In 1989 Laurent Lapierre is 48 years old and a tenured professor at Montreal's École des Hautes Études Commerciales. His courses revolve around the themes of management, leadership and the influence of personality on managers and their practices. He is also involved in launching a new program to train managers of artistic and cultural enterprises. Along with this, he is editor-in-chief of Gestion, one of the French-speaking world's few academic journals in management with a readership among both professors and managers.

 Laurent Lapierre leaves his mark on students. They evaluate his courses in glowing terms. Yet, this is a man who came late to university teaching and the twists and turns of his career path seem almost to conceal its basic coherence : first specialized in teaching, then a theatre manager, he started an M.B.A. at 32 and then went on for a doctorate. To complete his studies, he turns to psychoanalysis, seeking to understand managerial leadership in the light of discoveries concerning the unconscious and personality.

 His day-to-day activities and numerous publications have earned him more than a little credit and respect among his colleagues. And he has developed strong bonds with several of them. Driven by curiosity, attracted to new ideas and unexplored fields of knowledge, this very active professor is constantly involved in a host of projects. He laughingly complains of letting himself be dragged, almost unwittingly, into countless activities. However, he admits that he has always learned most by doing. His biography, which we will review briefly below, is eloquent proof of that fact.

 The case method that Laurent Lapierre uses systematically and almost exclusively in his teaching corresponds to this pragmatism. He views this method as part and parcel of his conviction that learning through doing will produce the most lasting and profound results : many things can be truly understood only through experience.

 There is another conviction underlying Laurent Lapierre's use of the case method, a conviction rooted in his vision of management. For him management is a field where subjectivity is an essential element. He admits that management does have its objectively measurable aspects, such as the strengths and weaknesses of a company or the characteristics of the environment. However, he insists that, in the last analysis, the decision which may result in the success — or failure — of a business is always taken by an individual. Used in that perspective, the case method tries to give insight into the manager's inner universe, not so as to set up models, but rather to propose styles and practices allowing individuals to discover their own subjectivity and thus what suits them in particular. So the two convictions are linked : someone else's experience may become as important a tool as one's own personal experience.

 In explaining his teaching method, Laurent Lapierre does not aim for a recipe :

 When called upon to guide other professors with whom I was working, I often found myself making suggestions to draw them toward what I felt was the "spirit of the case method." Now, my approach has changed. I advise them to start by doing what gives them a sense of security, what makes them feel comfortable.

 There are as many ways of teaching as there are professors, and each professor must find the method which suits his own personality. However, in teaching as well as management, observing what others do may be enlightening and instructive. The reader of the following pages is invited to adopt just such an attitude of observation.
 
 

Teaching : a vision and a passion to be shared

 In the usual order of things, a professor, faced with the task of preparing a course first draws up a course outline comprising a set of concepts to be taught. The next step is to find materials which will convey or illustrate those concepts. Laurent Lapierre does the opposite. Proceeding more inductively, he first looks for materials that arouses his interest and stimulate him to explore further. He reads cases and articles, watches videos, and looks over the course outlines of colleagues who teach similar subjects.

 I build my course outline as conscientiously as when I was teaching at the elementary level or discussing theatre programming. I look everywhere for interesting material. I ask myself if I can spend an hour and quarter on it in class, using it to stimulate and motivate the students... Reasoning this way, if I were teaching a management course and I didn't have any interesting material for a particular session, on planning for example, I wouldn't teach it... I can't work solely with theoretical concepts. If there was no existing material, I would ask myself : "Why isn't there any?", "Isn't it possible to create interesting material to illustrate this concept?", "Why hasn't anyone thought of doing it?", "Why hasn't anyone done it?" And I would try to do it. If I found it impossible to create or find interesting pedagogical material to convey the concept, I might begin to suspect that it was a figment of the professor's "wild imagination" and that in fact the notion had no connection with reality. My approach is simple; it consists in relying on clinical, empirical material.

 This approach does not however depend purely on induction : Laurent Lapierre's approach is basically oriented by a vision, by specific issues and interests.

 In the management of an organization, certain things appear important to me : imaginat-ion, vision, intuition, rivalry and policy in management, leadership skills, aggressiveness, guilt, career, persecution anxiety, competition anxiety, fear of success, fear of failure, etc. I have an obvious bias : my work on personality and on emotional aspects. I select material which shows the link between the personality of managers and their management practices, because this is what I try to bring out in my courses. I fill in the course outline with things that appeal to me, cases that I find interesting. The readings I include in the programme are not randomly chosen, they pursue a goal and my students know it.

 Though he admits to using a rather firm hand in class, Laurent Lapierre prefers to define his role as that of a guide :

 Questions of management and leadership have long been a passion with me. This gives me something of a head start on my students. I get them involved in my interest and then I can teach without lecturing. I can go further in class by following my student's lead than by getting them to follow mine. I'm still capable of being amazed; they teach me things and teach each other things. But because of my head start, they still feel that I am the one leading.

 To understand Laurent Lapierre's approach, it is important to take a serious look at his course outline. It is very strong on detail. The first part gives general indications such as the course's perspective and objectives, the teaching method (mainly based on written or filmed cases), evaluation of student work, the list of compulsory material, individual projects to be done by the students, and the kinds of questions they should ask themselves in preparing those projects. The second part of the course outline describes in minute detail how each class is to be conducted.
 Let us take for instance the course outline entitled "Administration, Leadership et Personnalité". It is composed of thirteen sessions and treats a different theme each week. Each theme is intended to lead the student to reflect on a specific question which should allow him :

 (...) to deal with how individual dynamics and personality influence management practices, power, political skills, management of change and conflict or the management of one's own career.

 In each session, the discussion centres around a case (sometimes two) or a video or a film. References to theoretical readings assigned in preparation for the class are also used to keep the discussion going. The course outline also includes a selected bibliography of the most important works in the field, in particular those of greatest interest to the students.

 Laurent Lapierre uses cases which highlight the description of a manager's personality, of his particular habits and preferences, his reactions to various situations. The biography of the manager studied is often exhaustive, reaching back into his childhood, bringing to light his relationship with parents and siblings, examining the crises or key events in his life, allowing the student to analyse whatever might have partially determined the individual's most deeply embedded modes of behaviour. For Laurent Lapierre, the choice of a case is important :

 When I choose my cases, I pick those which will fascinate, stimulate, provoke or even disturb the students. I am a firm believer in the unsettling effect. A good case is also like a piece of reporting : it must stick to reality. You read the first page and you want to keep going. The analytical aspect must not be too apparent. Americans are good at that, Europeans generally put in too much analysis. I really like the little development cases, full of facts, descriptions, and quotes. Everyone is left to make his own projections, everyone is free to make choices just as in real life. I also like series of cases where the tunnel narrows step by step, forcing a decision adapted to the situation and to each personality.

 Laurent Lapierre prepares each session meticulously :

 I carefully prepare myself [before each session]. The day of the course or the day before, I reread my case from beginning to end.  There are cases that I must have read at least twenty times. I carefully prepare my teaching notes, especially when I am teaching a case for the first time. Up to the last half hour before the class, I am consulting my notes. I'm nervous, and as I head for the classroom, I always have tremendous stage fright. When I get to class, I lay out on my desk the documents I will need and little slips of paper where I have noted various points : there is often only one idea on each slip. This little system is part of my decorum, and it helps to give me a feeling of security.

 The first session is not conducted in quite the same way as the others :

 I prepare and hand out name cards to each of the students. I then hand out the course outline and go over its contents in a conversational tone : overview of the course, its perspective, and its demands. Next I ask the students to bring in a personal identification card with a photo for the next class. I ask them a few details about such things as their profession, their job, their ambitions, etc. They only give these details if they wish, but the exercise allows me to get to know them, to refer to their training and experience during discussions for I am interested in who they are. I then ask them to introduce themselves so that everyone gets a feel for the composition of the class. Since I am teaching a subject with strong emotional demands, I try to discourage "tourists" right from the start. I state the obligations very clearly; I stress the fact that the M.B.A programme offers a host of more interesting courses. After the first session, I feel more relaxed.

 Once the course and the students have been introduced, the first session begins. On this occasion Laurent Lapierre shows a video taped case : this makes it possible to move immediately into the discussion of a case even if the students haven't had the time to read a text. For Laurent Lapierre discussion is an essential element.

 The discussion usually starts with a broad question such as : "What is going on here?" Quite often, I don't even ask a leading question; I let the students express their own concerns, their own projections. I listen to them. I use their observations and question to keep the discussion going. That allows me to use what they have said to wrap things up.

 If this seems a somewhat informal way of doing things, it should not be considered improvisat-ional. In Laurent Lapierre's mind, it is, to the contrary, the fruit of long experience :

 When I started out in 1975, I talked too much and didn't listen to the students enough. I used to prepare transparencies as they were a big help in structuring the class discussion and reflection. I also used the blackboard, but I noticed that for a subject like the one I teach, this cut off the communication established between them and me. So I dropped [that method] and learned to work without the chalk board. This still bothers me, but I try to rely on my memory, which forces me to be more attentive. I have developed listening skills which allow me to borrow their terms to show what the material may conceal and reveal. I have also learned to intervene less. It took me a long time to stop planning the course down to the last minute. Learning to trust myself and the students has helped to create a more relaxed class atmosphere.

 In subsequent sessions, as they will have read the case on the programme and also the complementary readings, students will be the ones to open new lines of questions each time. All the questions always revolve around key points : "What is going on here?" and "How does he manage?" When there is a case on management skills, the students ask : "What is he doing?", "What could we do in his place?", "Why could we do better?", "Why does he size up the situation that way?" Laurent Lapierre prefers not to use the academic authority invested in the professor : he lets the students make their discoveries in their own way.

 When a student expresses his knowledge in simple words, I work with that : for him, those words ring more true than any theoretical concept. I always try to use what the student says to find out what hasn't been understood and to probe deeper. I try to build on the material brought to light by each student and, in so doing, it is rare that we don't get to the crux of what the case suggests.

 As the session progresses, situations which the professor did not expect may sometimes occur. They may involve a student who talks too much and monopolizes the discussion, or a discussion which deviates from the planned itinerary. In these situations too, Laurent Lapierre has changed with experience :

  At first, this frustrated me; I felt that I was losing control of the situation. In this, I have found the practice of psychotherapy very helpful : it is an experience where you have to follow the other person's lead in order to advance. I now know that you can take different paths to get to the same point, but it took me a long time to accept this fact. Today, I am more accepting of ambiguity, which enriches class work. In the last analysis, I exercise more control by accepting to follow the student's lead, as this is the best way of getting my ideas across.

 Sometimes the material may also happen to be less interesting and the discussion will bog down. Laurent Lapierre will not artificially prolong a debate. He uses these lulls to settle questions which might have come up in other sessions. His usual approach consists in restating in ordinary and simplified terms the theories dealt with in the complementary texts. The discussion may sometimes stray from the key element. Laurent Lapierre will not always react to this in the same way :

 I could jump in and set them straight, but you have to give them the time to digest the material. If I know that the programme will soon be presenting another case which could clarify the notions now causing difficulty, I wait for that case. Time plays an important role. But when things bog down, I sometimes take the bull by the horns and propose my vision of things. After that, it's open to discussion; I don't impose my point of view. When my intervention is needed to this extent, I tell myself that I have done a poor job of leading the discussion.

 Laurent Lapierre's course demands a lot from students. Learning something by oneself is often more demanding than being fed a theory that is already formulated and ready to be assimilated. It is perhaps for this reason that Laurent Lapierre does not attach much importance to evaluation : the student is the sole judge of what he has learned.

 How can we rule that there exists such a difference between students? I find it difficult to discern such differences. I grade student work on a five-point scale and most marks range between 3 and 4.5. No student has ever come to contest the evaluation I made. They attach a lot of importance to grades. Not me; I tell myself that the student who chooses this course does so out of personal conviction. In theory, students come to class because they want to learn; that's the most important thing. So long as the student reads the cases, does his work, writes his assignments on the case studies, makes progress, and takes calculated risks, he will have no problem with me. On the other hand, the student who wants his course at bargain rates will have trouble; I won't hesitate to fail him. That's why I weed out the "tourists" during the first class.

 Evaluation is based on all the work done by the student over the whole semester and on his participation in class discussions. For Laurent Lapierre, participation can account for as much as fifty per cent of the grade. After each class, he updates the participation card that he keeps on each student. He figures that, in an M.B.A. programme, such courses could make participation one hundred per cent of the mark. He makes short two-page assignments for each session; these allow students to size up the case and answer the questions asked in the course outline. Laurent Lapierre takes these assignments up at the end of the session : this gives him another channel of communication with the students and validates the subjective knowledge of each. The exam is always based on a case handed out in class. There may be a formal open-book exam in or a take-home exam. Based on the readings and the cases studied, students are asked to come up with personal and original reflections in response to specific questions.

 Laurent Lapierre hopes that the student will be motivated by a desire for learning rather than for a good grade. And, for him, the heart of the learning process is in the class session itself and not in the readings or  assignments. The relationship forged in class between the professor and students is thus essential. This relationship is composed of several elements. Aside from language and discussion, body language and behaviour speak volumes.

 I have a classroom where the desks are arranged to form a "U". I lead the discussion; I keep a tight reign on the progress of the discussion. For me, the professor is a leader, so a certain distance and decorum must be respected. That's why I prepare little name cards for the first session; why I wear a suit and a tie. I believe in decorum; it's important. It's a kind of stage setting.

 The professor must know that his role also imposes a responsibility. Standing in front of a class, Laurent Lapierre is aware that he has become an authority figure and a potential role model for his students. The impact of his words and his actions must thus be carefully measured.

 As a professor, I am responsible for what I say or do not say. I have convictions and biases and I assume them : I'm not afraid of being judged by the students. An academic must take risks. This is also one of the purposes of our academic freedom; and this freedom cuts both ways. I teach as much by what I am as by what I say. My authenticity will lead my students to retain my reading of reality.

 If the professor must assume his own convictions, his role consists mainly in helping his students do the same thing. Each person must take charge of his own learning; the professor can be said to have fulfilled his mandate when he has exhausted his own usefulness :

 When the students exceed my expectations, this means the course objective has been met. It is just as in a school of performing arts when the musician or the actor finally finds himself alone; the student must quickly become his own master...
 
 

Practice born of experience

 He is no doubt the first to admit it : Laurent Lapierre's many experiences have shaped his approach to teaching. A quick overview of the important events in his life and his background can thus be useful in gaining a better understanding of his practice :

 Indeed, some of his concerns are deeply rooted in the past. Learning by doing is one of these :

 When I was a child, I never liked school. I found it boring... You spent most of the time listening and I needed more action. I wasn't a very good pupil. I know that it was out of rebellion. I have trouble learning in books.

 This is what he remembers of his seven years in elementary school. He was an active and turbulent boy. Because his school was unable to respond to his need for action, he turned intensely to the life of the imagination. He was a daydreamer, "in the clouds".

 Laurent Lapierre went on for his course of classic studies at Lévis college. He was a boarder there for eight years. During that time, he would feel slightly more interested in his studies. The programme was more diversified and there were more occasions for action. Furthermore, the young student had something to prove to his family.

 In my family, I was the one with the lowest marks in school. I wanted to take up the gauntlet thrown down by my brothers and sisters who suggested that I wouldn't be able to finish college. I wanted to show them that I could study and succeed. Fortunately, my mother had not been fooled by all the efforts I had made to be bad at school. She knew that despite appearances, I had aptitudes, and that with my curiosity I would gain a lot from my studies. Despite her lack of education, she was inspired by her intuition and instinct. She never gave up on me.

 He is not equally interested in all his college subjects; but his curious mind is stimulated by the first classes in French. The year called Éléments latins allows him to catch glimpses of the treasures of a dead language. This is the beginning of his fascination with the usage and origins of the French language.

 Begun in earnest in the fifth year known as Belles-lettres, his study of the great works of literature will continue until the end of his classical studies. He becomes acquainted with the theatre, for which he guards an unflagging interest. These are certainly his most formative years. Through his own productions or those which he attends, he discovers the literature and theatre of Quebec and of the world. He draws his greatest satisfactions from the practice of intellectual freedom and from contact with the arts.

 In Belles-lettres we came into contact with more open-minded professors who were not afraid to give us free range. We were allowed greater freedom of thought and action. Before that, I had mainly been interested in team sports and gymnastics. Quite unexpectedly, literature courses started to interest me. I listened to recordings of the Comédie française, I learned to recite scenes, poems or narratives by heart. I learned a lot about the theatre. I also played music.

 However, towards the end of his classical studies, Laurent Lapierre is once again overtaken by that need for action he felt in grade school. He realizes that books alone cannot satisfy his thirst for knowledge and experience. He is searching for a milieu that will form him in more active and concrete ways. It is his college experiences with theatre which will meet his need for knowledge and for action. He was extremely stimulated by the enthusiasm of the drama teacher (a professional actor and stage manager) who directed him during his last years of college. Having completed his classical studies, he begins to prepare seriously for the highly competitive entrance exams at the Conservatoire d'art dramatique. There he found a milieu corresponding to his needs as a young adult.

 There is no other way to form an actor except through action. One learns to act by acting... The actor is asked to prepare scenes and perform them in front of his professors and the other students. The performance is then discussed. Qualities and flaws are pointed out, corrections are proposed and the latter are food for thought and research.

 At the conservatory he learns by doing but also by observing and listening. One of his professors, Mr. Valcourt, has a big influence on him.

 He was autocratic, authoritarian, but he taught by working in the realm of the concrete. He led the actor to find his own style, without copying his master.

 However, he soon realizes that a career in acting is at odds with his own personal qualities :

 I was convinced that I would not make a good actor, and this was confirmed by the director of the Conservatoire. I would have found myself in supporting roles and I found that hard to accept. That wasn't what I wanted...

 He then decides to do a bachelor in teaching. In the early 60s, education is stirring great interest in Quebec. It is a time of sweeping social changes. The reform and secularization of teaching institutions are at the heart of these changes. Laurent Lapierre feels that there is much to be done and that things can be done quickly in this field. After earning his teaching certificate, he obtains a teaching position at St. Mathieu School in Sainte Foy.

 Laurent Lapierre starts his teaching career in 1964 at the age of twenty-three, with fourth graders :

 When I opened that classroom door the first morning, there was a smell of "green dust". It reminded me of my schooldays boredom. I was so unhappy, I found myself back in a situation I had known in grade school. I asked myself "what have you got yourself into, Lapierre?" The little boys and girls showed up, joyous, noisy, a bit turbulent, but lovable. I wondered what I would do to hold their interest. I got them to talk, I wanted to find out how I would relate to them. The first month was tough. I searched for methods, ways and means, tools.

 How was he going to teach the different subjects in the programme without boring either the children or himself? This pushed Laurent Lapierre to look for new solutions. His curious mind introduced him to the techniques of Freinet's École moderne in France. Here again, reading Freinet was not enough. He discovers in another school of the Sainte Foy school board a colleague, Rosaire Potvin, who is also interested in the active teaching method :

 I went to see Rosaire Potvin in his class; I saw him in action and that stimulated me. I learned. I didn't want to copy him, but I saw how I was going to go about it. I borrowed what I needed from what he was doing. I don't need to see a situation in detail to be stimulated. An image, an idea, a broad outline are spur enough for my imagination to do the rest and permit me to work out a whole system. This is the birth of my interest in the active teaching method. I wanted to catch the children's interest. However, I learned that you also had to catch the parents' interest. I met with them after school and explained my philosophy, stressing the freedom of a learning-by-doing approach. Active methods cannot be applied by decree, but with the proper initiatives everything is possible... and the parents fell into step.

 The method he uses with his fourth-grade pupils consists in dividing them into small groups and then helping each group define the tasks it will perform. French, mathematics, and the other subjects are still being taught, what changes are the means used in teaching them. The class is seen as a place for work and experimentation : printing, daily spontaneous writing, school newsletters, interschool mail, individual research projects, and a variety of similar activities are part of the programme. He is also concerned that his pupils should be open to the world. French is therefore learned by producing a school paper and by reading and commenting on the local newspaper read in each family. The library, formerly almost non-existent in the school, is now showcased in the classroom and becomes a tool for daily use. Mathematics are taught using a system of cards allowing each pupil to learn individually under the teacher's supervision. The children prepare chats on subjects they find interesting, make industrial, cultural, and educational field trips. Progressively, the class becomes a real workshop.

 Parents are so enthusiastic and cooperative that they all get together to organize numerous extra-curricular activities, including a two-week snow class. There is however one man who is not really sold on the value of this teaching method : Mr. Paquet, the school principal at St. Mathieu. So when Léonce Pelletier, the head of the school board, visits the class, the young teacher is just a bit worried :

 I didn't see him come in. One of the pupils came to tell me there was a man in the class. When I saw him, I thought that my principal had asked him to come. The class was noisy... I thought I would be fired. At the end of the day, I went to see my principal. I was worried, I wondered if I hadn't made a mistake. Mr. Paquet told me : "Pelletier was very impressed, he would like to see all classes run that way." He looked really downcast.

 Laurent Lapierre spent four years teaching at St. Mathieu, but once again boredom appears on the scene :

 After two or three years, I felt that it would not be my career. At the end of four years I was sure that I had had it. I knew that I had to do something else... I resigned without knowing what I would do next. I am rather lazy by nature and I need something to get me going. Maybe that's why I'm always plunging into things.

 Shortly after his resignation, he accepts a job as executive director of Laval University's Société artistique and of its theatre. The Société and the theatre were already set up, but they lacked a director to run things :

 There I was again, without a clue... I said to myself : "What have you gotten yourself into Lapierre!" It was my first job as a manager. I knew nothing about budgets, I knew nothing about dictating a letter to a secretary. I learned on the job—choosing and motivating people, firing those who didn't meet my expectations, dealing with the press... That was 1968 to 1970, anarchy was the climate of the times... student occupations were systematic.

 On all fronts, this era was a considerable learning experience for Laurent Lapierre :

 The stint at Laval was very enriching. I worked hard and I developed my sense of organization. My biggest lesson was that being sincere earns a certain good will. Despite their tendency to protest, the students stopped criticizing and making demands. My management philosophy was simple : get them to participate. Ten per cent of the students were actively involved in creative activities : Troupe des Treize, chorale, music, film productions, photography, folklore, etc. Our public activities such as ciné-campus, theatrical productions, and concerts were very popular.

 The university's artistic undertaking grows rapidly and attracts a lot of public attention. Henceforth, the university theatre is the best known in Quebec City and Laurent Lapierre's name is very big on the local scene. Local newspapers comment almost daily on the artistic events put on under his direction. However, Laurent Lapierre's work as a manager is raising new concerns :

 I had the feeling that my studies were not yet complete. I was thinking : "If you want to pursue this career, you should get training in management."

 Waiting for the opportunity to study in administration, Laurent Lapierre continues to work. He keeps contact with studies by registering for evening courses, where he earns a B.A. in history. Then, in 1970, he accepts a new position as the first director of the Théâtre du Trident where nothing had as yet been set up :

 The Grand Théâtre of Quebec was about to open. To stage productions in one of the halls, several existing theatre companies were joined to form one professional company with adequate resources : this was the birth of the Théâtre du Trident. They were looking for an administrative director, and Paul Hébert, the artistic director, had proposed my name... At first, I refused, then I accepted and built the Théâtre du Trident from A to Z. Once again, it was only after having accepted that I realized what I had gotten myself into. As before, I learned by watching and listening. I spent a few days in Montreal and met Gilles Pelletier at the N.C.T. and Mercedes Palomino at the Rideau Vert, Claude Pichette at the T.P.Q. and Lucien Allen at the T.N.M. Those people were very open; there were no secrets. I asked questions, I listened, I collected documents and I had enough to build a system to my own taste.

 Once again, Laurent Lapierre has embarked on a venture destined to attract a lot of public attention. Theatre in Quebec City was on its last legs. But, finally, by dint of hard work, the Théâtre du Trident managed to attract audiences of 30,000 a performance. Thinking back on this string of successes, Laurent Lapierre confides :

 These management experiences taught me the value of authenticity. When one takes great pains with a product in which one believes, one creates a demand for it in a way. And when one is sincere, one touches a chord of sympathy. This was true not only in my experience as an elementary teacher but also in my experience at Laval University and at the Théâtre du Trident where we managed to attract people in record numbers.

 These experiences allowed Laurent Lapierre to strengthen his until-then intuitive conviction that he possessed a certain talent for organization. The desire to complete his training in that direction was thus heightened. In 1973, at 32, he leaves the Théâtre du Trident to study for an M.B.A. Where he will go to receive the training he needs is an important choice for him. He wants to stay in Quebec. Three programmes are available to him : the one at Laval University, the one at Sherbrooke University and the one at École des Hautes Études Commerciales. He applies to all three; is admitted to all three; and finally chooses HEC :

 In Quebec City, everybody knows everybody else and I wanted a change; I wanted to study in a big city. In my college philosophy courses, I had classmates who were regular readers of Actualité économique and so the institution with which I was most familiar was HEC. I didn't think I would be accepted there. My background in management was very interesting by I didn't think a management school would find it attractive. I didn't know the university was interested in people with experience.
 But the openness I discovered in management professors was very stimulating. That's when I had my first contacts with the case method. I usually say that it's really at HEC that I studied the art of teaching.

 These lessons in pedagogy are, among others, the course taught by Marcel Desjardins (Introduction à l'administration); the one given by Bertin Nadeau (Politique générale des PME); those offered by Jean Guertin (Finance 1, Problèmes financiers des PME) and those given by Guynemer Giguère (Finance 2, Placement). In the doctoral programme, Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries' course in Organizational Behavior at the McGill University faculty of management stands out. Laurent Lapierre is fascinated by their leadership skills and their ability to keep things interesting. Marcel Desjardins is very theatrical and very skilled in leading class discussions. Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries runs class with a firm hand whereas Bertin Nadeau is more urbane. Marcel Desjardin's theatrical side is not without its appeal to Laurent Lapierre, but he knows that it does not match his own personality. In contrast, he feels more at ease with the approach used by Guynemer Giguère : this professor becomes one of his models. Here is how he comments on the attitude Guynemer Giguère displays during sessions :

 He gave us very meaty cases which posed complex problems. You had to do an in-depth analysis to get to the nub. In class, Guynemer Giguère knew how to wait; he gave us room to reflect. He knew how to ask the little question that would get us going. He enabled us to discover the elements that needed to be highlighted. He seemed very relaxed, and yet I know that he was a worrier.

 In discovering the case method, Laurent Lapierre finds something that corresponds with his way of thinking and learning. It even pushes him to take additional cases such as Finance 2 for his own personal culture :

 The cases gave me a glimpse of the way things happen in a world that I knew nothing about. Learning more about organizations was what interested me. I was less interested in decision making. I knew what I would do when asked to make a decision...

 But not even the M.B.A programme could satisfy his thirst for knowledge :

 These advanced studies had awakened in me a need for new knowledge. The M.B.A. did not fully meet my new expectations. I was looking for something else. As director of artistic undertakings, I was always at the beck and call of someone or something; I was still in second place. I believe that management can be largely defined as being at the service of an institution. Because of my adventurous side, that wasn't what I wanted; I wanted to make my own dream come true.  Perhaps I should have set up a business, but nothing interesting came along at the time. My career project already revolved around the quest for learning.

 Laurent Lapierre is once again at a turning point. He no longer wants to be in second place, but he doesn't know how to be first. So imagine his surprise when Pierre Laurin asks him to come and work with him :

 In my second year, my enthusiasm for M.B.A. courses had flagged, except for Pierre Laurin's course, "Administration, leadership et personnalité." Though I generally had A's in my other courses, I had a B in that one... yet I was the one Pierre Laurin sought out... I never knew why.

 Pierre Laurin's offer is a source of both excitement and anxiety for Laurent Lapierre. As in all the important moments of his life, he has doubts about his ability. He also wonders if it's what he wants out of life :

 I was ambivalent since I mistakenly felt I wasn't a true intellectual because of this need to learn by doing. Pierre Laurin asked me if I was interested in a career as a university professor. I told him that I didn't know. He told me to think about it. I liked the proposition; it was a way for me to continue learning. I finally accepted.

 At that time, he worked at writing case studies. But as soon as he found out he would also be asked to teach, Laurent Lapierre again begins his learning by observation. He obtains permission to observe Bertin Nadeau who is then teaching the 1-400 course, "Introduction à l'administration." This course, which met twice a week for two semesters, was based mainly on the case method. This period of observation allowed Laurent Lapierre to give more concrete thought to this career he was about to pursue.

 By observing Bertin Nadeau, I saw what was more or less suitable to me in his way of doing things. I was impressed by his relaxed manner in class, by the concrete knowledge he transmitted, and by the stimulating climate of learning he succeeded in creating and sustaining.

 In fact, Laurent Lapierre would never work with Pierre Laurin who was soon after appointed director of the École. He would work as a researcher for Jean-Guy Desforges. Under the latter's supervision, he would teach and write his first cases :

 I don't find my first cases very good, because I lacked self-confidence and I wasn't very good at descriptive writing. Even today (1989), I am never satisfied with a case I have written. After using the case several times, I often rewrite it. It took me a long time to become familiar with the case method. I am still extremely nervous about it. For me, the case method is not an "ideal". But I haven't found anything better for the subjects I teach. I don't feel I have really mastered the method. I always feel like a novice, but I'm getting used to that feeling.

 Laurent Lapierre also has difficult moments and feels quite dissatisfied with his performance :

 I talked too much in class; I worked up to an "anti-climax." I wasn't sure that I could be a professor. I had agonizing doubts and I still do.

 But bit by bit things fall into place and self-confidence gains the upper hand. Student evaluations are encouraging and the teaching role really seems to correspond to what he always sought :

 I saw the other side of the picture : work on the teaching notes, concern for training and development. That was the start of my current passion : sharing experiences, enriching subjectivity — my own and that of others. Action is eminently subjective. One's own subjectivity is enriched far more by doing and studying what others do than by looking at theoretical texts... That's why the case method is so important for me...

 As is the custom at HEC, when a candidate has been observed over several years and shows an aptitude for teaching and research, a formal career proposal is made. Laurent Lapierre is thus offered a permanent position on the condition that he would obtain his doctorate. He seizes the opportunity and at 38 registers in the doctoral programme at McGill University. There he develops close ties with Henry Mintzberg who becomes his thesis director. Bridging Laurent Lapierre's various concerns, this thesis will treat the relationship between the stage director and the manager. This is also the time when Laurent Lapierre makes the acquaintance of Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries whose fields of interest are close to his own. This professor will become Laurent Lapierre's guide in the psychoanalytical process he will undertake two years later.

 When studying for his M.B.A., Laurent Lapierre had found that Pierre Laurin's course in administration, leadership, and personality opened up fascinating perspectives, refreshing an interest which dated back some years :

 I had a dream every since college. I was fascinated by psychological questions. I hoped one day to be able to investigate this subject in depth.

 In college, he was already reading up on these questions. During his M.B.A., he had taken a keen interest in preparing the case readings and all the other readings assigned in Pierre Laurin's course :

 But reading on the subject was not enough for me. As always, I was convinced that I needed concrete experience and that my knowledge would be based on such experience.

 The spur is the sudden death of a close friend early in Laurent Lapierre's period of doctoral studies :

 Here was someone my own age dying... It brought me up short... I was in anguish over my own life which was slipping by while I never truly succeeded in deciding what I wanted to do. This awareness of death created a feeling of urgency in me. If there were dreams or projects I wanted to realize, there was no time to lose.

 For Laurent Lapierre psychoanalysis is a means of self-discovery, of knowing oneself better, and coming closer to self-fulfillment. It is also a process which corresponds to his personality : psychoanalysis is not learned in books, but in action, in practice :

 Undergoing psychoanalysis means living a concrete relationship with someone, trying to unmask all the stories we tell ourselves so as to reconstruct a more realistic reality. What does it mean to do one thing rather than another? To repeat certain acts which disturb us?

 Once again, he is not content with half measures : rather than undergo an ordinary analysis, he chooses the didactic form of analysis which will authorize him to treat patients.

 The basis of psychoanalytic training is one's own psychoanalysis : that's what I decided to do. There again, I didn't really know what I was getting myself into. Eight years of psychoanalytic training is quite an undertaking. It was the most difficult and exulting experience of my life. For the type of knowledge I was seeking, it was a more enriching and beneficial experience than my doctorate.

 In 1989, he is still training in clinical psychiatry at the Cartierville Psychiatric Community Clinic (Sacred Heart Hospital), acting as an intern in psychotherapy.
 
 

Laurent Lapierre, pragmatic intellectual

 Today, after all these experiences, Laurent Lapierre has the impression he was found his way :

 Now, I know that I will be a university professor all my life. I am working on a subject which is so rich that I will never get to the end of it.

 He does not, for all that, deny the stages he has gone through to get where he is. Quite the contrary, he says that, for him, it was the only path possible :

 I don't believe I would have been able to teach management without having been a manager, nor use psychoanalytical concepts without myself having undergone psychoanalysis. I have to see things in rather concrete terms, I am comfortable talking about phenomena when I have experienced them.

 Reflecting on his evolution, Laurent Lapierre notices that he has gradually shifted from the status of a man of action to that of an intellectual :

 Teaching, writing, and communicating my reflections in symposiums are today the heart of my action. Reading has become my chief intellectual nourishment, this along with the research I do where I try to get at what managers think about their practices and what emotional dynamics underlie their thoughts. Writing cases or articles and teaching are for me so many opportunities to grasp, refine, and share my thinking on concrete and specific aspects of the practice of management and more particularly of executive practices.

 However, this change did not come about smoothly. Laurent Lapierre felt a great resistance, and even a certain fear, at the idea of becoming an intellectual :

 It was during the period where my doctoral studies and my psychoanalysis coincided that I seemed to understand, at least partly, the source of the reticence I felt with regard to the status of intellectual. In the world of the theatre, artists are generally horrified by the way academics criticize and analyse their works. They call these analyses "intellectual" with undisguised disdain. And when working among managers, I often heard them call university research, studies and publications "theoretical", a word in which one easily detects the scorn and contempt for intellectual work or the work of those called intellectuals.

 Gradually, Laurent Lapierre manages to make an essential distinction between true intellectual work and intellectualism. He explains his position :

 The dictionary defines intellectualism as a doctrine affirming the pre-eminence of intellectual elements over those of feeling and will. Intellectualism sacrifices the complexity of reality to the intellectual grasp one may have of it or to the current concepts and tools of a scientific discipline. Anyone is subject to intellectualism, the university professor as well as the manager. The manager does in fact have a vision of the world; at least implicitly, he has some theory about how organizations work and about the personal dynamics of individuals. If he does not discipline himself to test reality, he may fall a victim to his idealism, his utopianism and to all manner of "intellectualist" constructions.

 The true intellectual is thus not someone who skirts action and reality. To the contrary, he is someone who, rejecting overly rigid theories and received ideas, tries to achieve a more authentic vision of the world. It is only in this sense that Laurent Lapierre will endorse the intellectual label :

 It was easier for me to accept the fact that I had become an intellectual when I came to understand that that also meant fighting against my intellectualism and that of others in order to become richer in realism.

 So Laurent Lapierre today defines himself as a pragmatic intellectual, attuned to action. It is thus not surprising that the case method is at the heart of his practice :

 As a tool for research and teaching, the case method is for me the means of fighting for greater realism.

 Though it suits his purposes, he underlines that this method is not always the easiest to use. It is a demanding pedagogical approach which requires frequent soul-searching on the part of both students and professor. Laurent Lapierre says he still has trouble living with this method. He admits that it would be more reassuring to give course lectures : but for him reality and action are the most powerful goads to reflection. According to him, the professor's role is to be a mediator favouring greater access to individual reality. By his courses, Laurent Lapierre intends to make his students as autonomous as possible, and to develop their capacity for self-education anchored in reality, which means their own experience and that of others.