This content may be of interest to you
Resources
Henry Mottet is the Chief Human Resources Officer atAREAS France, the leading player in foodservice and retail at high-traffic locations (train stations, airports, and highway rest areas). The company has 700 million euros in revenue, 600 retail locations, operates more than 100 brands—including McDonald’s and Starbucks—and employs 6,000 permanent staff, a number that rises to 9,000 during peak season. 90 nationalities, frontline jobs with high turnover, a workforce that bridges the gap between “heart” and “hand.” In this interview conducted by Anselme Jalon (CEO, NUMA), he explores what it means to “build a community” within a company, why trust remains the only true stabilizing force, and how a Girondist organization is better equipped than a Jacobin one to weather instability.
When you grab a coffee at a train station, a sandwich at an airport, or fill up at a highway rest stop, there’s a good chance we’re there—even if you don’t really know it. You won’t easily spot the AREAS logo. But you’re certainly familiar with the brands we operate—McDonald’s and Starbucks, among others. That’s 700 million euros in revenue in France, 600 locations, 70% food service and 30% retail, 6,000 employees during the off-season and 9,000 during peak season. We’re present in 11 countries and operate more than 100 brands.
I’m not sure I view the company as a “refuge”—let’s first agree on the meaning of the term. What I can say with certainty is this: I strongly believe that the company is today one of the last institutions where the collective takes precedence over the individual. Living together, rallying around a common goal, uniting around a shared culture, forming a community in the sociological sense of the term: it’s one of the few institutions where all of this still endures. All around us, in our lives outside of work, it’s usually the individual who takes precedence over the collective. The company upholds this opposite logic.
But does that make it a refuge? Not exactly—and certainly not because it decided to be one. It’s not a goal explicitly stated in organizational charts. It’s more of a consequence: in the face of rising individualism, we’re assigning the company a role that, in my view, shouldn’t entirely be its own. It is expected to make up for many of society’s shortcomings. It becomes, somewhat by default, what other institutions no longer provide. It is in this sense that we can speak of a refuge… a refuge that is more forced than desired.
I consider myself a cultural integrator. Ninety nationalities, all generations, and expectations that vary in intensity depending on the group. I’m constantly juggling policies that must address all this complexity while enabling the company to operate and create value.
In practical terms, building a community here means successfully carrying out a centripetal effort: integration, training, professional development, certification, and career paths. The challenge is the same: to transform radical diversity into a functioning collective.
And then there’s the very practical issue of day-to-day life. Our jobs are labor-intensive. Salaries aren’t the highest. In a time of inflation, issues of purchasing power affect our employees’ personal, private, and family lives. A “safe haven” company is also one that finds compensation mechanisms that allow people to support their families while still having opportunities for advancement. It’s a very practical way to meet the challenge.
I use a three-part classification that I find useful. There are “head” jobs: intellectual and conceptual professions—white-collar jobs in the broad sense. There are “heart” jobs: support roles, service, and everything that contributes to the human richness of our society. And there are “hand” jobs: technical work and specialized skills.
Of my 6,000 permanent employees, about 200 are based at headquarters. Everyone else—including two-thirds of management—works in the field, bridging the gap between headquarters and the front lines. For these teams, AI fundamentally represents a way to optimize and improve our operational processes. We have an app deployed in the field that has been widely praised because it solves concrete, everyday problems.
Should I incorporate all the levers for improving performance? Yes. Should I prepare my teams to face this revolution? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, in principle. But no, if you’re thinking of an overnight revolution. There is no “great night” of trust or transformation. These are slow, gradual processes.
Anything that fosters closeness, trust, and connection. Anything that ensures that, even when the going gets tough, people continue to trust one another and remain committed to a shared goal. I’m thinking of the idea of mutual solidarity: I owe you commitment, and you owe me commitment.
A company must foster this sense of collective solidarity through its management, its culture, and the exemplary behavior of its entire workforce—not just its leaders. It is on this foundation that we have built our leadership transformation program, which we call Manager Leader. Its core principles are trust, accountability, the ability to take ownership of challenges, and also the ability to challenge one’s superiors when one believes they are off track. Not out of a spirit of rebellion, but in a spirit of contribution: expressing an alternative point of view can come from every level of the organization.
Does it work right away? No. First you have to say it, then do it. Some people get it quickly, others not so much. Others don't get it at all. It's humanity in miniature.
The answer is trust. If you have a culture based on trust, commitment, and accountability—a culture where people take ownership of problems—you have the ingredients for the right balance. Otherwise, you’ll end up with a control-oriented organization: reporting, procedures, standardization—all based on the belief that streamlining processes is enough to master reality. That’s one way of thinking. But to imagine that procedures can account for every variation in reality is a fantasy.
We must allow room for initiative and foster the capacity for innovation and accountability at all levels in order to solve real, everyday problems. It is one thing to hold someone accountable for results. It is quite another to micromanage every step along the way to achieving them. These two approaches are not compatible.
The term “stability” gives me pause in a business as unpredictable as ours. What will happen in May–June 2026 was not foreseeable in December 2025. We couldn’t have anticipated the war in Iran, nor its impact on our business. In theory, I should have adjusted certain decisions as early as the fall. But how can you anticipate the unpredictable?
The problem of our time is not instability in and of itself: nothing has ever been permanent. It is the speed and magnitude of the fluctuations. And the difficulty lies in this: these economic or geopolitical fluctuations exceed the adaptive capacities of a social body. We cannot adapt an organization as quickly as the world is changing.
So rather than aiming for stability, I aim for shock absorption. This is what I call the “shock-absorbing” organization: capable of applying the brakes when necessary, releasing them when necessary, and bouncing back. While keeping in mind a fundamental contradiction: you cannot ask an organization to be both a shock absorber and a spring at the same time. Paradoxically, the best protection is mobility. Nomads built tents—not palaces—in places where the tremors were violent. The oscillations aren’t linear: one jolt to the left, one to the right; one step back, one step forward. The course, however, remains steady.
Emotional intelligence, first and foremost. But I want to go further. The ability to stay the course and rally teams when the going gets tough. Empowerment at every level, because the problems are so complex and responses must be so swift that we can no longer solve anything across three hierarchical levels.
The entire organization must take ownership of part of the problem to have any chance of addressing it. And the organization must provide the mandates and opportunities for action that go along with it.
I’m thinking of the doctrine of Prussian officers between 1880 and 1940. It’s based on a central premise: the field officer has a better vantage point than the staff officer. He was therefore given the freedom to take the initiative and make decisions, since he was held accountable only for the final result. Making decisions as close to the front lines as possible, where reality is clearly visible. This is a critical organizational soft skill today. And in this debate, I’m more of a Girondin than a Jacobin.
I'm not sure that AREAS is already a "safe haven" in the full sense of the term. But I think we're an organization that's better equipped to weather instability without leaving its community behind. And in the current context, that may be the most honest definition of a safe haven.
Interview conducted as part of the Global Talent Observatory - RH&M Report.
Henry Mottet is the Chief Human Resources Officer atAREAS France, the leading player in foodservice and retail at high-traffic locations (train stations, airports, and highway rest areas). The company has 700 million euros in revenue, 600 retail locations, operates more than 100 brands—including McDonald’s and Starbucks—and employs 6,000 permanent staff, a number that rises to 9,000 during peak season. 90 nationalities, frontline jobs with high turnover, a workforce that bridges the gap between “heart” and “hand.” In this interview conducted by Anselme Jalon (CEO, NUMA), he explores what it means to “build a community” within a company, why trust remains the only true stabilizing force, and how a Girondist organization is better equipped than a Jacobin one to weather instability.
When you grab a coffee at a train station, a sandwich at an airport, or fill up at a highway rest stop, there’s a good chance we’re there—even if you don’t really know it. You won’t easily spot the AREAS logo. But you’re certainly familiar with the brands we operate—McDonald’s and Starbucks, among others. That’s 700 million euros in revenue in France, 600 locations, 70% food service and 30% retail, 6,000 employees during the off-season and 9,000 during peak season. We’re present in 11 countries and operate more than 100 brands.
I’m not sure I view the company as a “refuge”—let’s first agree on the meaning of the term. What I can say with certainty is this: I strongly believe that the company is today one of the last institutions where the collective takes precedence over the individual. Living together, rallying around a common goal, uniting around a shared culture, forming a community in the sociological sense of the term: it’s one of the few institutions where all of this still endures. All around us, in our lives outside of work, it’s usually the individual who takes precedence over the collective. The company upholds this opposite logic.
But does that make it a refuge? Not exactly—and certainly not because it decided to be one. It’s not a goal explicitly stated in organizational charts. It’s more of a consequence: in the face of rising individualism, we’re assigning the company a role that, in my view, shouldn’t entirely be its own. It is expected to make up for many of society’s shortcomings. It becomes, somewhat by default, what other institutions no longer provide. It is in this sense that we can speak of a refuge… a refuge that is more forced than desired.
I consider myself a cultural integrator. Ninety nationalities, all generations, and expectations that vary in intensity depending on the group. I’m constantly juggling policies that must address all this complexity while enabling the company to operate and create value.
In practical terms, building a community here means successfully carrying out a centripetal effort: integration, training, professional development, certification, and career paths. The challenge is the same: to transform radical diversity into a functioning collective.
And then there’s the very practical issue of day-to-day life. Our jobs are labor-intensive. Salaries aren’t the highest. In a time of inflation, issues of purchasing power affect our employees’ personal, private, and family lives. A “safe haven” company is also one that finds compensation mechanisms that allow people to support their families while still having opportunities for advancement. It’s a very practical way to meet the challenge.
I use a three-part classification that I find useful. There are “head” jobs: intellectual and conceptual professions—white-collar jobs in the broad sense. There are “heart” jobs: support roles, service, and everything that contributes to the human richness of our society. And there are “hand” jobs: technical work and specialized skills.
Of my 6,000 permanent employees, about 200 are based at headquarters. Everyone else—including two-thirds of management—works in the field, bridging the gap between headquarters and the front lines. For these teams, AI fundamentally represents a way to optimize and improve our operational processes. We have an app deployed in the field that has been widely praised because it solves concrete, everyday problems.
Should I incorporate all the levers for improving performance? Yes. Should I prepare my teams to face this revolution? The answer is both yes and no. Yes, in principle. But no, if you’re thinking of an overnight revolution. There is no “great night” of trust or transformation. These are slow, gradual processes.
Anything that fosters closeness, trust, and connection. Anything that ensures that, even when the going gets tough, people continue to trust one another and remain committed to a shared goal. I’m thinking of the idea of mutual solidarity: I owe you commitment, and you owe me commitment.
A company must foster this sense of collective solidarity through its management, its culture, and the exemplary behavior of its entire workforce—not just its leaders. It is on this foundation that we have built our leadership transformation program, which we call Manager Leader. Its core principles are trust, accountability, the ability to take ownership of challenges, and also the ability to challenge one’s superiors when one believes they are off track. Not out of a spirit of rebellion, but in a spirit of contribution: expressing an alternative point of view can come from every level of the organization.
Does it work right away? No. First you have to say it, then do it. Some people get it quickly, others not so much. Others don't get it at all. It's humanity in miniature.
The answer is trust. If you have a culture based on trust, commitment, and accountability—a culture where people take ownership of problems—you have the ingredients for the right balance. Otherwise, you’ll end up with a control-oriented organization: reporting, procedures, standardization—all based on the belief that streamlining processes is enough to master reality. That’s one way of thinking. But to imagine that procedures can account for every variation in reality is a fantasy.
We must allow room for initiative and foster the capacity for innovation and accountability at all levels in order to solve real, everyday problems. It is one thing to hold someone accountable for results. It is quite another to micromanage every step along the way to achieving them. These two approaches are not compatible.
The term “stability” gives me pause in a business as unpredictable as ours. What will happen in May–June 2026 was not foreseeable in December 2025. We couldn’t have anticipated the war in Iran, nor its impact on our business. In theory, I should have adjusted certain decisions as early as the fall. But how can you anticipate the unpredictable?
The problem of our time is not instability in and of itself: nothing has ever been permanent. It is the speed and magnitude of the fluctuations. And the difficulty lies in this: these economic or geopolitical fluctuations exceed the adaptive capacities of a social body. We cannot adapt an organization as quickly as the world is changing.
So rather than aiming for stability, I aim for shock absorption. This is what I call the “shock-absorbing” organization: capable of applying the brakes when necessary, releasing them when necessary, and bouncing back. While keeping in mind a fundamental contradiction: you cannot ask an organization to be both a shock absorber and a spring at the same time. Paradoxically, the best protection is mobility. Nomads built tents—not palaces—in places where the tremors were violent. The oscillations aren’t linear: one jolt to the left, one to the right; one step back, one step forward. The course, however, remains steady.
Emotional intelligence, first and foremost. But I want to go further. The ability to stay the course and rally teams when the going gets tough. Empowerment at every level, because the problems are so complex and responses must be so swift that we can no longer solve anything across three hierarchical levels.
The entire organization must take ownership of part of the problem to have any chance of addressing it. And the organization must provide the mandates and opportunities for action that go along with it.
I’m thinking of the doctrine of Prussian officers between 1880 and 1940. It’s based on a central premise: the field officer has a better vantage point than the staff officer. He was therefore given the freedom to take the initiative and make decisions, since he was held accountable only for the final result. Making decisions as close to the front lines as possible, where reality is clearly visible. This is a critical organizational soft skill today. And in this debate, I’m more of a Girondin than a Jacobin.
I'm not sure that AREAS is already a "safe haven" in the full sense of the term. But I think we're an organization that's better equipped to weather instability without leaving its community behind. And in the current context, that may be the most honest definition of a safe haven.
Interview conducted as part of the Global Talent Observatory - RH&M Report.
Discover all our courses and workshops to address the most critical management and leadership challenges.
Training organisation registered under the number 11755339875. This registration does not imply state approval.
.svg)
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
