Envy and the sense of injustice[END_REF]: the people who feel envy tend to compare themselves unfavorably to other persons and to feel that the envied person is underserving of his or her advantage [START_REF] Heider | The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations[END_REF], or, that they, themselves are undeserving of disadvantage (Ben-Ze'ev, 2000). According to van de Ven et al. ( 2009), perceptions of injustice and unfairness are typically associated with the experience of malicious envy (see also Sterling, van de Ven, & Smith, Chapter 3, this volume). Envious people may also feel that the person they envy has taken away what they deserved for themselves [START_REF] Schimmel | Envy in Jewish thought and literature[END_REF]. The envied advantage is perceived and felt, subjectively, as undeserved. This is very much different from pure cases of resentment proper, which has more -objective‖ validity (e.g., [START_REF] Smith | Envy and the sense of injustice[END_REF][START_REF] Leach | Envy, inferiority, and injustice: Three bases for anger about inequality[END_REF].

In this case, the natural anger resulting from unfair treatment can be expressed more openly, because of its objective quality. In contrast, envious resentment, being more subjective and lacking in consensual legitimacy, cannot be expressed directly.

In the context of work, one is quick to imagine that the other gets more enjoyment than oneself, does less, and gets more. She may fantasize the other as one who enjoys himself more than she, and cannot bear this idea of the other getting more if he doesn't deserve it. The performance appraisal might very well take away some of this undeserved enjoyment. The aim of appraisal systems is precisely to -lay everything on the table‖: to measure accurately and show openly what each one is supposed to contribute and receive, in sake of a socially acceptable cause-justice and fairness. One can imagine that evaluation will put things straight. Because the subject assumes that the other gets more enjoyment than she herself does, and undeservedly so, the demand for evaluation may hence be considered as a way of controlling the enjoyment of the other and removing his undue enjoyment (or -surplus jouissance‖ in Lacanian terms). She is prepared to be evaluated so that the other can also be; and even if the price to pay for the subject may be high, the other is fantasized as certainly losing more than she. The subject is ready to make a sacrifice if she can deprive the other from some enjoyment. This is in line with findings in experimental economics, which suggest that envy can push individuals to make efforts or to pay to alter others' position or reduce others' income, and that an envious mindset will cause people to accept less-than-optimal monetary reward as long as another participant's advantage is reduced [START_REF] Zizzo | The cognitive and behavioral economics of envy[END_REF]; see also Celse, Chapter 14, this volume). Ironically, the result is that envy can motivate people to act in way that reduces the absolute level of their possible outcomes. If envy leads them to introduce individual performance appraisal systems, the loss may be high if we consider all the problems described at the beginning of this chapter: loss of autonomy, increased control, inappropriate targets, impossibility to work as a team, loss of motivation, and so on.

In a study of the opinion of workers from several companies about individual performance appraisal systems recently introduced [START_REF] Vidaillet | Evaluez-moi! Evaluation au travail: les ressorts d'une fascination[END_REF], the results show that after first complaining about increased pressure and loss of autonomy, they ended up justifying the new system by stating a specific case: the case of -Mr. Do-Nothing‖ who spoiled the motivation of all the staff in the department, because he did nothing, was paid like everybody else, and no one said anything. Evaluation was supposed to eliminate the Do-Nothings by getting them back on the straight and narrow. Or the case of that -Mrs.

Goody-Two-Shoes,‖ who took all the credit, and was always pretending that everything happened thanks to her! Individualized evaluation would for sure put things and the Mrs.

Goody-Two-Shoes back in their place.

Our point here is not to suggest that Mr. Do-Nothing and Mrs. Goody-Two-Shoes don't exist, but to highlight that the systematic appearance of these cases, whatever the company and the work context, leads us to believe that it refers to the fantasy of an other imagined to be an -enjoyment robber‖ (or -jouissance robber‖ in more Lacanian terms) (Žižek, 2009), which is a key mechanism of envy. According to Lacan, fantasy is a narrative structure whose content can vary greatly, which rests on the imaginary promise of recapturing lost enjoyment, but also on a key element: the obstacle that explains the loss of enjoyment (Žižek, 2009). In the cases described above, the obstacle manifests itself in the form of the people accused of taking and receiving more than they should, and hence, of provoking lack of motivation and discouragement among their colleagues.

Evaluation thus leaves the impression that such feelings could be overcome as the lost enjoyment could be recaptured.

Envy and the Secretive Side of Work

This fantasy of an other being an -enjoyment robber‖ can be supplemented by an element specific to the workplace. Researchers in work psychology have demonstrated something that may seem strange or counterintuitive: In order to do one's work properly, one must also be able to conceal certain things [START_REF] Clot | Le travail à coeur[END_REF][START_REF] Dejours | L'évaluation du travail à l'épreuve du reel[END_REF][START_REF] Molinier | Les enjeux psychiques du travail[END_REF]. Indeed, while working consists of filling the gap that constantly occurs between what is prescribed and the reality of the situation, -doing one's work properly‖ requires, most of the time, that one break some rule. For instance, it is impossible to comply with all the rules and requirements at the same time; indeed, some rules inevitably contradict others, and one has to choose which one to comply with in such a situation. To some degree, therefore, working implies playing with the rules, which is often necessary in order to be able to work properly. This play sometimes becomes part of the -tricks of the trade,‖ i.e., used on a regular basis. This behavior, by revealing the contradictions inherent in ordinary work, makes it perfectly understandable that s/he who has not given up doing her/his work properly, therefore zealously, showing initiative and originality, quickly learns that s/he will have to exercise his/her intelligence away from the eyes of the hierarchy, sometimes of her/his peers or even of her/his subordinates, or s/he will have to ensure their complicity and loyalty, which is not that simple. Being able to exercise intelligence at work requires discretion. (Dejours, 2003, p. 17) Each individual will have developed her/his own tricks, will have learned to hide these tricks and to keep the secret.

But the secret can become intolerable. Knowing that everything is not exposed can soon lead a subject to fantasize about this secret inherent to the other, to the person one works with or who works in the office or department next door. The other may be suspected to use his secrets, not in order to do his job properly, but on the contrary, to -take advantage of the system,‖ to misuse it to his advantage, to do less work, to clear off, etc. The problem with this secretive dimension, which is normally part of ordinary work, lies in the fact that it may excite the fantasy that the other uses this gray area to enjoy more than us. This certainly explains the success of the idea of -transparency‖ that comes with evaluation: The promise of evaluation is that everything everyone does, what everyone gets up to on the sly, how they take advantage of the system, will be revealed, brought into the open.

Let us also note that envy is associated with a sense of scarcity [START_REF] Foster | The anatomy of envy: a study in symbolic behaviour[END_REF][START_REF] Lindholm | Culture and envy[END_REF]: what is given to one is necessarily taken away from the other, and there cannot be enough of it for everyone. This is the reason why envy can intensify when resources have to be shared, particularly when they are scarce and/or diminishing. In contemporary evaluation practices, this notion of scarcity and of the necessity to distribute resources thriftily is central. The discourse used to justify the implementation of these practices underlines the necessity to economize and to tighten budgets, reserves, and pools of productivity to be exploited, etc. The overall budget will not increase; it might even be cut; but in any case, those who get good results have nothing to fear, and they will be rewarded according to their merit. This discourse about the growing scarcity of resources may foster envy, which in turn may activate the demand for evaluation: -Put in place individual performance evaluation procedures to ensure that what's left of the cake is shared fairly! We can no longer afford to waste and to give to those who do not deserve to get.‖ And therefore -transparency‖ is highlighted as a way to avoid waste and injustice.

Stealing the Other's Tricks

As presented previously, the secretive side of work may encourage the subject to imagine that their colleagues use their secrets to misuse the system to their advantage and get undeserved enjoyment. Another consequence is that the person would really like to uncover the little secrets, the ropes, the tricks of the trade, which the other has learned. So it's no longer about imagining that the other is better off than oneself; it's about stealing his/her secret so as to benefit from it.

Evaluation often goes hand in hand with showing models and with benchmarking. This involves identifying existing -best practices‖ in order to implement them and use them as the referent model on the basis of which evaluation will be performed. This generally implies that the following questions are answered: Who are the best employees? What do they do in order to be the best? What in their practices can be used and transmitted to other workers? In an extract of a documentary on work that was very successful in France [START_REF] Viallet | La mise à mort du travail[END_REF], a consultant paid by a company (Fenwick) goes with a -top salesman,‖ a -referent,‖ to clients; he observes and then interviews the consultant so that the latter explains the reasons why he has behaved in such and such a manner with the client: The objective then being to teach the other salesmen the practices thus revealed and formalized and to raise the performance level expected from the employees-who are now supposed to have become excellent. Isn't it wonderful to be able to appropriate the know-how of this excellent salesman, to be able to capture this -extra something‖ he is supposed to possess, that secret which at the moment he alone enjoys? All of a sudden, every salesman can now appropriate, equip himself with the know-how that top salesman has built, more or less tacitly, over years of practice; every employee can now become excellent. Isn't that what one dreams of-Stealing from the other the secret of his success, obtaining the magic ring one dreams of having for oneself? That -extra something‖ that the other is supposed to possess: that is what is involved in envy [START_REF] Vidaillet | Psychoanalytic contributions to understanding envy: Classic and contemporary contributions[END_REF]: One always believes that the other, the one one envies, holds the secret of success. And this is what is promised to the employees with evaluation: evaluation procedures are implemented to -help them improve themselves‖; everyone will be able to benefit from those good practices, to put them into place, and it is on this basis that they will be evaluated. It is out of the question that only a few workers possess them. So our hypothesis here is that one may ask for evaluation so that one can capture that -extra something‖ the other is supposed to possess and that makes him better than oneself.

Envy and Instability of Places

Before contemporary evaluation practices were developed, there were still grading, ranking, or comparison practices, involving evaluation at some stage-for instance, under the form of competitive examinations, which people belonging to well-defined hierarchies underwent in order to move from one category to another. In those cases, comparison and evaluation result in permanent changes in position; they are changes in the symbolic order: they are controlled, there are rites of passage; the conditions of passage are very demanding, and when one moves up a category, one cannot move back down again. These distinctions are often a necessary step to get more distinctions or marks of recognition. And one cannot change categories whenever one wants to; there are specific times for this; and generally these moments are relatively rare: for example, French school children are evaluated-with the baccalaureate examination-on the knowledge they have acquired between their first and final years at school. All this creates symbolic borders and separations. But this isn't fun. We know that one needs time to change categories. We know that if the other is in one place and we are not, it might be difficult to change this hierarchical order. We have to tolerate the difference and the gaps.

What Do Contemporary Evaluation Practices in Organizations

Offer Us?

By breaking up time into very short periods, and by organizing, within these periods, competitions in which, supposedly, everything can be replayed, contemporary evaluation practices tend to make work feel like huge, endless gambling matches or like video game sessions that follow one after another indefinitely. They have the characteristic of assigning a highly fluid position, is-unlike the status that is linked with a position within a career-not long-term oriented. No stable expectations of recognition can be deduced from this position, as the performance appraisal and the ranking that generally follows always refer to a certain point in time and are therefore tagged as temporary, short-lived, reversible. The only thing that counts seems to be your results at time t. An individual may be bad one day, but could become the best the day after if he puts in the necessary effort. Or he might do well today, but this does not mean anything in the future because what he will have achieved before will not be taken into account when he is evaluated.

Hence, when introduced, contemporary evaluation systems can have a radical impact on existing work positions. Sociologist Nicolas [START_REF] Belorgey | L'hôpital sous pression: Enquête sur le nouveau management public[END_REF] uses the case of hospital emergency services: An evaluation system has been introduced, aiming to increase the staff productivity through quantitative and measurable targets, supported by financial rewards. The main performance indicator is the patient's waiting time, which must be reduced as much as possible (ironically, using pre-existing data, Belorgey shows that shorter waiting times statistically increase the chance one will have to come back later). The staff from one hospital are ranked according to this indicator, as are the chief doctors nationwide. Belorgey reports a meeting of the chief doctors: Professor Dumont, a renowned 50-year-old university professor, who is a high-ranking member of the institution, ends up being lectured for -bad behavior.‖ He is advised to follow the example of 30-year-old Dr. Dupre, a low-ranking doctor in a small-town hospital, who gets much better results according to this indicator (but whose return rate is also much higher, which is not taken into account in the evaluation method). While traditional ranking systems give us clearly defined positions and define mandatory steps to achieve higher positions, the new evaluation systems can magically lift such constraints, disturb the old order, blur the positions. When young Dr. Dupre should normally have waited years, passed many exams, changed hospitals in order to slowly climb the ladder, he suddenly becomes a star thanks to the new performance evaluation system.

The evaluation system provides a supposedly neutral ranking that suddenly questions the position of the one who was previously enjoying a dominating position and whose fame and skills get challenged. The evaluation systems can apparently trigger the fall of the powerful, whose position previously seemed unquestionable. It can supposedly highlight the true value, expose the truth. And the happy ones are not only the beneficiaries of the systems, like Dr. Dupre, but also the ones that attend the show, enjoying the humiliation and the fall of the powerful, already waiting for the next ranking, when today's winner will inevitably also hit the ground.

Behind the support for contemporary evaluation systems and its apparent quest for fairness, one may see the sign of a more shadowy and counter-intuitive feeling: schadenfreude. This is the feeling of hoping for and enjoying the other's misfortune, when the other had an attribute that one does not have and then loses it or is deprived of what he seemed to enjoy. The key benefit of such evaluation systems is that the other cannot acquire anything stable, that no position can be maintained forever. [START_REF] Powell | Schadenfreude caused by an envied person's pain[END_REF] explain why envy is so closely linked to schadenfreude: Envy is a painful emotion derived from the presence of a desired attribute in another person, and, therefore, the pain is relieved, pleasantly, by something that harms the possessor of this attribute. . . . In fact, the more one considers the nature of envy, the more fitting it seems that an envied person's misfortune should be pleasing. . . . The social comparison foundations of envy mean that misfortunes befalling an envied person should alter the social comparison matrix in the envying person's favor.

Sometimes the reversal of fortunes is complete and may turn advantage to disadvantage. (p. 150) Furthermore, the hostility associated with dominance that one finds in envy may sometimes come about because one's early upbringing fosters an extravagant view of the self that ultimately failed to be confirmed by actual achievement and social evaluations [START_REF] Sullivan | Clinical Studies in Psychiatry[END_REF][START_REF] Powell | Schadenfreude caused by an envied person's pain[END_REF]. The implementation of an individual performance appraisal system can create the hope for a person to finally get adequately recognized. This may also be a conclusion from Nicolas Belorgey's study that looks into the reasons why the evaluation system in the emergency services may be approved or rejected: the opponents to the system are usually the ones with the highest professional or social recognition, the -Established‖ ones, as defined by [START_REF] Elias | The Established and the Outsiders[END_REF]; the ones who approve of the evaluation system are normally less recognized and can be classified as the -Outsiders.‖ Interviews with the Outsiders show a certain bitterness or lack of satisfaction with their position, and highlight their hopes that things will change thanks to the new system.

Finally, another possible mechanism by which envious considerations could motivate the request for such evaluation systems has to do with the desire for instant gratification. [START_REF] Watkins | Gratitude and subjective well-being[END_REF] claims that those predisposed to gratitude may, since they are predisposed to a thankful mindset, be more willing to wait for gratification, while those less disposed to gratitude may be less able to control their urges. As highlighted above, contemporary evaluation systems split work processes into a chain of competitive sessions amongst workers, with the promise of quick and calibrated rewards whereby everyone could know precisely what they will gain; while traditional hierarchical systems are based on longer-term evaluation and less frequent rewards.

Being Under the Permanent Gaze of the Other Another potential link between envy and the demand for evaluation systems may be related to the central place of the Other's gaze in envy. To understand this link, let's return to the crucial moment in childhood when the child will separate himself from his mother (the first Other). According to Lacan, this occurs when the child understands that he exists also outside of the image of himself his mother's gaze is sending to him. What he will definitively lose at this moment is what he was in her desire. The fact of not knowing what one is in the Other's desire is accompanied by an omnipresent anxiety (Lacan, 1973[START_REF] Lacan | L'éthique de la psychanalyse[END_REF]. The kernel of this anxiety is the absolute uncertainty as regards what he is now for the Other: he doesn't know who he is, as he doesn't know what he is for the Other, what he is in the Other's desire. But this questioning is also precisely what will cause the child's own desire.

What characterizes the envious is the fact that he cannot do without the Other's gaze. What the envious desires is to capture the gaze of the Other who is the only one who can give him the illusion of being -complete‖ (lacking nothing), and the feeling of existing [START_REF] Vidaillet | Psychoanalytic contributions to understanding envy: Classic and contemporary contributions[END_REF]. Imagining that the Other turns her gaze away from him to look at an other leaves him with a horrible feeling of being erased, eradicated. His uncertainty about his identity is then too strong, and, instead of making space for his own desire, generates unbearable and extremely painful anxiety.

With contemporary evaluation mechanisms, the person gets to be under the constant gaze of this -big Other.‖ This gaze can materialize under the form of very sophisticated tools and information systems that are able to capture a huge number of data concerning the evaluated person, hence making visible things that no human eyes could ever detect. This omnipresent gaze can also appear under the form of the -mystery shopper‖ in charge of gathering and analyzing specific information about products and services; or of the -normal‖ client whose opinion is permanently sought.

The Other is not only watching what workers are doing and what they produce; -He‖ gives an appreciation, assigns precise values, which can then be translated into incentives, promotions, etc. This feedback may come from managers. Hence, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Carglass, talking about the firm's employees, explains in a documentary that -for them (the ‗co-workers') to be happy, . . . they need a boss who's capable of helping them develop, of pushing, coaching them, that is to say to tell them when they're doing well and when they're not.‖ Further on, a human resources manager-who trains the managers of Carglass centers-says: -The notion of acknowledgement of the people we work with, implies that one . . . tells them when things are fine but also when they're not. ‗There are things we're happy with . . . well done' (he claps his hands); and then ‗there are things we're not happy about, so . . . it's not well done'‖ [START_REF] Viallet | La mise à mort du travail[END_REF].

It also frequently happens that this feedback does not come from a -real‖ Other.

For instance, in a restaurant chain, all restaurants are evaluated monthly; many performance indicators are used, and at the end of each appraisal session, the computer gives marks from one to ten according to how successful the restaurant has been in achieving its objectives. When they are interviewed, the employees say: -It's very inspiring, because once you've put the data into the computer, you have to wait for the answer and then you know if you're doing well or not! What is ok and what isn't ok.

That's the only motivating thing in this job‖ [START_REF] Montchatre | Ce que l'évaluation fait au travail-Normalisation du client et mobilisation différentielle des collectifs dans des chaînes hôtelières[END_REF].

The link between evaluation and gaze has been widely commented on by researchers who use the thought of Michel Foucault to denounce how disciplinary and normative power is exercised through evaluation systems (Gori & Del Vogo, 2009). But this conception does not allow us to understand why people may seek this gaze, and why they are waiting for this feedback on what they are supposed to be. From what does the subject feel he can escape by entrusting the Other with defining -what is ok‖ and -what isn't ok‖ about him? From the anxiety that comes with his desire; from this part of himself that makes him move but escapes him. It is difficult to cope with the anxiety of not knowing what we are in the Other's desire, and at the same time to be affected by this desire. The illusion brought about by contemporary evaluation practices is to believe that it might be possible to escape this anxiety. And as the envious are particularly prone to feel that anxiety, our hypothesis is therefore that envy may prompt the subject to ask to be evaluated, so as to feel that he is always under the Other's gaze and to hope that he can avoid the anxiety of never knowing exactly -who he is.‖

An Other to Give Enjoyment

The envious wants to capture the Other's gaze, so as to feel that he exists, but also to ensure that the Other takes enjoyment in seeing him. What the envious would like is to completely fulfil the Other's desire, so that the Other then has no need to look anywhere else. The envious believes that the condition for him to stop feeling the lack, for him to feel whole, is to enable the Other himself to not lack anything. In the scene described by Saint Augustine and commented on by Lacan, the envious child suffers from seeing his mother look with such pleasure at his younger brother whom she is breastfeeding. The issue here is not that the older child is not given the breast (he was weaned a long time ago), but that he has lost his mother's gaze and with it the illusion of entirely fulfilling her, of being his mother's unique object of desire.

In this story, as Lacan puts it, -there is a big Other to give pleasure [jouissance] to.‖ Thus, our hypothesis here is that the fantasy of being the one who gives the Other enjoyment, which is at play in envy, is where the demand for evaluation comes from. Who, in evaluation, is this big Other to give enjoyment? It may be the manager. It may also be the client. He is the One whom one must ultimately answer to, the One one wants to please completely and fully. That's Him, the Other who wants His money's worth and Whom the subject has to please whatever the cost. The figure of the king-client [START_REF] Dujarier | Envy in organizational life[END_REF] justifies the whole evaluation chain. It is in order to satisfy Him that the subject is evaluated and that the latter accepts being evaluated. Thus, in Carglass [START_REF] Viallet | La mise à mort du travail[END_REF], during a training seminar for new employees, the trainer explains: -We want every single client who contacts Carglass to say ‗Wow, that was an exceptional experience! I really didn't expect, when I contacted a place like Carglass, to experience this level of proximity, of service quality. ' The way you answer the phone-don't we often say that it is the first impression that counts-well, you're the one who's going to create this first impression. This is why we say that your role is crucial.‖ And when it comes to activities that do not have to do with objects, but directly with people, when the activities are about caring, educating, protecting, searching, when they involve public money, the trap works even better. Thus, there is a Society, a Citizen, supposedly crouching in the shadows, obsessed about being -accounted to,‖ able to infallibly judge one's results, judge what is produced for Him, assess the usefulness of what is done by those who conceive of themselves as great tools serving the Other's enjoyment.

Conclusions

In this chapter we have tried to understand a very strange fact: Contemporary evaluation systems have spread across countries to all sorts of organizations despite the complaints and criticism they generate. We have assumed that the growing demand for individual performance appraisal may be partly motivated by envious feelings that develop at the workplace. Evaluation systems may then be regarded as a very interesting social phenomenon: partly motivated by envy, a taboo and unavowable emotion, they cannot be justified as such; hence their development is in general supported by noble and rational statements such as the quest for fairness or transparency However, we should not forget another very important link between envy and individual performance appraisal systems: as mentioned in the introduction, they can also trigger envy. Which then creates a vicious circle: envy being potentially at the root of systems that will then strengthen it. This confirms that envy is an emotion that no society can claim to get rid of, especially when the way to cope with it underestimates its destructive potential and misjudges its functioning.