For decades, the ins and outs of the glass ceiling have been instructed, many concepts have made it possible to identify the social obstacles that delay women's careers, but also certain obstacles internalized by women themselves that make them hold back their momentum.

We think of the imposture complex or the good student complex, in which these two levels of brakes intervene, external to the individual but also internal. But there is also the large poppy syndrome. What is it? The editorial staff of the EVE web magazine takes a closer look at the concept.

The temptation to cut off the heads that stick out

The expression " great poppy syndrome" appeared in the sociological literature in 2003 by the Australian researcher Bert Peepers, to designate the situation in which individuals who have amassed fortune, acquired visibility and finally taken a special place in society find themselves and who go on the one hand, to be tempted to feel above the masses (and the laws) and on the other hand, to become the target of all criticism. Referring to the legend of King Tarquin the Superb, the sociologist announces that the temptation of the collective in the face of these beings whose heads protrude is to cut it off from them.

But should we cut off the head that sticks out or should we get to the root of the problem of "head-up" behaviour and the social reactions that these behaviours provoke? For Peepers, it is the heart of a society's values and culture that must be attacked when one head unbearably exceeds all the others. And to underline a fundamental ambiguity in all societies that have as their sacrificial rite the sabration of leaders: they encourage singularization through wealth, prestige, the extension of the domain of power at the same time as advocating democratic, collective and egalitarian values. A permanent paradox: stand out from the crowd, but be in the crowd! Be ever freer and more independent, but do not give in to individualism! Pursue your personal interests but never go against the general interest!

Overused interpretations for the benefit of the victimization of the powerful ?

The notion of the " great poppy " is meeting with a certain success among those who would see it as the translation of jealousy towards the powerful and would be quite quick to victimize themselves when, in return for their fortune/notoriety/power, they are looked for in the head. Here, the political personality who cries out against injustice and castigates the rage of the people against the powerful ; there, the senior manager who does not see why he would " jump" (even with a parachute) more easily than another employee in the event of a mistake ; Here again, the artist who speaks of a " media lynching" when his off-set behaviour degrades his value on the market of awards awarded by the profession, or even his " bankable " character for producers... Of course, there is a hidden cost of exposure to be integrated into any project of personal ambition. Knowing it, preparing for it, equipping oneself to prevent it and manage it seems essential to anyone embarking on the project of rising !

But we emphasize the importance of also taking into consideration, when we invoke the notion of poppy syndrome, the part of real inappropriate behavior in the person who has grown in power. More than one will have been caught up in megalomania, excessive pride, snobbery, a feeling of impunity, uninhibited condescension and other joys in the field of narcissistic excesses... It is therefore necessary first to look back on oneself (and one's mistakes and excesses) when one feels affected by the great poppy syndrome and only then to question how the environment is ready or not to welcome talent and ambitions.

But what does the poppy have to do with the glass ceiling?

The literature on women's leadership takes (in a somewhat roundabout way) the concept of the great poppy syndrome to refer to the fear that some women have of rising to the top and paying dearly for the backlash and the glass cliff. Thus, coach Barbara Reibel identifies a temptation to put on an " invisibility cloak", to make oneself smaller than one is, more discreet and more modest, to spend more energy blending in with the crowd rather than revealing one's audacity.

A more feminine than masculine reflex? First, an egalitarian reflex, says the expert, backed by a set of beliefs on the fact that to shine on one's own is to overshadow others and above all to play one's personal card to the detriment of the collective. If we consider that stereotypical expectations are more likely to direct humility, a sense of community and a spirit of cooperation, attention to the most vulnerable and the desire for equality towards women, we can put forward the hypothesis that the fear of being too big a poppy, like the fear of being referred to the queen bee syndrome, would affect women more.

And in reality ? Are women whose heads protrude more than men the target of criticism, destabilization maneuvers and other coarseness that is reserved for the powerful? What we can say is that for a long time, " powerful women" had more than men to endure sexist remarks, questioning of their legitimacy, inappropriate attacks on their physique or their private life. However, the phenomenon #MeToo seems to be reshuffling the cards, insofar as the infamous nature of alleged or proven behaviour of sexism, sexual harassment or violence against women, exposes men to new risks of being implicated and seeing their careers jeopardised. Yesterday essentially afraid of having their heads " cut off" (symbolically, eh) if they were guilty of financial embezzlement or if they betrayed in their camp, men today join women in the field of fragility because of ethics, behaviors and personality.

Taking action against the poppy syndrome

The great poppy syndrome poses two problems, on which it is necessary to be able to activate the right levers at the same time:

• The problem of the social acceptance of distinction through success,
• The individual problem of changing postures and behaviors when one is in a position of power.

For a new social acceptance of distinction through success

The social acceptance of distinction through ambition and success has long been based on " identity fanaticism", if we want to paraphrase the sociologist Edgar Morin who, as early as 1967, well before the era of peoplization and influencers, highlighted the role of idols in producing social cohesion around shared values. A political figure, a variety artist, a captain of industry were thus invested with a common vision of the legitimacy of being " apart ".

In this dynamic, there was not only the recognition of merit in holding a " separate " place (deeds of war, an elective or divine mandate, exceptional talent, patient work, visionary ideas, etc.) but also the valorization of a path to follow in order to succeed in life.

This path was marked by strong values (work, courage,  resilience, loyalty, efficiency and sometimes patriotism) and the collective narrative made it possible to believe that by respecting these values, everyone increased their own chances of making " their " place " apart ". The model is now challenged by the competition of other values (generosity, proximity, empathy, ethics, etc.) which renew and enrich the face of exemplarity.

To be an example for our contemporary era is to have the qualities of yesterday and those of today. A huge job in itself, especially since it is not without subjecting the individual to paradoxical injunctions: can one be both a (war) leader who knows how to make himself obeyed and obtains sacrifices from his troops and a (modern) leader all in soft power who knows how to make everyone grow and deploy his or her own agility as much as that of others ?

The social acceptability of individual distinction must undoubtedly involve the recomposition of a coherent base of common values. But how do you meet this challenge ? The leaders certainly have their card to play !

For a new behavioral ethics of power

If it is difficult for the social body to give up everything, and the leader who orders with authority and the leader who moves forward in flexibility, it is also a mourning for those who exercise positions of responsibility. This mourning is that of a certain number of privileges associated with distinction, in particular all those that make it possible to make an exception to what is required of ordinary mortals. It is the rights, formal or informal, associated with having one's head sticking out that are called into question here.

Because basically, shouldn't being one head ahead of the others confer duties, above all ? The duty to allow others to rise, the duty to anticipate (since we have a broader horizon that allows us to gain in vision), the duty to ensure that the ground on which we grow ourselves remains rich and fertile (hello, relational ecology!)…