The social conference must not turn into a media mass, where everyone tries to shine with their science and flatter their egos. This meeting is not an end in itself: it must give rise to a French team, united by a common destiny and objective.

 Meetings usually have an agenda, which is more or less adhered to. Objectives are usually set, as well as milestones, dividing up the tasks between people to help reach a target. It is common, and useful, to start by exchanging views and feelings on a given situation or on the means to act effectively. It is quite common to spend more time than expected exchanging views on the current situation, on the context, with each person explaining the explanatory and determining factors, an absolute and radical truth based on his or her unique expertise, experience and position 'at the heart' of the system, which is particularly revealing of what is happening.

And because we are in France, we dissertate a lot, debate energetically on the situation, digress abundantly, and with great talent and intellectual satisfaction, on a multitude of political and social subjects, until a troublemaker, basely pragmatic and down-to-earth, who was stamping his feet while looking at his watch, comes to disturb the symposium of listeners to call for "what do we do now? This apostrophe is generally followed by a period of calm where everyone takes a back seat, like students who have stopped chatting and are trying to become invisible at the moment of the teacher's surprise test.

This professor is public opinion, which expects solutions rather than discussions. Beyond the economic difficulties, we also suffer from often being more expert in diagnoses and symptoms than in prescriptions and remedies. And yet, the country that feels sick wants to get better. What is interesting are the perspectives rather than the diagnostic debates, which are often partisan, following the good old principle (also valid in the business world) that if things go wrong, it is the fault of others.

This is why this social summit is an important issue, ideally for each of us if it leads to a beautiful and exciting project (but it must be admitted that we hardly believe in it, although it should be the number one objective), for more than we think for the government, and for each of the partners.

Indeed, although dialogue and consultation are excellent things, they are not an end in themselves; it is the light that must flow from the discussion that is expected. The objective of communication, which aims to display and demonstrate a change of method, must not prevail. This five-year period cannot be summed up as a succession of round tables and consultations, it is the "so what? There is talk of a competitiveness issue ... which will have to raise the question of a necessary reform of the financing of social protection ... which should be the subject of a consultation with the social partners in 2013 ... in order to lay the foundations for a reform in 2014. But in 2012, 2014 is the end of the century! (if 2012 is not the end of humanity of course!)

What really counts are not the prompts of speeches but the counters of reality: those of employment, foreign trade, innovation, and business creation (at a time when business closures are breaking records). These meters are the objective, a common objective, which must be shared by stakeholders and "representatives" likely to play as a team and not to defend partisan interests.

The risk of this type of social and media mass is that of a meeting of doctors, where each one wants to shine with his science and believes he holds the absolute truth. A meeting of doctors where egos take precedence over patients.

Trade union representatives have mandates, are elected representatives, whose responsibility is to win for their side, their members. The image objective is then to show their troops that they were strong, that they did not give in, that they defended their interests. This is the vicious circle of corporatist communication, communication in a vacuum. However, we must move from corporatism to corporate. It's not a question of making your business unit win, but of the company, the team, by putting yourself at the service of the other and not against the other.

Function and status should not dictate discourse. It would be amusing to imagine blind proposals or role-playing, putting others in a position of humility in the face of their dependence on others. Competition is a matter of competition, accounting is a matter of a zero-sum game, here the register is different, these national issues are a matter of convergence, where everyone wins in the overall performance.

We deplore the fact that the players of the French football team ("France" remains to be proven in this appellation) do not honour the colours. The same applies to the various delegations that have been meeting since yesterday at the Economic, Social and Environmental Council: defending the national interest, in a good collective understanding, where individual contributions are placed at the service of national performance. This is also what the representative bodies meeting at this social summit must demonstrate, and it will do everyone good, starting with themselves, who suffer enormously from an image and reputation deficit.