Originally Posted by
San Gottardo
I am not certain though whether the inability to challenge itself that inhibits most of AF is only due to the traits described. Confronted with customer suggestions, complaints and comparisons with other competitors the typical reaction of AF (and its apologists) is to explain why something cannot work or to dismiss the best practice by pointing out that elsewhere it is even worse.
This reminds me of an article by the sociologist Diego Gambetta I read a long time ago,
(*) in which he contrasts societies having a holistic, indexical versus analytical conception of knowledge and the difficulties in the former to admit that you do not know everything. He calls that "clarismo", referring to the defensive practice of replying to any comment or objection put to you by "claro" (= "of course", in Spanish), thereby indicating that you had already thought of and and anticipated the objection and taken in into account in your position.
What you describe here is, imo, a good example of such "clarismo": you cannot admit that you are wrong and lose face in that process. Therefore, you come up with a battery of arguments as to why your system is best.
Same phenomenon in irrops: if you come out all guns blazing blaming the airline or airport and demanding that they do something, in the way the cliché would associate with Americans, the AF or ADP employee is likely to adopt a defensive position and devote his/her efforts in explaining to you why AF or ADP is not at fault and deflecting blame onto somebody else.
However, taking that position in public does not necessarily imply that you adopt the same in private. It is quite possible to officially assert that you are the best while, in private, looking at what competitors do to see whether you can improve your product.
What
orbitmic, I believe, and myself were saying is something a little different: a tendency to have one's worldview somewhat limited by, not quite group-think/pensée unique, but a more limited range of views due to insufficient exposure to other ideas, other world-views. At the politician/public sector/"grandes entreprises" elite level, I guess one could also refer to the role of the "grandes ecoles", and especially the ENA, in promoting a particular weltanschauung although, to be fair, a comparison to the UK would probably result in assigning a comparable role to Oxbridge, albeit perhaps with less of an "esprit de corps" than in grandes ecoles, at any rate as far as the ENA is concerned.
That may stem from an attitude where customers aren't thought of as rational actors that make informed choices but that in fact they are "users" (for non-French speakers: the term "usager" is still in use for instance for the national railway system or public transport). Not thinking of passengers as customers but of users of something that is in place and is to be taken or left the way it is explains a lot.
The term "usager" comes from the service public background and is, imo, a prime example of the translation difficulty I mentioned above. I do not think that it is a purely negative term. The notion of service public in France is a very rich and complex concept which has a cultural baggage which is quite unique and different from concepts of public service in many other states. There are positive and negative aspects to it but I would not necessarily see the move from a service public ethos to a commercial customer ethos as something that is uniquely positive. Arguably, there is in France more of a culture of consultation and involvement of "usagers" of public services than of customers of commercial businesses so I would not necessarily associate the reference to "usagers" as symptomatic of an unwillingness to listen to what users/customers think.
OTOH, the public service background would probably lead to less of a culture of comparing yourself to your competitors if only because in a full-blown public service environment there is no competitor.