8

Today’s trends in “hypermodern” organization practices: the cult of individual performance, hyperactivity, tight flow, multiplicity of organizations (hierarchical, transversal, matrix . . .) generate new problems for corporate actors: to control and manage through reporting systems, and, at the same time, develop autonomy and initiative; work on short-term targets, and institute organizational changes that respond to strategic imperatives; be responsive and creative, and, at the same time be rigorous in respecting processes; cut costs and upgrade standards. We can state that problems become more and more psychologized faced with these paradoxes and “opposites.” Individuals are left on their own faced with their own ideal, and management (goals, performance, competence, wages . . .) and consulting (coaching, 360? . . .) practices which have become more and more individualized. By examining practices (coaching, “intervention” in teams and “collectives,” training) in a so-called “hypermodern” organization, our aim is to shed light on the place given to the collective dimension in those operations. How can a space be found for the collective dimension when analyzing a demand, at a time when it is weakening, becoming less and less a support for identification? How can buyers be sensitized about this? How can the clinical entry point be negotiated? How can persons and groups be helped to build identities and links that overcome the logic of immediacy? How can organizations be helped to build collective spaces able to separate problems (individual, team, institution) and to be more containing? The story of a practice also raises questions about the place of psychosociologists today, in that kind of organization, its limits, and the ethical stakes that underlie its practices.