Articles scientifiques

Professional equality between men and women in France: progress and hesitation


French Politics

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Mots clés : Justifications for equality policies, Professional equality and intersectional approaches, Professional-equality policies and collective bargaining, Professional-equality policy, State feminism

The purpose of this article is to present and analyze both the progress achieved and the difficulties for professional-equality policies in France. After presenting the development of the legislative framework, both in terms of equality between men and women and in terms of collective bargaining for professional-equality agreements, the article focuses on the ambiguities and difficulties that remain in implementing professional-equality policy. These concern the diversity of strategies for implementing professional equality, debates about the various justifications for these approaches, the effects of recent evolutions in collective-bargaining laws in France and, finally, the low level of judicial activism in fighting discrimination. The last section of the article focuses on key concerns for the future of these policies

When do we feel responsible for other people’s behavior and attitudes?


Advances in Group Processes

A paraître

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism


Journal of Business Ethics

A paraître

Départements : Comptabilité et Contrôle de Gestion, Management et Ressources Humaines, GREGHEC (CNRS)

Mots clés : Accountability, Auditors, Professional skepticism, Joint audit, Judgment, Experiment

The European Commission has suggested that the use of joint audits should lead to improved auditor skepticism and—by extension—audit quality, throughincreased accountability. However, archival research does not find support for improved audit quality in a joint audit setting. To better understand the relationship between accountability in different review regimes and auditors’judgments, we examine the behavioral effect of implementing a joint audit relative to other review regimes based on a 1 9 3 experimental design. Forty-seven senior auditors and partners from a Big Four firm performed a goingconcern evaluation task under one of three review regimes: the joint audit, the internal review, and the no review regime. Notwithstanding the difference in the audiences to which auditors are accountable, there is no difference in thejudgment process. In terms of their judgment outcome, however, auditors in the joint audit setting were the least skeptical in their judgment of the going concern assumption. Overall, we suggest that the joint audit may lead tounintended behavioral consequences

Leadership and the Logic of Absurdity


Academy of Management Review

avril 2018, vol. 43, n°2, pp.198-216

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Leaders are often thought to be instrumental to the performance of the organizations they lead. However, considerable research suggests that their influence over organizational performance might actually be minimal. These claims of leader irrelevance pose a puzzle: If leaders are relatively insignificant, why would someone commit to leading? Applying decision-making theory, this paper first considers justifying the decision to lead according to the Logics of Consequence and Appropriateness—the two principal decision-making logics underlying previous work on the motivation to lead. The paper then presents the Logic of Absurdity, a decision-making logic in which decision-makers knowingly choose to dedicate themselves to an irrational course of action. In terms of the decision to lead, a decision-maker employing the Logic of Absurdity acknowledges the likely futility of leading but decides to commit to leading, nonetheless. The paper concludes by considering when leaders are most likely to decide to lead according to the Logic of Absurdity and why doing so may result in leadership of exceptional originality, foolishness, intelligence, and madness

A helping hand is hard at work: Help-seekers' underestimation of helpers' effort


Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

mars 2017, vol. 139, pp.18-29

Départements : Management et Ressources Humaines

Mots clés : Help effort, Help-seeking, Social judgment, Prosocial behavior, Decision-making

Whether people seek help depends on their estimations of both the likelihood and the value of getting it.Although past research has carefully examined how accurately help-seekers predict whether their helprequests will be granted, it has failed to examine how accurately help-seekers predict the value of thathelp, should they receive it. In this paper, we focus on how accurately help-seekers predict a key determinantof help value, namely, helper effort. In four studies, we find that (a) helpers put more effort intohelping than help-seekers expect (Studies 1–4); (b) people do not underestimate the effort others willexpend in general, but rather only the effort others will expend helping them (Study 2); and (c) thisunderestimation of help effort stems from help-seekers’ failure to appreciate the discomfort—in particular,the guilt—that helpers would experience if they did not do enough to help (Studies 3 & 4)


Département Management et Ressources Humaines

Campus HEC Paris
1, rue de la Libération
78351 Jouy-en-Josas cedex



Management et Ressources Humaines

Voir le CV