Good for Owners, Bad for Humans
So I got more than a couple of tweets and emails from friends the other day who noticed a post on Seth Godin’s blog, called “Humanize It.” Their first suggestion, of course, was that we send him a book. (For the record, we already had sent him one, though I have no idea if he read it or not. I should actually follow up with him on that…)
It’s a nice post, pointing out that in the industrial model, it’s the company or brand that we trust, and that trust is built, typically, by making things exactly the same every time. Humanizing our work is the opposite approach, where the individual is making something unique, and the employee becomes the trusted source. In the industrial model, employees succeed by following the manual. But note Godin’s point:
That’s all well and good if you’re the owner (or if you need a reliable supply of chocolate), but it doesn’t play out so well for the worker, particularly in a society with ever-faster-shifting job slots.
I think this is an important point. It is good for the owner (in a centralized system) for the real creative force to be at the top. Everyone else is simply a part of implementation (cogs in the machine). This is the mechanical mindset in action. But it’s not good, generally speaking, for the human beings who work in the centralized system. Their work becomes commoditized. It pays the bills, but it doesn’t help people fulfill their destinies.
Yes. Destinies. We argue in humanize that we need organizations that actually pay attention to the destinies of the employees. I know we don’t have systems in place now to do that, so it may seem cumbersome and distracting. You may argue “Hey, it’s not MY responsibility to make sure everyone fulfills their destiny.”
True. The responsibility is fundamentally individual. But then again, why wouldn’t you help your people with that? I go back to Godin’s point about the industrial system being good for the owner but not the humans. Folks, if it’s bad for the humans, then it’s ultimately bad for the owner too. Historically, we accepted that as a cost of doing business–disaffected workers. It’s less necessary now. But it requires some new processes. Less control. More clarity. More courage. More learning. Figuring this stuff out will provide a competitive advantage.
4 Comments
Links for Feb 17 2013 - Eric D. Brown
[…] Good for Owners, Bad for Humans […]
Andrew Meyer
I’ll give you a very good reason businesses should not involve themselves in workers destinies. It’s called writing checks they can’t cash.
It’s very tempting when a business is doing well, growing and optimistic to be idealistic and this that businesses and their leaders should become involved with helping workers achieve their destiny. However, all businesses go through good times and bad times. When times are lean and cash it tight, business leaders need to generate more revenue then expenses, which means that expenses have to be cut. Maybe it’s jobs, maybe it’s retirement plans, maybe it’s some other perc, but once a perc is given, removing it has horrible consequences. Whether it’s removing free sodas from the cafeteria or laying people off, messages are sent which are interpreted as to the state of the business. It may seem silly, but if you cut sodas from a software company, your best developers will leave, because it’s the first indicator of tougher times to come.
A business is about controlling costs, whether they are financial, technological or human. How far a business or business person goes acquiring costs, someday business necessity will force them to recall those expenses. If you’re a manager/executive who’s involved in “helping someone achieve their destiny”, are you really going to be able to make hard choices? Will you really extend the same efforts to all employees/reports to help them achieve their destinies? Or will you extend these efforts to your chosen few at the expense of the many others? Will the resentment of the others outweigh the gains from the chosen few?
Finally, as a business leader, are you in any position to help people achieve their destiny? Isn’t that an individuals responsibility? If someone wants to achieve their destiny, they will discover what that destiny is and find a path to get there. As a business leader, your concern should be what they do at the office. Is that their destiny? Maybe, but more likely someone’s destiny will change as they change with age and as their goals change.
It’s a nice idea, but the risk of writing checks that can’t be cashed and the collateral damage from those checks is too great. The great Ester Dyson had an insight about governance. It went something like this:
However tempting it might be to make rules to improve morality, one has to look at what is practical. Beyond that, consider what is enforceable. However tempting it is to operate in the realm of morality, one needs to stay in the realm of enforceability.
Helping people achieve their destiny is beautifully idealistic, but should not venture beyond what is practical and enforceable. If one has foresight, they won’t take actions beyond what is practical and doable in the worst imaginable conditions, because sooner or later they will have to operate under those conditions.
Jamie Notter
Thanks for your comment Andrew. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on most of this. I think we have an opportunity to run organizations in a fundamentally different way. That’s not to say that we don’t control costs, or that we don’t fire people. We do. I actually think that’s a great tool in supporting people in developing as human beings. And as I said in the post, it’s not the company’s responsibility–that does belong to the individual. But I think we have lots of opportunities to help ALL employees grow and develop. Not necessarily equally, nor would I expect that. But ignoring the opportunities is going to start costing us in the long run.
Andrew Calhoun
Helping people to achieve their destiny. Those are big words, but helping employees to grow and develop makes sense. As they grow, so can the organization.
Consider a recent grad who was hired to provide database and administrative support. She rises to the occasion during the year and fills temporary gaps in areas such as sponsorship recruitment or marketing. The organization benefits.
Does it make sense to invest in this rough gem that you have discovered to help her develop skills to be more productive in her new, additional roles? That would make her more marketable and perhaps more expensive to retain, especially if have not budgeted for a salary increase in the near-term future.
Yes.
Her “destiny” may not be with you, but as she moves towards it, both of you will benefit.