The Sense Makers

Preparing a trip to London, England, this December presented unusual uncertainties.  There was snow, about 5 inches; communications from the Heathrow executive that made a desert look lush; press that reported extraordinary profits by the managing company, generous executive remuneration and pitiful preparation to clear runways and access roads.

We saw press photo’s of people sleeping at Heathrow for days; and photo’s of people at other airports milling about trying to get cancelled flights rescheduled.

Communications were sparse; the Heathrow executive were aggressive – its not our responsibility that we did not have the materials at hand and the weather was unexpected.

Airlines had planes at the wrong locations, crews that exceeded their flying hour limits and no way to ferry replacement crews into the airports. Red dollar signs hung over each airline.  There was clearly a high level of frustration.

Still, the remoteness of unresponsibiity (lack of responsibility) meant ‘others’ were involved.  And then we began to get a feel for the oceans of ‘its not my responsibility’.

We were met with icy, frozen sidewalks.  Unswept, lumpy and so slick that you slid down the camber of the surface.

As we cleaned off our section of sidewalk, the neighour across the street came out and suggested we stop as cleaning was not our responsibility but that of the local council.  Apparently, we could have liability for damage passed to us in the event of people falling on our cleared section!

Pedestrians walking in the roads for a reasonable sense of footing slowed traffic to a crawl – London is not famous for its wide roads. The pace of the city slowed measurably.

The neighbour conversation turned to the status of the public service especially the public schools.  Others are responsible for the poor quality.  Because the neighbour strongly believes in socialist policies, I was really surprised when she said; ‘we want the best, others can take second-best – our lids are at private schools.

She freely acknowledged her hypocrisy but didn’t care – its someone else’s responsibility.  A classic case of “do what I say not do as I do”.

No more ‘be a man, own up and take your punishment’.

A graphic reminder of the vital need for wide boundaries of personal expression to create a framework for well-formed community identity and pride.

Pride in belonging, in personal outlook, in the integral role of building community spirit; of taking full and clear personal responsibility for maintenance and improvement of surroundings.

The framework that supports setting examples of high integrity and low hypocrisy. The unifying culture of community – the integrity of leadership!

If we cannot set supportive behavioural boundaries at the individual and community level, how on earth can we hold executives in organisations like Heathrow responsible for their actions or inactions?

Can each of us make that little extra effort in our communities and in our working lives to lead by conspicuous example, to show up with integrity and call examples of hypocrisy for what they are – selfish single-minded pursuit of me, me, me.

I am not nor will I be an inanimate piece of “human capital”.  Nor am I a resource (favoured by project management) and neither am I an asset to be leveraged.  I am, however, very cynical at the intentions of management (and I have been the CEO of a reasonable size organisation) and how the ‘management’ manipulate people to achieve the results – read Milton Friedman – which are profits.

I am a person with a head and heart which has accumulated many skills and developed those skills into competencies by trying out and applying those skills.  Some worked and others didn’t.  I learned from those that didn’t as I had to come up with a recovery plan that needed me to be humble, identify the weakness in my thinking, the gaps in my skills or the poor application techniques.

What you get when you work with me is a person who is prepared to deliver competencies for an amount of money.  You get the head and the thinking to get the job done.  But, if you want the job done in the context of a team, you have to involve me with my heart so that I can interact with others at an emotional level to really deliver more than the sum of the parts.

As you engage my heart and I trust you enough to remove the mask and show the emotional me and I am no longer an ‘asset’ or any other inanimate object.  I am a person with feelings, drive, enthusiasm and a person with some measure of total intelligence.  Without me and the other persons making up the team, you have nothing as a manager.  You can hold the status quo, perhaps.

To get ahead, you had better go sufficiently out of your way to get to know what wakes me up in the morning and brings creativity and initiative into the work place along with head and the competencies.

Until you have my heart, you have nothing creative, nothing that will move you forward or nothing that will help you grow. My value is the value you ascribe to the work you ask me to do.  What you want is the multiplier effect of adding the heart and creativity in thinking and working with team mates: this gets you far more than your ascribed value.  And, this is not an asset.  What you are asking for is the guts of your growth – of your sustainable success and the success of the rest of the people in the organisation.

Valued as an asset, you get no value.  Then I am just another ‘piece’ to move about in the grandeur of your plan.

Valued as a person, you get natural drive and creative approaches to difficulties.  I am one of the pieces that move and move others.  This group is a team of people who take you farther than you can imagine.  We are people – individuals with skills and competencies who, for the context that wakes us up and urges us to contribute imagination and testing probes, will give you value far greater than expect.

How do you see yourselves as individuals and an integral part of a team?

Explaining how human resources see individuals.

We are at a perfect time to redefine the words we use as we work with clients. To help our organizational leaders understand how important words are as we use them to define work and the employees/people who do the work that contributes to an organization’s success.

I am a former personnel/human resources person so how we treat people within organizations is near and dear to my heart – hence my passion for being appreciative at all levels of an organization.

One term that has become popular in organizations is to refer to employees as human capital(personnel, human resources, talent, human capital).

Human capital can mean that the organization values people as much as they do their buildings, equipment etc and that excited me at first. But, as with leverage and assets we know how capital is used.

I am fearful that the term capital lends itself so that organizations may view employees/people as objects rather than the valued resources as you mention.

The difficulty that we have is to use words that corporate leaders understand and value and I know I struggle with this. Perhaps we can use leverage AI so when we demonstrate that the principles and actions are an asset? Organizational leaders are looking at the bottom line – what we do does not produce income (sales) or necessarily immediate results but contributes to their ability to do so. Anyone have suggestions for words that we can use with clients that speaks to them but speaks to us in terms of valuing people?

Clearly a person who is trying and struggling to translate valuing people for their skills, humanity and competencies into the vocabulary of the Executive Suite.

Would you translate or would you agitate for change in executive viewpoint and consequently behaviour?

How would you feel if you were describes as ‘human capital’ – appreciated as a human being or coldly viewed as a commodity?

Here is a question that triggered a look into a personal value on how People are viewed.

I’m looking for case study stories of sales, marketing & product management teams leveraging AI to create an environment of stronger team collaboration, and ultimately tighter alignment to the customer and growth paths.

The question sounds very natural until you look at the word “leveraging”.  Here is a reply:

This is not a case examples but an unsolicited response to the language ”leveraging AI.”  As an engineer I understand levers and think they are brilliant. As a priest and psychologist I know the term leverage and find it unhelpful and often offensive when used in human systems as it implies “using force against somebody.” Leverage doesn’t not lead to collaboration.

Wouldn’t it be simpler and more humane to say “management teams using Appreciative Inquiry to create an environment of stronger team collaboration.”

Here is a similar use of language that causes me concern in today’s business world. In an attempt to humanize the work place, many business leaders talk of their employees as their greatest asset. That may sound very affirming until you think of what businesses do with their assets, they mortgage, leverage, broker sell, stretch, and strip mine their assets. Employees need to be way more than an asset in today’s world if they are to be valued and resourced to be their best.

What do you think? How would you have replied?