A true business leader is an entrepreneur

The debate on the granting and use of stock options, which give recipients the right to purchase in the future of the shares of their company at a price determined in advance, through the political class and part of the French opinion with a scent of scandal, as the "flowers of evil" of the management function, which would limit or prohibit the use.

Thus posed, this debate is absurd and dangerous. Its corollary is that the remuneration of the business manager must first be salary issues. A business leader is a social agent. There is no wage status, in the absence of a relationship of subordination. If it was previously an employee in the company, his employment contract would be suspended for the duration of the social mandate. The compensation that it perceives, fixed or variable, is deemed to be paid only in respect of tax and social regulation with the exception of unemployment. Who remember today

When a pattern begins, creates his company, puts at risk, no one is surprised that his remuneration is first that of a shareholder and that it uses the full panoply of legal and tax instruments including purchase of stock of business to collect the fruit of his efforts on success. There is even no discussion on the "quantum" of enrichment, and this is so. Want to move away from this model leaders recruited more large companies and corporations listed to promote de facto status of true-false employee, revocable ad nutum"and therefore paid as long as he is in Office, cannot run that disrupt the good governance of these companies.

A true business leader is an entrepreneur. It's a difficult, full, profession which requires a lot of commitment and self-sacrifice often, and is part of the period. It involves a work of appropriation of the fate of the company and a convergence on the bottom with the shareholders that the defence of the social interest encompasses and exceeds the only concerns of these. Social agents must therefore be fully shareholders themselves and incidentally "employees", and not the reverse. If so, the question was asked, it would lose its content policy and passion while its current wording reveals once again the propensity of the French model to ask baffles on the road to success.

It is important that a consensus be established because rules and practices deserve to be clarified and made acceptable by all stakeholders, including the market, in an open and largely globalized economy. I think that there are three key areas on which this clarification is necessary, and is also claimed in all major Western countries.

The first is that of the amounts involved. You need to know why keep both in quasi-salaires to pay equity. Simply measure the differences between the practices of the early 1990s and today to understand the unease that creates a small minority of publicized situations. The captains of industry who have rebuilt our continent for more than three decades were no less motivated than their successors and exemplary behaviour in any democratic society is the condition of lawful authority.

The second is that the adjustment between the part of the shares and the share of wages in remuneration. In a company, from a certain size, everyone should be shareholder, a fortiori if it is listed. Current devices are still insufficient for what may be a social issue as important as the home ownership of his home, and the other contributing to solve the problem of pensions. The Business Manager, and more generally the social agents, should both invest and be mostly paid in shares on terms and conditions specific to each company, but through systems varied such as the free French shares, the shares purchased with a loan whose repayment is decreasing with the attainment of the objectives as in Germany, warrants of shares of any kind that exist everywhere. Each mechanism has its merits, and it is no need to focus on such or such.

The third area is that of freedom for a shareholder exercising responsibilities in a publicly traded company and having access to sensitive information to transfer its securities. The prohibit returns to deprive him of the free disposal of its heritage and to develop practices of infidelity, especially that such limitations are good logic and fairness be extended to all persons likely to have access to this information. Therefore, a "window of shooting" after each General Assembly, which is designed to be an appointment of transparency. Cash requirements can be in the meantime provided by banks against collateral of these titles.

It would be dangerous and regrettable not to define these rules and practices at the level of the European Union, whether codes of conduct or regulations. The economic integration of the companies is a growing reality. The society of European law is beginning to see the day. Harmonise flexibility management of men, and especially the leaders, would be a factor of mobility, integration and economic and cultural progress.