29 May 2013 Business lunches
Recent research on how to improve
business negotiations by Lakshmi Balachandra of the Harvard Kennedy School of
Government concluded that better results were achieved when they were carried
out over lunch. This is good news for
those of us who enjoy their food and can now justify a good lunch as a being a benefit
to the business. While there are plenty of people on both sides of the Channel
to whom this applies, the French and British versions of a business lunch can
vary considerably.
There have been some famous
Anglo/French negotiations over the years and I think there was every chance
that the diplomatic dealings resulting in the signing of the Entente Cordiale
on 8th April 109 years ago, were accompanied by fine food and even
finer wines and enjoyed in equal measure by both sides, even if Edward VII
ensured that they did not continue too late into the evening in order to allow
him to “join the ladies” at a reasonable hour. But that’s enough about diplomacy, back to business
lunches.
While the food may not be so different
today as 30 or 40 years ago in the better restaurants in London and Paris
(although it would not be too surprising to see snails, or frog legs on a the
menu in London, don’t expect to find steak and kidney pudding or fish and chips
in Parisian eateries) it is still probably easier to eat well in the French
capital than its English counterpart. However there are still major differences (although
to a lesser extent in the world of international finance than many other
industries of course) in the format of the business lunch.
In France, however formal or
informal the lunch, it is likely to consist of a two or three course meal, will
almost certainly be accompanied by wine and be rounded off with an espresso.
There will be little difference if there are just two people who have known
each other for ten years or several representatives each from two companies who
are investigating a potential business deal. In contrast an informal lunch in
the UK may consist of leaning against a bar with no solids whatsoever being
consumed. This is of course the famous ‘liquid lunch’ and while still fairly
commonplace on the northern side of the Channel is virtually unheard of on this
side. And for our Dutch readers, I could also mention the exciting simplicity
of ‘broodje melk’ in Amsterdam.
However in my view the biggest
difference is the way in which business is discussed. Here in France the mixing
of ‘business’ and ‘social’ is far more complicated. I have regularly enjoyed
the informality and range of topics discussed during meetings in Britain (and
also The Netherlands) which in turn can lead to new avenues for business ideas
and opportunities. In addition I liked the dynamic of the discussion: what can
we do for you/how can we do this together?
Over here I have often heard
complaints from British and Dutch colleagues about how they struggle to get to
grips with what appear to be complex social codes and high levels of formality
when dealing with the French. Reaching a business decision will probably be a
long process with every aspect extensively analysed and discussed. Furthermore
some French people like to demonstrate their social status and education by
showing their expertise of the French language through rhetoric and
philosophical expression. We like to discuss the rationale behind our
decisions, explaining the theory and logic behind them and this isn’t always
appreciated by our more pragmatic neighbours.
I have made attempts to have a
more direct, as we like to say ‘Anglo-Saxon’, style of discussion in all-French
company but have found it difficult to make any progress. At a recent lunch
with a client I challenged myself to raise business matters much earlier than I
normally would have done. All this achieved was to make the conversation rather
stilted and we returned to the comfort of discussing politics and how French
culture would cope with the continuing rise of globalisation. At this point we
all felt far more relaxed, had a very pleasant conversation with the business
issues covered in their rightful place at the end of the meal, with the result
that the objective of strengthening our relationship was successfully achieved.
Why should this be the case? I
think that the French are less at ease talking about money (it seen as rather
coarse behaviour) and as there is only a small step between money and work,
there is a fear that being too open about business is socially unacceptable. Generally
speaking, we need to justify our approach to business in terms of the benefits
it brings in terms of building personal relationships and how it is more of an
intellectual exercise than a merely a crude means of wealth creation.
However, for all the pitfalls to
avoid with a French business lunch, it can still be an incredibly pleasurable
experience. I still vividly recall an excellent meal at a restaurant next to La
Bourse with some Dutch partners. On tasting ‘foie gras poelé’ for the very
first time and being delighted by the experience one of them turned to the
waiter and declared that it was so delicious that, “It is like an orgasm in the
mouth”. Need I say more?
Aline Régnier 29.05.13
Aline@dejavutrading.com
References
Should You Eat While You
Negotiate?
by Lakshmi
Balachandra
Drink
and diplomacy by Nell Gwyn’s article
3 April 2013 From The City to La Bourse – ‘Socialising’
Like many people working in The City
I would quite regularly socialise with some of my colleagues. Most
commonly this consisted in “going for a quick pint”, which on occasion saw severe
abuse of the word “quick” and was rarely limited to the singular.
Such an evening was invariably organised
on an impromptu basis with someone asking, “Who fancies a beer?” when the end
of the working day was in sight. The first time I asked the same question in
Paris I received very positive responses – “Great idea. When?” My response of,
“How about 7:30?” was met with an incredulous, “What, tonight?” Everybody
already had commitments for that evening and complex plans were explored as to
which day in two or three weeks time might work.
There’s a very good reason for this.
In London it’s rare to go home and then go out. This is no doubt due to the
commuting time involved; for the majority of people if they finish work at 7pm
they then probably have joyful journey of an hour or so, get something to eat
and hey presto! it’s 9pm. As the alarm will go off at 6am the idea of going out
to meet friends is not too appealing and so weekday social life tends to take
place after work. However in Paris the majority of people consider a commutes
of much more than 15 minutes as horrendous. Many people walk to work. (I live a
little outside Paris and have a daily, door-to-door, journey of approximately
45 minutes each way. I had a similar length journey from Wandsworth to The City
and was considered to live relatively centrally. Here my colleagues cannot
believe that I have to undergo such a terrible journey every day.) Added to the
fact that the markets open at 8am an hour later than London thanks to the time
difference, socialising on weekdays is par for the course. I never did manage
to go out for that beer – after a few weeks I had my own social life at home to
fit around!
I have to say that I still miss the
camaraderie that these spontaneous evenings generated. Over here there is far
greater definition between work and play which, in my opinion, diminishes the
team element within the workforce. On the other hand the French system does
result in splitting up the working week. Life in London seemed to consist of
‘work’ from the alarm going off on Monday morning to getting home on Friday
evening and ‘home life’ running from Friday evening to Sunday night. Here it is
easier to switch off in the evenings and forget about the office for a while.
Simon Butler 3.04.13
simon@dejavutrading.com
6 March 2013 - 'Le présentéisme'
It is often said that
French people prioritise their leisure time; they take long lunch breaks, they
are always on holiday and even that they do not work as hard as other employees
in the western nations. The recent letter from Maurice Taylor, the head of US tyre maker Titan, has mocked French workers
at a Goodyear factory for putting in only "three hours" a day and
talking and eating too much.
The introduction of
the ‘35 hour working week’ under Prime Minister Lionel Jospin’s left wing
government in 2000 only reinforced this idea.
While there are indeed
arguments to support these perceptions, this is not a balanced view. Like
many European countries it does not come as a surprise that France has a very
high unemployment rate. The figures for January 2013 showed that there were 3,169,300 unemployed people, 10.7% more
than one year ago and close to the all time high figure of 3,205,000 of 1997.
As in many countries, companies are cutting jobs with the result that people
who still have a job have more and more work to do.
However what I really
want to look at here is a typical French phenomenon and paradox: ‘le
présenteimse’ or ‘presenteeism’ in English which could be defined as the fact
of staying at work longer than necessary. Even taking into account the additional
workload resulting from reduced staff levels, some French employees seem to be
experts at presenteeism .
Under the unique
employment legislation French staff are categorised as either ‘cadre’
(supervisory function) or ‘non cadre’ (non supervisory function). This growing
trend towards presenteeism particularly applies to ‘les cadres’.
Make sure you are seen
to be always at work so that your manager believes you have so much work to do
that you must be indispensible. No matter where the explanation lies, it is
important to mention that this behavior is generally not only seen to be
acceptable but even to be expected.
Where in English
speaking countries, needing to work longer hours than your colleagues is often
seen as a sign of inefficiency or even incompetence, in France the number of
hours an employee spends in the office is considered to be directly correlated
to their dedication to the company. Not only it is seen as positive trait but
moreover it is expected.
Which French employee
has not heard on a regular basis a colleague being asked, “Are you taking the
afternoon off?” whenever they leave at a normal time.
Whilst working for a
major British law firm my colleagues and I regularly worked long hours but this
was invariably when we were under pressure to complete a task within a strict
deadline and not as being an end in itself. In my opinion this difference is
even more striking between France and the Netherlands; during one of my regular
business trip to Amsterdam I saw a top manager leaving at what would have been
considered as early in France for someone in his position. My surprise came not
only from the time he was leaving but more from the
fact that he was so relaxed about it; he did not pretend that he had a client
meeting but was happy to explain that he was going to have some quality time
with his family. In his mind he had been very efficient during the day, he had
achieved all he had wanted to do and so could leave at a reasonable time; there
was nothing to hide. Of course this can change on a daily
basis and there is no doubt that the British and Dutch do work long hours from
time to time but when they have finished their work on time, there is no point
for them to pretend there are still busy and stay late without actually doing
any anything productive. Here lies the key difference with France.
Despite years working
abroad I must admit to having adopted this behavior myself from time to time.
Back in a French environment and managing a team of French employees, I used to
be very busy most of the time but in the unlikely event of having finished my
day’s work at a reasonable hour I did not feel at ease leaving the office
earlier than usual. I felt that both my managers and my team would expect me to
remain at the office until my normal departure time even if this was much later
than was necessary. Was I being ridiculous or was I just being typically
French? At least now that I am an entrepreneur and am my own boss, I have been
able to separate myself from the conventional rules.
Aline Régnier
6.03.2013
aline@dejavutrading.com
22 January 2013 - From The City
to La Bourse - 'La Hiérarchie'
Having worked in the
City of London and in Paris for approximately 12 years each I am abundantly
aware of the cultural differences between these two great cities that are only
a little over 200 miles (or a little less than 350 km if you prefer) apart.
In my opinion the
biggest one is what the French refer to as “la hiérarchie”. Now there’s a
hierarchy of sorts in all organisations but this is quite different. On the
French side of the Channel exists the concept of the ‘cadre’ which I at first
took to merely be the French translation of ‘supervisor’ but subsequently
discovered that it is much more than this. It basically means that the
individual has important responsibility within the company. Although what
constitutes this is open to interpretation there is no doubt as to whether or not you are a cadre; it is stated
in your employment contract and is ingrained within the machinery of the state
with cadres and non-cadres being dealt with differently in terms of social
security, job-seeking and a plethora of other things.
Whether a person can
become a cadre or not is, in general, determined before they start their
working life as it is normally dependent upon academic qualifications with the deciding
factor often being whether one has a degree or not. Apparently some of the
major French financial institutions do not consider anyone for a role at cadre
level unless they have a BAC +5 (five years of university study after passing
the equivalent of A-Levels). Therefore an employee’s actual capability has far less
relevance to their chances of promotion than their academic record, with the
result that a person’s career progression limit can effectively be defined at
the age of 18.
What I find
particularly odd is that there seems to be a general acceptance of this
situation by everyone. I recall asking an extremely capable member of staff to
take on some additional tasks. He told me he couldn’t do that as that would
necessitate him being a cadre due to the extra responsibility involved. When I
suggested that he could be promoted to cadre status he explained that this
would not be possible because he lacked the necessary academic qualifications.
Even explaining that my level of education was no higher than his made no
difference; this is the way things work in France. Incidentally, this explains
why all French school children are put under such great pressure from an early
age; mess up and the future doesn’t look too rosy.
In contrast I worked for one of the biggest
derivatives clearers in London and had a back office team of 30, only one of
whom was a graduate. People were promoted based on their ability and the
company was very successful. I still find it difficult to believe and frankly
rather saddened that this could not happen on this side of the Channel. So even
if one is proficient, personable, reliable, keen to learn and progress, too
bad, you’re lack of academic prowess aged 18 precludes you from being promoted.
This is anathema to me.
Simon
Butler - 23 January 2013
Contact
at: simon@dejavuTrading.com
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire
Remarque : Seul un membre de ce blog est autorisé à enregistrer un commentaire.