The France Telecom Suicides: Implications for Crisis PR and Change Management

I had intended to blog about the France Telecom crisis--24 employees have committed suicide in recent months, a trend many observers are linking to restructuring efforts--last week, but now Leslie Gaines-Ross has beaten me to it. (And actually, it seems that European PR blogger Paul Seaman was on the story ahead of either of us.)

The company initially claimed the suicides were the result of personal, not professional, issues and pointed out that the figures were in line with national statistics. But several victims were explicit in blaming the stress of work. One said "management by terror" had driven him over the edge, adding: "I am committing suicide because of my work at France Telecom. That's the only reason."

By the middle of last week, there were signs that the company was taking the crisis more seriously. CEO Didier Lombard called a halt to the reorganization and promised to introduce workplace counselors. Louis-Pierre Wenes, the architect of the change initiative, resigned.

Seaman is critical of the company's response here, suggesting that the "apologize, reform, move on" approach to crisis communications is "patronizing and condescending" and that by accepting blame for a problem that at the very least has multiple, complex causes, the company is actually deflecting a more serious analysis of the issue.

My own feeling is that the company's public relations efforts appear to be motivated by a determination to put the issue to rest, which is understandable but not necessarily the most responsible course of action. I would have preferred to see some sign that France Telecom would sincerely like to participate in a process--I don't think the company itself should lead that process--to learn more about the causes of these suicides and avoid similar incidents in the future.

(I'm not sure I agree with Paul, who seems to think he knows the cause: "There is a problem with modern individualism: it makes people nurture their vulnerability, and especially their being victims of capitalism." I'm not sure any problem is quite that simple or one dimensional.) CORRECTION: In the comments, Paul points out he was not trying to explain the causes of the suicides with that comment, and that he acknowledged in his post that "Suicide is deeply personal. Its causes are difficult to fathom." My apologies if I over-simplified or distorted his argument.

Meanwhile, at her HBR blog, Gill Corkindale is more interested in the implications for change management in general, asking: "Do you believe, as I do, that managers and employees should accept that change is inevitable and work together to share the burden of stress and organisational change? Or do you feel, as some of the France Telecom workers do, that companies go too far, driving employees to distraction with continuous change programmes, unfair demands, and unskilled management?"

How about both? Change is inevitable--and even the most wrenching change management program is less stressful than the alternative, because failure to change is likely to lead to total destruction. On the other hand, companies too often fail to gain employee consent to change--it is imposed rather than developed through a participative process--and fail to share the responsibilities and costs equitably.