PSYCHOSOCIOLOGICAL INTERVENTION: THE LISTENING CONSTRUCTION AND THE IMPLICATION IN ORGANIZATIONS

ABSTRACT.

Psychosociology offers a theoretical-methodological framework that is useful to the understanding and exploration of the relationships between the conflicts experienced in the current labor scenario, the suffering of the workers and the organizational contradictions. The purpose of this study is to understand how the work of listening in psychosociological interventions in organizations occurs and to elucidate the role of the implication of the intervener and the workers themselves in this context. As the authors of this work conduct psychosociological interventions, in public and private organizations, the data explored comes from their daily practices, from the ‘reminiscence method of the researchers’. In addition to the chronological time and making it possible to overcome the intervention by the strict way of objectifying the behaviors, in the organizations this work includes the construction of a listening that is fulfilled in two distinct moments: ‘of the reception and return to the historicity, and of the more directed elaborations to the productive activity of each worker’. Implication, on the other hand, does not represent a methodological obstacle to be neutralized, but a fundamental component to the consolidation of the bond with the workers is revealed, provided that it is recognized and duly worked out. Empathy, sensitivity, recognition of the other and their differences, overcoming ideal and crystallized models, as well as the implication in performing an effective work that opens space for critical questions, are fundamental ingredients of these interventions.

Keywords:
Change management; intervention; work psychology

RESUMO.

A psicossociologia oferece um arcabouço teórico-metodológico profícuo à compreensão e exploração das relações entre os conflitos vividos no cenário laboral atual, o sofrimento dos trabalhadores e as contradições organizacionais. Nessa esteira, o objetivo desse estudo é compreender como se dá a construção do trabalho de escuta em intervenções psicossociológicas nas organizações e elucidar qual o papel da implicação do interventor e dos próprios trabalhadores nesse contexto. Como os autores desse trabalho conduzem intervenções psicossociológicas em organizações públicas e privadas, os dados explorados provêm de suas práticas cotidianas, a partir do método das ‘reminiscências dos pesquisadores’ e mediante abordagem qualitativa e descritiva. Para além do tempo cronológico e para possibilitar a superação da intervenção pela via estrita da objetificação dos comportamentos, nas organizações esse trabalho compreende a construção de uma escuta que se operacionaliza em dois momentos distintos: ‘do acolhimento e retorno à historicidade, e das elaborações mais direcionadas à atividade produtiva de cada trabalhador’. A implicação, por sua vez, não representa um obstáculo metodológico a ser neutralizado, senão que se desvela um componente fundamental à consolidação do vínculo com os trabalhadores, contando que ela seja reconhecida e devidamente trabalhada. A empatia, a sensibilidade, o reconhecimento do outro e de suas diferenças, a superação de modelos ideais e cristalizados, bem como a implicação na realização de um trabalho efetivo que abra espaço para interrogações críticas, constituem ingredientes fundamentais dessas intervenções.

Palavras-chave:
Mudança organizacional; intervenção; psicologia do trabalho

RESUMEN.

La Psicosociología ofrece una base teórico-metodológica para la comprensión y explotación de las relaciones entre los conflictos vividos en el escenario laboral actual, el sufrimiento de los trabajadores y las contradicciones organizacionales. En ese sentido, el objetivo de este estudio es comprender cómo se realiza la construcción del trabajo de escucha en intervenciones psicosociológicas en las organizaciones y elucidar cuál es el papel de la implicación del interventor y de los propios trabajadores en ese contexto. Como los autores de este trabajo conducen intervenciones psicosociológicas, en organizaciones públicas y privadas, los datos explorados provienen de sus prácticas cotidianas, a partir del método de ‘las reminiscencias de los investigadores’ y por medio de un abordaje cualitativo y descriptivo. Además del tiempo cronológico y posibilitando la superación de la intervención por la vía estricta de la objetividad de los comportamientos, en las organizaciones ese trabajo comprende la construcción de una escucha que se opera en dos momentos distintos: ‘de la acogida y retorno a la historicidad, y de las elaboraciones más orientadas a la actividad productiva de cada trabajador’. La implicación, a su vez, no representa un obstáculo metodológico a ser neutralizado, sino que se desvela un componente fundamental a la consolidación del vínculo con los trabajadores, contando que sea reconocida y debidamente trabajada. La empatía, la sensibilidad, el reconocimiento del otro y de sus diferencias, la superación de modelos ideales y cristalizados, así como la implicación en la realización de un trabajo efectivo que abra espacio para interrogantes críticos, constituyen ingredientes fundamentales de esas intervenciones.

Palabras clave:
Cambio organizacional; intervención; psicología del trabajo.

Introduction

Among the organizational change and corporate methodologies approaches more recognized and currently in vogue, prevails the view that conflicts should be managed as they may be functional and feed businesses innovation structure (Gaulejac, 2011; Viana Braz, 2019). However, dissent and the nature of conflicts tend to be treated psychologically: communication problems, lack of information, clash of interests between departments or interpersonal, misunderstandings, ‘character issues’, ‘weakened or limited emotional structure’, ‘personality incompatible with the function’, ‘little stimulating behavior’, ‘lack of motivation or resilience’, et so on (Vandevelde-Rougale, 2017; Viana Braz, 2019). It seems to be hegemonic the idea that the organization is the product of individual acts. Nevertheless, there is a dialectical relationship in the meantime that is hidden, since also the organizations induce, govern and raise specific chains of behaviors, just as ways of being and thinking previously established (Enriquez, 1997).

The psychosociological intervention, object of this study, in contrast, starts from the premises and distinct epistemological roots, conceives the change (individual and collective) in a systemic way, and puts in question the collective structures and the power games in organizations (Gaulejac, 2012). In this perspective, it is reinforced the need to analyze the scenarios according to the clinical perspective of complexity, including ingredients like the historicity, life narratives, genuine emotions (including those considered threatenings) and anguish (Enriquez, 1997; Gaulejac, 2012). Treating conflicts indeed, from the Psychosociology, implies leaving the paradigm of immediacy and assuming that to change is necessary to abandon Manicheanist positions and prescriptive methodologies. Through these interventions, carried out individually and/or in groups in the workspace, it is possible to understand the unspeakable thing, the non-saying, and the contradictions that permeate the organizations' conflicts.

From a comprehensive perspective of the interrelationships among psychics and social determinism, interventions in Psychosociology represent a fruitful alternative in the exploration work of the relationship between the conflicts experienced in the workspace and the organizations’contradictions (Mata Machado, 2010; Gaulejac, Giust-Desprairies, & Massa, 2013). The differential of this approach is reflected in its effort to put in dynamic articulation organizational (procedures, rules, standards, tools and management practices), mental (discourses, representations and perceptions) and psychics (projections, identifications and idealizations) processes (Gaulejac, 2011; Dujarier, 2015).

The aim of this study, in this sense, is to understand how the construction of the listening work in these interventions occurs and, even more, which the implications functions (both the intervener as the workers themselves) in this context. We refer us to two constituents pillars of the backbone of psychosociological intervention and that; therefore, they raise fundamental questions: ‘What are the basic theoretical-methodological assumptions of the psychosociological listening? How are listening and implications operationalized in the psychosociological interventions? Under what conditions and framings are interventions carried out? What are their differentials in the Brazilian labor context?’

To answer these questions, we use a qualitative and descriptive approach (Turato, 2003). As the three authors of this study conduct psychosociological interventions in public and private organizations, the explored data come from their daily practices. In line with the methodology used by Tavares (2009) and in order to protect the companies identification and workers involved ethically, the theoretical-methodological framework exposed combined with interventions fragments that were carried out which came from the ‘researchers' reminiscences’ concerning their socio-professional trajectories. This methodology assumes that the experiences shared in the organizations daily dispense accurate reproduction of the contents worked (Tavares, 2009). The focus of this study, therefore, is to analyze dialectically and recursively the building process of the psychosociological listening, putting into question the distinct dimensions of the implications in this field.

The academic-scientific research, mostly developed in the academy for teachers and postgraduate researchers, is guided by the production of structured knowledge through pre-established scientific criteria, whose purpose is to understand critically the psychic and social phenomena that surround us (Minayo, 1994). This movement is also fundamental to the establishment of the foundations of the evolutions and transformations that operate in our society throughout history. In this article, however, we locate ourselves in other knowledge production sheds. Once the research and interventions in Psychosociology get along in an undissociated way from the action field, this study is in line with the ‘research in service’ mode (Minayo, 1994), founded and linked to the professional work of the authors in recent years. To cast a critical eye on the operative and instrumentalist logic inherent in these spaces, from our experiences, we hope to contribute with the knowledge production related to the technical-methodological assumptions that underline the psychosociological intervention. Surely, the research in service can not be carried out without the rigor of academic and scientific research nor opposes them (Minayo, 1994). The problematizations placed forward in this work, when expressing barriers found in the practice of organizations interventions, can contribute to the delineation of new paths to be explored in scientific research.

Theoretical-methodological assumptions

Psychosociology refers to listening, implication and change field. Highlighting the life histories and social trajectories, we try to act at the level of emotions and social processes, based on clinical social listening, favoring the collective construction of meaning. Developed in France, under the aegis of action research, Psychosociology emerged in the post-war time, in an intellectual context marked by Marxism and psychoanalysis. Although it was later recognized as a scientific discipline, from the 1960s, Psychosociology (along with Clinical Sociology) developed largely outside the universities, especially from the French institutionalist movement (Gaulejac et al., 2013).

About interventions in the field of organizations, regardless of whether the work is done in groups or individual devices, the listening exercise requires a set of premises. The Psychosociology does not only presuppose a share, from a range of specific techniques and methodologies. Before that, it comprises a way of being more sensitive present, by the inserted intervener in the organization, and involves the consideration that the ‘object’ of the research/action consists mainly of complex subjects: social actors, who are historicized, integrate a specific group and are inserted in a given context (Lhuilier, 2017). No wonder we have the Psychosociology as one of the components of the disciplines so-called ‘work clinics’: willing to occupy the space of a Clinical Social Psychology, it conceives the subject always in ‘situation’ and assumes as fundamental epistemological feature the multidisciplinarity (Enriquez, 2001; Gaulejac et al., 2013).

Among the sciences that favored its evolution and subsidized its practice, Psychoanalysis is highlighted. Accordingto Dubost (2001), it exercised a sensible and gradual influence over the advancement of Psychosociology, and it is one of the major characters responsible by the ‘clinical’ character in its interventions. This is because, in seeking a complex understanding of the subject, it takes him as an essentially symbolic, crossed by culture and language, and places him, so in ‘word position’. That is the importance of the listening issue.

When we refer to listening, we position ourselves beyond the simple act of listening. For Clinical Psychology, listening also allows the approach and the relationship among the individuals involved. As important as listening to the words is also listening to the silence, for example, more important than the assimilation of the literal content of what is said is the possibility of apprehension of the sense of speech, its cadence, its voice and tone. The body is also listened; we seek the understanding of affect and emotion that accompany the words. Time, moment, context, the inclusion of the subject in this set are noted. Therefore, it focuses on the sensitive fieldwork of the psychosociologist in interaction (Souza & Carreteiro, 2016).

As evidenced by Enriquez (2001), the psychosociologist appears as a witness that the subject ‘will be listened to and not forgotten’. In psychosociological intervention, the speech wins, finally, another level: they are not words at random, said in anyway and will not be effective. The worker recognition as a social actor, assigning significance to what he thinks and shares, as well as the relationship between the manifest content and emerging latent in his speech (crossed by organizational logic), means that there is a potential for change and transformation passing through the awareness and meaning restarted.

The construction of a chain of meanings and work geared to more solid individual and/or group changes depends on coping condition by workers. There are, currently, organizational contexts that prevent the emergence of conflicts, aiming just to the maintenance and stability of their systems authority bases (Lima, 1995). Companies establish communication strategies among its employees that no longer rely on explicit charges, clear roles of leadership and obedience to imposed rules, but rather a kind of common and shared ‘philosophy and theology’, which favors the tacit identification of all towards their organizational dynamics (Pagès, Bonetti, Gaulejac, & Descendre, 1987). This persuasive and conditional membership, instead of enabling outputs and reorganizations before the differences, it tends to be a useful instrument of domination, which disregards what is different and flees to its symbols structure and representations. This mode of control, more subtle and veiled, and not so less arbitrary or perverse, is the target of studies and problematizations, built by the perspective of Clinical Approaches since long ago (Pagès et al., 1987; Enriquez, 1997; Aubert & Gaulejac, 2007).

Beyond this ‘false collective’, at the individual level is required from workers to be flexible and to adapt to these new policies. On the one hand, the subjects are instigated to the initiative and competition, to nurture an ideal of achievement and to overcome themselves strongly rooted to their identity issues, on the other hand, all these attitudes necessarily need to fit to what is tacitly accepted among the organizational principles (Viana Braz, 2019). As pointed out by Casadore and Castro (2018), these paradoxical demands imposed on the worker emerge as insurmountable difficulties: the dehumanization (while ignoring the other, the individualities and the differences) and the subjection (also referent to subject voluntary servitude on behalf of the company ideals) for times, they do not find possible outputs in front of the imperatives.

Thus, according to Amado (2000), the company is established misleading like a ‘non-conflictive’ organization, masking differences, relativizing power relations, preventing further questioning, filling the ‘empty’ and uncertainties, making it impossible the creative output and the real confrontation (from the recognition) of the difficulties. Surely, the elaboration could only come from a more ‘investigative’ movement to bring to light the complex network of conflicts (the real nature of these problems) and the possibility of problematization and the search for the construction of responses and actions by these subjects directly involved in the situation.

Work on the Psychosociology approach not only favors the words flow and worker access to this role who has something to say and, therefore, speaks (for this, it is essential the existence of the other to perform the function of receiver subject, performing sensitive listening), but also enables the information sharing and the circulation of conflict, so that favors the new communication structures creation and the notion of the subjects social implication (Enriquez, 2001). The psychosociologist, according to Dubost (2001), is positioned as a facilitator (or catalyst), which also forms part of the group as part of the process, participating in the knowledge construction as he follows the people movement, their discoveries and their resistance.

By the recognition of the subject and his advent (involvement) in this field, we think of Psychosociology as a “[...] social subject clinic” (Lhuilier 2011, p. 26), from a listening device that provides subjective realization processes and their ways of implication. Enriquez (2001) points out that the work, finally, is with the individuals and groups' ‘inventiveness’, allowing the movement of desire and the possibility of transforming words into action. According to the author, the advent of an ‘imaginary driving’ in the place where before existed as ‘imaginary misleading’ is what is going to perform a responsible instituting function by changes - and, thus, by the emergence of new relations modes and symbolic reorganization.

The listening construction

- ‘What is to talk for?’ That was a question that left us perplexed, almost without the possibility of feedback, in one of our interventions in organizations field. Quickly we think the employee would like to understand the meaning of being together. What could we say? He was a person who worked directly with the animals (because it was a company dedicated to agriculture), he spoke little in his home and talked every day with the horse - his co-worker. At that time, we built the sense in which ‘to talk’ meant the possibility to think about his issues, especially those that could not be said for his supervisor, for his wife, in short, things that represent only one sense for himself. Moreover, essentially, thinking about the possibility of being happy. His eyes were filled with tears and expressed his feelings as follows: ‘It is the first time I hear it ... can I think of me? May I allow myself to be happy?’.

Understanding these words means searching in his experiences about the care with his family, as when he was sixteen, his parents divorced. He was responsible for taking care of his mother and his four younger siblings. This example, representative of other recurrent cases that we have been following in recent years, refers to the sensitive dimension of psychosociological listening, which opens the possibility of reflecting, in the workspace, on the existential dimension of social relations (Gaulejac, 2012).

In organizations, when we do follow-ups with individual workers, listening is operationalized in what we call ‘orientation spaces’ (Hashimoto, 2018), where each person can express his feelings and desires related to the work, as well as personal issues. Finally, we provide an open space for contact with himself.

What does this meeting mean for each one? It is simple but at the same time very complex. It is close and yet so far. It is joyful and sad at the same time. It takes a long time, but at the same time, it is fast. Because it is not just a meeting with the advisor⁵. It is essentially a meeting with himself. This is where the defenses emerge and many are the manifestations that hinder the orientation work. It is important to remember that a fragmented worker can not be understood, considering him only at work and without an understanding of his life as a whole. Here listening is a fundamental condition to start the orientation process (Hashimoto, 2018, p. 60).

Beyond the chronological time, our experience has shown that organizations in the intervention practices occur at ‘two different moments’. Although they are not exact, fixed and eventually mixed themselves, they imply distinct movement from the workers. ‘The first moment of the meetings’ is characterized by ‘psychological care’. It is necessary to be careful with the issue of confidentiality. The intervener must preserve the content that the employee brings to the meeting at any cost since this question is fundamental for the construction of respect and trust in the established relationship. This ‘psychological care’ includes an attempt to integrate the issues of work and personal life, which implies greater visibility for the worker in his internal affairs, learning how this affects his experience. The more confident and knowledgeable of himself (and of the others), the greater are the possibilities of development in the working space.

Remembering meetings moments means bringing out the images, sensations and experiences and discuss them in the orientation spaces (individuals or groups). Gradually such information goes through symbolization, assimilation and elaboration processes (Gaulejac, 2012). Eliciting these elements also means the possibility to share with others, so that they can also learn and benefit from the sense that each worker builds in these spaces. Although it seems difficult to imagine that listening offers within organizations, we see in our practice that this is especially possible, although not easy.

The start of listening work provokes questions on various aspects related to workers' resistance, ignorance and expectations. This is a double distrust that occurs in the workspace: ‘distrust from both the involved workers and the organization's leaders’. “Fear, doubt and difficulty of dealing with their issues are exacerbated by the situation itself: the manager is not a person chosen by the worker as well as the workspace” (Hashimoto, 2018, p. 60).

These issues must be very well understood in the psychological contract with each employee and, further, that they are maintained, as any movement that meets the expected can cause the breaking of established ties. In practical terms, with the leaders is established that the effects of the undertaken work occur gradually, procedural, and because it is an approach that comprises an integrative view of the subject's relationship with his work, we do not share the worked contents. The intervener is not an ‘intermediary messenger’, whose function is to bring information to the board. With workers, we assume an ethical contract, responsibly, ensuring that worked issues, both individually and in groups, remain in those spaces. To ensure confidentiality, we reaffirm that these spaces are intended neither to evaluate them nor to make any kind of moral judgment on the contents emerging from their talks. It is important to stress that the meetings have to be spontaneous. They can not be required, as this condition ensures much of the work development.

In one of the first meetings with a company executive, we put a question without great pretensions, but it took on new significance and triggered a major process of change in her life. ‘How is your life?’ - that was the question. The worker was living at the time a conflict between motherhood and work. The question of dedication and time seemed irreconcilable, emerged guilt feeling for both the child and concerning the company. Being able to talk freely about these issues in the workspace made possible a new relationship with work and the reconstruction of other dedication modalities in a competent, integrated and dignified way. Reflect on personal issues and be able to reframe the work became possible from the opening of a space for listening and involvement, laying on dynamic articulation psychological and social determinism. Enriquez (2009), when speaking of these spaces, he refers to the moments when feelings deeply occur, where two people are on equal and reciprocity position. Besides, the most important, especially in group devices, is expected that each one can contribute to each other, but each one must remain different from the other, affirming his uniqueness. So, it is about to enable the other further growth. “Growing up means to suffer and to change. In this process, changes, losses, misunderstandings, suffering occur but also occur chances of meetings, happiness, care, leading to dreams, emotions, feelings and solidarity reconstruction- in the family, company and in so many other spaces” (Hashimoto, 2018, p. 63).

From this perspective, comprehensive and existential (Gaulejac, 2012), life becomes disorganized, organizes itself and continues. Unlike productivist logic, in which only advances are designed and failures tend to be poorly tolerated, a psychosociological listening part from the prerogative that is eventually necessary to disorganize (to integrate past, present and future), so it is possible to organize from the very disorganization. It is referred to movements that can be fast, slow, light, but also sometimes very deep. The important thing is to continue forever so that they can bring new sources, new references and new meanings.

By revisiting his history, the subject can not change it but reveals the possibility of modifying his relationship to this story. That is the motion of autonomy construction and historicity that aims in this work. Workers are asked to confront the contradictions and gaps in their stories, then, to understand and rationalize social-psychic processes, putting regarding personal experiences and collective, amid group conflicts. However, it is important to highlight that although the approach may provide important insights, guided by the involvement and orientation to change and even, it can sometimes have ‘therapeutic effects’, it is not based on the therapeutic offer. It is, in short, a co-construction work whose purpose is to lead the individual to question himself about his experiences, choices and future projects, confronting with his ideals and implication in the existential record (Gaulejac & Legrand, 2013).

‘The second moment’ of the psychosociological intervention builds up in a more targeted way related to the productive activity of each worker. It is essential to seek new ways to stand out and to perform on the job, to be recognized by his competence and the conquered credibility. Here the work to seek past references and integrate them with the present is intensified. The desire to progress is revealed in the words, actions and concrete expectations of each employee.

This moment is characterized by the focus on the job. In addition to the questions related to intimate, personal aspects, other elements are present: knowledge and experience. The technical, critical and scientific knowledge must still be present in each of the workers. The reflection and the search for knowledge are important ingredients to combat boredom and resignation (Gaulejac, 2016). Studying, for example, means being able to launch in other spaces: the invention, creation and the search for a theoretical consolidation that enables security in what is being developed. Satisfactorily, in our work, we observed some cases of workers that in the intervention process felt encouraged seeking more knowledge (especially academics), whether by formal means or informally.

In addition, you can create other action possibilities with the listening work, for example, the question of the succession process in companies. Here we find a dual function. Firstly, to build with managers the view that the preparation of a professional does not necessarily mean a replacement, but also the possibility of acting in a more systemic and integrated way, with a broader view of his work in a company. Secondly, preparation of the real substitute for the new activity, especially in cases of retirement. Thus, it t can turn the competition into collaboration, making the relationships healthier and satisfactory.

The construction of a new manager, his meanings and ways of acting, also represents another illustrative example. In general, workers tend to bring a recipe of how to be a ‘successful manager’ as well as they have the manager idea linked to the figure of their immediate supervisors. In the work of listening, the two situations - manager model of management and their superiors - should be considered as ‘references’ and not as a ‘requirement’ to do likewise. Deal with the construction of a professional from ideal or crystallized figures is an insidious and thankless task to professionals, for the constitution of each person is different from another. When the employee realizes that the basis for the construction of a manager is his life story, that is, in his own way of being, understanding, feeling, living (in his own constitution), his goals and expectations become closer and able to be developed. The psychosociological listening, in this space, allows the overcoming of ideals, prescriptive models, combats culpability culture for the pursuit failure of impossible ideals to be realized and paves the way for the construction of identities and concrete professional narratives, which pass through the construction of meaning in work done.

Therefore, the listening work implies helping people, as long as possible, even when they have internal and external availability, to become safer and have the opportunity to develop as individuals. The listening work implies the look, the care. Many people say: “[...] I am glad to have a person who can look for us”. To some extent, we noted in our practices that workers realize this listening work as a single investment of the organization in their respective developments, not only professional but also personal.

The implication as a condition

Place the implication as a condition to the development of this listening work requires the questioning of two levels: the intervener implication and the implication of the workers themselves put in motion the links established in the workplace.

It is necessary that the advisor, throughout the intervention work, asked himself about his theoretical choices, family, his aspirations, professional affiliations, professional positions, finally, his feelings and transference and counter transference dynamics that may emerge. As elucidates Devereux (1967), the analysis and attention to transference aspects are fundamental to the understanding of possible deformations that influence the perception of the intervener, relating to raised anxiety in his work. There is no neutrality in this relation. From the moment we spoke at meetings in the organizational space, we understand that the intervener is immersed in social realities and specific institutional and, therefore, he is also affected by what is happening to workers in the daily life of the organizations to which they belong. Besides that, as highlighted by Rizet (2012), the implication is central as the professional does not work only with his knowledge, but also with his history itself, his resources, his personal investments and his resistances.

The implication does not necessarily comprise a methodological obstacle to be neutralized. However, it reveals a fundamental component of linking consolidation with the workers, if it is recognized and properly worked (Rizet, 2012). Moreover, that is why the advisor role is not from an expert. This is not about putting up himself in the position of the absolute holder of scientific knowledge. Approaching as much as possible of the perceptions and experiences associated with working experienced by the people involved, the knowledge production and explanatory hypotheses about the conflict occurs from an ever-collective construction, mediated by psychosociological listening (Barus-Michel, 2012). Naturally, this does not minimize the need for a solid theoretical and practical formation by the intervener. The training itself in Psychosociology, in this sense, along with the assimilation of theoretical-methodological assumptions, comprises indispensable labor exploitation, concern and elaboration of the contradictions that run through his life story and career path.

Sensitive listening and empathy, therefore, prove to be central, as the meeting with the workers, either intentionally or fortuitous, are mobilizing the intervener subject. So, this professional must be willing to undress his dogmas, his Manichean visions, moral judgments, facing his ghosts and weaknesses, approaching as closely as possible the work experienced by workers. The intervention driving is related more to the questions and the queries than the search for evidence of his own convictions. In the face of organizational resistance or even institutional hostility, it is the intervener implication, from the acquired experiences, that gives him subsidies to build new paths and have access to new knowledge.

Questioning on the social and psychic, treating them in their interdependence, becomes an obstacle since the labor scenario is marked by suffering and individualization and concealing of its contradictions (Viana Braz, 2019). Implicating oneself requires the ethical and political commitment in favor of the complex understanding of reality from different workers' experiences. Therefore, we have not adopted binary visions, as if the solution to the everyday contradictions of the work world were always a fruit of an abstract, autonomous and transcendental system. Organizations are built and reproduced by the workers. The hierarchical levels, yet interdependent, are not integrally connected. Each individual represents the demands of his job. Relations of authority and repression depend more on the professional position than the behaviors inherent to people (Gaulejac, 2012). Each position requires specific rationality. Discard any Manichaeism type, not reinforce relations of opposition, as part on the assumption that each worker behavior is over determined by the position where he is in the social- organizational context (Viana Braz, 2019).

Special attention should be given in cases where the demand and financial contracts are performed with the direction of organizations so that the intervener is not seduced by the desire to place as a spokesperson or a scapegoat of that board. His listening construction and his position as a professional is not linked to a messenger function so that when there are issues to be communicated to senior management levels, the intervener needs to act as a facilitator, supporting groups (or subject) to carry by themselves (himself) and in an articulated way, the work demands.

On the workers' side, aiming at this work developing, it is necessary to implicate over his thoughts and questions, but they are also willing to question on the sensitive dimension of affections, representations and perceptions they have about their life stories and the organizational structure in which they are inserted. The implication to which we refer comprises a rationalization and repositioning work on the way the conflicts are faced but also involves the emotional implication of employees. Therefore, in the meetings held, the organizational analysis is not restricted only at behavior levels. This is on the assumption that the daily labor is the product of intersecting issues from existential order (related to the history of the people), organizational (linked to the organizations' management), social (determined by the imaginary meanings and social standards) and economic (linked to production modes and socio-economic scenarios) (Gaulejac, 2011).

The implication is also an essential condition for the consolidation of a professional relationship based on confidentiality and ethics, both workers and the intervener. From the moment where the fragmentation of professional and personal space is disregarded, because we understand that they are interdependent components and they mixture themselves in the organizational routine, shared content by workers can not be trivialized or overlooked. Therefore, in our practice, we observe that the membership and the implication in work depend directly on the establishment of crossed transference relations by signs as the legitimacy, credibility and confidence in the intervener. When this does not occur or, even more so, when the person is not allowed to go beyond the concrete and look at his history, the work is hard successful.

We also realize, with the experience, that the work of analysis of workers' social trajectories plays an important role in this process, including promoting the construction of meaning at work. An analysis of history favors the understanding of the present conflict, to act in building the future (Gaulejac, 2012). In practice, to be implicated in a reflective exercise about the past seems to produce important results to rethink conflict situations that fall within the present. At a group level, we observed that this also favors the unification of the workers. When sharing with co-workers questions about his history, the subject, in addition to strengthening his ties with others, he is faced with side identifications with other people. “We have worked for over ten years together, I had no idea of ​​the life story of Claudia (not her real name) and as we share things in common […]”, witnessed a worker.

The implication of employees also goes for the deconstruction of utilitarian and immediacy expectations. Once the organizational routine is immersed in the result culture and action in the short-term, to the detriment of reflection, it is natural that the workers come to this kind of demand and expectations at the beginning of this work. On the one hand, to offer subsidies for the worker to understand the premise of the listening offered is the intervener role. On the other, it is up to the employee to be implicated in the work of that perspective deconstruction, in favor of adopting an analytic posture seated in progressive and generative approach, which conceives that the result is in the process. Finally, it should be noted that ‘eliminating the symptom does not allow to solve the problems’ (Gaulejac, 2012), so the implication necessarily involves the suspension of the urgency culture and by the analytical, systemic and integrative effort, about the organizational environment conflicts.

Final considerations

In line with Giust-Ollivier (2006), if we were to summarize the meaning of psychosociological intervention, we should state that this is a job that enables us to organize a socio-organizational system differently. It is not sought for an ideal end to be achieved; the change takes place in an integrated and procedural way. Understanding the conflict takes on other aspects, through the coordination of various impasses (social, political, economic, cultural and personal) from the role of workers involved in the development of their potential as social actors. Empathy, sensitivity, recognition of others and their differences, the overcoming of ideal and crystallized models and, above all, the implication in conducting an effective work that opens space for critical questions are key ingredients of these interventions.

If we put the listening construction in Psychosociology to the foreground in this study, it is because it makes it possible to overcome the intervention by the strict via of the behaviors objectification. Recognizing the centrality of the affections dimension and workers' representations, the psychosociological listening, engendered in the determinants of subjective implication, comprises a work that is operated on two distinct levels. The first, of individual character, is focused on the historical reconstruction and historicity (Gaulejac, 2012). Therefore, it is addressed to the understanding of desires, choices (professional, loving, family and personal), projections, contradictions and ruptures that cross the worker's life paths. This is a matter of grasping how is the process of building his or her narrative identities and what the work meanings assigned by each subject. The second level, the socio-organizational, allows putting in dynamic interaction the sociological and psychological factors that determine the individual stories. From this network of meanings reconstruction, this level involves the analysis and questioning of conflicts related to the management of organizations and working relations. Through personal experiences and putting them in question at the core of an organization's operating logic, it is tried to understand collective phenomena that touch the others.

In short, in our experiments, we found that the collective construction of alternatives to overcome the organizational contradictions and conflicts in labor relations, facilitated by the listening work and the intervener/advisor implication, proves to be a fruitful intervention via in the organization's field. Beyond a work governed exclusively by economic realism, creating spaces guided by listening and the psychosociological implication seems to touch on the ties of solidarity, the affections and workers' cooperation. In practice, this process is not an easy task. New challenges and dilemmas are presented at each meeting of our interventions. There are neither recipes nor prescriptions. The listening construction requires professional humility to recognize his mistakes, availability to always learn and implication for to not give up in the face of resistance that emerges in his daily life. Finally, the effects of this work gradually understood by the changes and returns made by employees are what encourages us to spread the theoretical-methodological framework of Psychosociology.

Referências

• Amado, G. (2000). Coesão organizacional e ilusão coletiva. In F. C. P. Motta & M. E. Freitas (Orgs.), Vida psíquica e organização (p. 103-116). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Editora FGV.
• Aubert, N., & Gaulejac, V. (2007). Le coût de l’excelence : nouvelle édition Paris, FR: Éditions du Seuil.
• Barus-Michel, J. (2012). Implication, significations et engagement. In V. Gaulejac, F. Hanique & P. Roche(Orgs.), La sociologie clinique: enjeux théoriques et méthodologiques (p. 218-225). Toulouse, FR: Érès.
• Casadore, M., & Castro, M. F. (2018). Os problemas da desumanização, do assujeitamento e das resistências frente aos imperativos socioeconômicos atuais: considerações sobre as relações sociais e de trabalho. Revista Espaço Acadêmico, 209(XVIII), 23-32.
• Devereux, G. (1967). De l’angoisse à la methode dans les sciences du comportement Paris, FR: Flammariom.
• Dubost, J. (2001). Notas sobre a origem e evolução de uma prática de intervenção psicossociológica. In M. Machado, E. Castro, J. N. Araújo & S. Roedel (Orgs.), Psicossociologia: análise social e intervenção(p. 171-184). Belo Horizonte, MG: Autêntica.
• Dujarier, M. (2015). Le management désincarné: enquête sur les nouveaux cadres du travail Paris, FR: La Découverte.
• Enriquez, E. (2001). Da formação e da intervenção psicossociológicas. In M. Machado, E. Castro, J. N. Araújo& S. Roedel(Orgs.), Psicossociologia: análise social e intervenção (p. 211-236). Belo Horizonte, MG: Autêntica .
• Enriquez, E. (1997). A organização em análise (F. Rocha Filho, trad.) Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes.
• Enriquez, E. (2009). As solidariedades estão voltando... Boletim da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Recuperado de:https://www.ufmg.br/online/arquivos/012658.shtml
  » https://www.ufmg.br/online/arquivos/012658.shtml
• Gaulejac, V. (2012). L’histoire en héritage: roman familial et trajectoire sociale Paris, FR: Éditions Payot & Rivages.
• Gaulejac, V. (2016). La névrose de classe Paris, FR: Éditions Payot & Rivages .
• Gaulejac, V. (2011). Travail, les raisons de la colère Paris, FR: Éditions du Seuil .
• Gaulejac, V., Giust-Desprairies, F., & Massa, A. (Orgs.). (2013). La recherche clinique en sciences sociales (Sociologie clinique). Paris, FR: Érès.
• Gaulejac, V., & Legrand, M. (Orgs.). (2013). Intervenir par le récit de vie: entre histoire collective et hitroire individuelle (Sociologie clinique). Paris, FR: Érès .
• Giust-Ollivier, A. (2006). Le psychosociologue face aux enjeux de la responsabilité. Nouvelle Revue de Psychosociologie, 2, 47-58.
• Hashimoto, F. (2018). Escuta psicossociológica: o encontro com o/do indivíduo no espaço do trabalho. Revista Espaço Acadêmico, 209(XVIII), 56-64.
• Lhuilier, D. (2017). O agir em psicossociologia do trabalho. Psicologia em Revista, 23(1), 295-311.
• Lhuilier, D. (2011). Filiações teóricas das clínicas do trabalho. In P. Bendassolli & L. Soboll (Orgs.), Clínicas do trabalho: novas perspectivas para a compreensão do trabalho na atualidade (p. 22-57). São Paulo, SP: Atlas.
• Lima, M. E. A. (1995). Os equívocos da excelência: as novas formas de sedução na empresa Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes .
• Mata Machado, M. N. (2010). Intervenção Psicossociológica, método clínico, de pesquisa e de construção teórica. Pesquisas e Práticas Psicossociais, 5(2), 175-181.
• Minayo, M. C. S. (1994). Pesquisa Social: teoria, método e criatividade Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes .
• Pagès, M., Bonetti, M., Gaulejac, V., & Descendre, D. (1987). O poder das organizações (M. C. P. Tavares & S. S. Favatti, trad.) São Paulo, SP: Atlas.
• Rizet, S. (2012). De la reconnaissance de l’implication du chercher à sa mise au travail. In V. Gaulejac, F. Hanique & P. Roche (Orgs.), La sociologie clinique: enjeux théoriques et méthodologiques (p. 325-340). Toulouse, FR: Érès
• Souza, C. R. A., & Carreteiro, T. C. O. C. (2016). Narrativas de vida e o seu uso pela psicossociologia. Clínica e Cultura, 5(1), 23-36.
• Tavares, L. A. T. (2009). A depressão como “mal-estar” contemporâneo: medicalização e (ex)-sistência do sujeito depressivo (Dissertação de Mestrado). Faculdade de Ciências e Letras de Assis, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Assis.
• Turato, E. R. (2003). Tratado da metodologia da pesquisa clínico-qualitativa Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes .
• Vandevelde-Rougale, A. (2017). La novlangue managériale: emprise et résistance Toulouse, FR: Érès .
• Viana Braz, M.(2019). Paradoxos do trabalho: as faces da insegurança, da performance e da competição Curitiba, PR: Appris.

• 5
  In this text, we refer to intervener and advisor terms interchangeably.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Dec 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  24 June 2019
• Accepted
  23 Sept 2019