It's not uncommon, indeed common, to hear employees denounce their managers' lack of "courage", making "managerial courage" a key factor in their assessment of their hierarchy's performance.
The real, good manager, the one we like to follow, is expected not to hesitate to put a lot of things on the table (which, as the saying goes, can range from cards to fists to the simplest male attributes). Beyond the limits and virilist biases induced by the notion of "courage", the recurrence of the subject, as well as the tensions and frustrations generated by the managerial "coward", invite us to broaden the debate. Let's take a serious look at the question of responsibility and the way it is exercised by managers. manager.
This reflection allows us to question, in part, the power of individual vulnerability. (Brown, 2013)In other words, the ability to open up emotionally, to take emotional risks or to surrender to uncertainty, but also the amount of responsibility left to each individual by organizations, and its corollary: the ability to be accountable. So why aren't those in charge (always)?
Fields of responsibility as far as the eye can see...
If we refer to the abundant literature on the subject, it is interesting to note that the manager's field of responsibility has changed considerably over the last twenty years. It has been said time and time again that it was urgent and necessary to shift the managerial frame of reference from "command & control" to "trust & inspire". In this respect, the formalism used was quite eloquent: a profusion of "correspondence tables" explained the transitions to be made between the two postures, implying the advent of a new type of management more in tune with the market and society's expectations (and thus, the gradual disappearance of dated or even obsolete management).
However, this vision of one model replacing another does not stand up to the test of facts: managerial responsibilities are certainly evolving, but they are expanding rather than being replaced! While managers must always set objectives and monitor the conformity and quality of the production for which they are responsible (mastery of processes, standards and methodologies in force), they must also act on the working environment of their colleagues, participate in their development and their empowerment in the exercise of their profession, develop their feedback culture, collaborate, share, transmit, etc., etc., etc.
The manager's sphere of responsibility is growing exponentially. While this extension of his sphere of influence can be galvanizing and a source of renewed dynamism and freedom of action, it can, on the other hand, become inhibiting and tiresome. This will depend in part on how the organization defines (or not) the modalities and territories for exercising these new responsibilities.
Diplomacy and territorial tensions
Matrix organizations, the multiplication of "hats", injunctions to increase transversality, horizontality, collaboration, cooperation, co-construction... It's clear that, while the manager's field of responsibility is growing considerably, his or her playing field is not becoming any clearer. Worse, it is becoming blurred and more complex. It even seems that this is happening voluntarily and on the part of organizations, in the name of greater flexibility and indispensable, even demanded, reactivity .
While the logical link between the scope of responsibility and the territory in which it is exercised may be questionable, it is nonetheless at the heart of management's concerns. The hours spent defining and redefining scopes of action, "RACIs" and systems of governance bear witness to this. Likewise, most of the conflicts we observe occur at the "frontiers", and require ardent arbitration at the highest level. Having lost all sovereignty over an excessively vast territory, managers are constantly on the lookout for acceptable, consensual and authorized solutions. He must therefore demonstrate constant multilateral diplomacy, and engage in constantly renewed cooperation and negotiation with his peers, at the risk, if he fails to do so, of multiplying conflicts and stumbling blocks.
Good manager, bad student
The desire to regulate and limit managerial injunctions, to call for ever-greater clarification of responsibilities, is a laudable and meaningful approach, but the results are generally disappointing. Indeed, in an entrepreneurial world where agility and continuous adaptation have become the order of the day, it seems to us to be illusory to over-emphasize the need for clarification. No matter what you do, a good manager will never be able to "tick all the boxes". In fact, that's no longer what we expect of them. Being responsible in 2025 means giving oneself the means to make conscious choices, to manage one's room for maneuver and the risks incurred in an increasingly complex system. It means taking responsibility for "not having done it" or "doing it later", based on a singular understanding of the context and associated priorities.
It also means being able to make mistakes, to upset or even irritate your direct ecosystem. The right to make mistakes, which is a cardinal value in many organizations, comes into its own here. Being responsible, therefore, does not always mean seeking the 20/20 mark from the top of the class and the congratulations of the jury. Rather, it means assuming a vision based on a detailed, systemic understanding of a situation, so as to be able to share and discuss it fairly with one's superiors.
Of course, the top of the class remains a strong cultural figure in our country. Managing in 2025 implies giving oneself permission and being able, both personally and collectively, to break out of this prism.
Swimming in troubled waters?
Ultimately, and rather trivially, we expect managers to maintain their level of commitment and enthusiasm, come rain or shine, and to know how to evolve and drive in sunshine as well as in the thickest fog. And yet, when you add up the extension of areas of responsibility - economic, managerial, as well as social, societal and environmental - and the blurring of the playing field, as well as the need to demonstrate a "positive attitude", you have every right to ask "why go at all? What pleasure could there possibly be in taking such a position and fully exercising one's responsibilities as a manager?
To ask this question would be to overlook or underestimate the new areas of freedom, creativity and influence conquered by the "new" manager. For, if being in charge etymologically means being accountable, the full-fledged manager is precisely the person who is accountable, without apprehension, taking advantage of the space for dialogue offered by his or her hierarchy to express freedom of action and thought, and to experience the pride and pleasure that go with it.
This rather "postcard" vision of the relationship between managers and their superiors is not, however, utopian. The ability to create spaces for dialogue and exchange, conducive to the expression of managerial choices, is also a factor in strategic and operational performance, which neither control nor sanction will be able to compete with.
