I had an experience recently where I spoke with a group of friends and acquaintances about the economy and the existential despair that is all around us. Then, a friend said something that shocked me:
. . . it’s terrible that (company x) went through such a huge delayering
What? “Delayering” as a euphemism for a human losing his or her livelihood — these are people who have spouses, children, a mortgage, dreams — that will be affected. To refer to each of these human beings as a collective “Delayer” felt very wrong.
I challenged her and asked what she meant by “delayer” — through a socratic dialogue, she finally said something that was less jargon-filled:
. . . it’s terrible that so many people lost their jobs
This experience caused me to reflect on Kierkegaard’s poignant question “what does it mean to be a human?”, then on Martin Buber’s explication of the “I/Thou” relationship, then on Martin Luther King Jr.’s notion of “nobodiness” and, more recently, on Josh Bernoff’s invitation for all of us to become more human.
It’s an appropriate invitation and, in this post, wish to contribute a few ideas on how we can become more human with language: our language can convey meaning, an emotion, and a judgment.
Worldview
Martin Buber provides an appropriate context in his I/Thou description. In plain language, we can respond to other human beings in the following ways:
- We can treat other human beings as objects: things that either help us progress or things that get in our way of progression.
- We can treat other human beings as humans: we can listen, have empathy, and treat each other with kindness despite other differences.
I submit that to be human means to accept Martin Buber’s description #2 above.
A few basic characteristics that will help our understanding:
- Human development involves physical, mental, social, and the emotional. On one aspect, Human Beings are quite complicated and have an inner-life that is rich, deep, private, and sacred to that individual.
- Human Beings also have the faculty of memory, that can be triggered by outside stimuli, color, smell and can further trigger emotions that can sometimes drive behavior or thought.
- Gadamer pointed out correctly that Human Beings are social creatures — sociality requires communication with others and a community is the outcome of our sociality.
All in all, it is important to remember something my mentor taught me a long time ago:
judge slowly. people are hurting & struggling in ways that we cannot see
Having this worldview as a context is helpful — we can now discuss some ideas in how we can treat others.
Language
The above-mentioned example of “delayer” is not sensitive — clearly — but it also points to a cultural challenge in business where we have, for the most part, replaced meaningful conversations with empty jargon. This state-of-affairs results in a community of human beings that speak, but don’t really say anything at all.
Here are some examples of jargon that I hear daily, but lack much meaning (if you are interested, Bob Sutton at Stanford, recently wrote about Jargon Monoxide):
center of excellence, ramp up, upside, collaborate, sustainable, brain storm, mind shower, metrics, multitask, green policy, run the numbers, exposure, real-time, drop the ball, goal oriented, customer oriented, level set, touchpoints, streamline, high-level, mission critical, synergy, reach out, tasked, buzz, action item, service oriented, walk the talk, reinvent the wheel, occupy the field, quick win, bottom up, core competency, circle the wagons, share-of-wallet, non-productive headcount, full-time equivalent, downsizing, redundant employee, position elimination, go to market, BHAG, delayer, organization simplification, agile, etc…
Admittedly, I am guilty of using some of the jargon I mention above. But, my usage doesn’t justify the usage of some of those phrases — some are just cruel, whereas some are devoid of meaning, while some are actually descriptive of the concept.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t use any business jargon, but I’m proposing a greater sensitivity toward others and a bias for meaning and humaneness — which might mean that instead of saying “drop the ball”, one might say instead “fail” or instead of saying “core competency”, one might say “what we’re good at”.
Share-of-Wallet or a Customer?
Here’s my point: would you prefer to be called “share-of-wallet” or a “customer”? There is a clear intention in our language: “share-of-wallet” satisfies Buber’s definition of being treated like an object; being referred to as a “customer” is more humane. I prefer to give a larger share of my wallet with businesses that treat me as a human — that is irony.
In sum, a businesses wouldn’t last long if it claimed in some form the following claim:
we are passionate about our share-of-wallet
But, a business can and should say and will likely last long-term if it claimed and behaved like:
we are passionate about our customer’s happiness
Herein lies my point and an irony: I prefer to give a larger share of my wallet with businesses that treat me as a human.
Implications of Language
Our condition as Human Beings requires us to engage in social interactions — to talk with each other; connect with each other; to commune with each other. This means that communing with each other can be done in many types of contexts — including a business context.
Which begs the question:
Why are our interactions at home with our loved-ones more grounded and down-to-earth, but once we enter a business setting, our language and ways of communing with each other and with our customers take on an impotent tone, devoid of life or meaning?
Can you imagine if we were verbally spoken to in the same manner that newspaper print advertisements look: “50% off, buy one, get one free — shop NOW!” We might see that in print and, certainly, on TV and other media. But, if a human said that in-person and verbally to our face, most of us would feel that was strange. Why? Because it’s just not how human beings talk with each other.
Conclusion
We can all stand to be a bit more human — starting today. Are you with me?
Related Posts:
Become a Lean Six Sigma professional today!
Start your learning journey with Lean Six Sigma White Belt at NO COST
Levi says
The theme of respect for people reminds me of Kant’s Second Formulation of his Categorial Imperative: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.”
In the mind of Kant, it’s not only proper to treat human beings with respect and dignity, it’s an absolute duty of all people. Treating a person solely as a means to an end is a violation of that duty and a breach of ethics.
Anyway, thanks for the post, it was thought-provoking. 🙂
sam says
James from the Bible referring to the tongue: “With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.” [Jm 3:8]
I couldn’t agree more. I realize this is the Christian perspective, but if you view humanity as anything more than a cosmic accident, then where is the awe and respect due to someone with a Maker?
I’d like to push this one step further and ask, if we all have intrinsic value, what is that value and from whence does it come? From that you will know your purpose and the “meaning of life.”
I submit that because modern culture doesn’t seem interested in the “hard” questions we have no grounds to care for one another. I think we are slowly learning and following out to the logical conclusion of a philosophy that says there is no god but just live as though there might be one.
This would count as the “stuff in between” business and technology, I suppose. 🙂
Karen Wilhelm says
Jargon works to give us belonging credentials in a group that we expect to include or exclude us. When I’ve joined a group that’s marginalizing me because I’m too old, too young, or too female, it seems to work to establish that I know more about the matter at hand than they seem to think I do. Then we get the habit of marginalizing the next person who can’t speak the lingo, and so it goes. It breaks down when we try to sound cool to our kids and just end up sounding lame. Radical.
Scott Edwards says
I can’t count how many meetings I’ve sat through where lots of things were spoken but nothing was said. I think I’ve become numb to it. Thanks for the wake up call. When there is true purpose and an objective, it’s so much easier to cut through the crap and tell it like it is.
Corey says
Monstrous language is a predictable consequence of monstrous organizational scale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
chad blodgett says
reminds me why I hate shopping at wal-mart. We aren’t human there, we are just globs of flesh that only care about price instead of how we are treated. At least that is how you feel when shopping there…
Andrew says
Psabilla,
Exactly right, and in business, the way in which customers are treated does make a difference in consumer purchasing decisions.
Let me share a personal example. I live in a small country town in South Korea. Whenever I feel like a drink with a few mates, there are three or four decent ‘beer houses’ to choose from, but I personally always suggest the some place every time.
Why? Simple. Because the other beer houses treat me with politeness, but the owner of one particular venue showers me with friendliness, as opposed to mere politeness. Although she does not speak much English, she always has a big smile, referring to all of her customers by name.
Other beer house owners give the attitude of “I will serve you politely because you are a customer,” but this one particular owner gives the attitude of “I’m glad you came and I will be delighted to serve you because you are an important person, not just a source of revenue for my business.”
Andy Green says
Bureaucracies try to elevate mundane tasks through the use of vague abstractions. Usually a verb or adjective is turned into a noun as a way to refer to a process. There’s nothing wrong with this–called “nominalization”– and the English language is richer for its shaping shifting. In academic and scientific writing, it’s almost a necessity with researcher sprinkling their papers with -tion words as a kind of shorthand. BUT outside of these specialty areas and professional audiences, the abstractions quickly lose their meaning. As others have observed (see Orwell’s Politics and the English Language), words become empty place holders. Yes, if we use this same business language in our daily conversations, it would be strange– at least I still hope so!
Jon Miller says
One.
Dike Drummond says
Language is a connection to the structure of people’s consciousness – look at the body of knowledge that is NeuroLinguisticProgramming.
AND don’t forget the Sam Clemen’s quote,
“The difference between the right word and the Almost right word is the difference between Lightning and the Lightning Bug”
Take a breath and reflect before you speak … highly recommended.
Patrick O'Shei says
The manuipulation of language to numb and desensitize has always been the tool of propagandists. Propaganda (in its milder form Public Relations)is what individuals and institutions rely upon when the truth of their motives and actions would derail their efforts and expose them to attack.
When a company lacks the current or future ability to productively engage and employee a human being it may have no choice but to lay-off or terminate the employee. That said; there should be no pretense regarding what is occurring and no diminishment of the amount of anguish and disruption faced by the employee and their family.
My goal as a manager is to avoid lay-offs through careful planning, conservative spending and flexibly and creatively approaching problems. When lay-offs or terminations have been unavoidable, my goal has been to: communicate specific information as far in advance as possible, to be fair, to be as generous as possible and to treat each individual with compassion and respect.
This practice has actually helped me make better and more thoughtful hiring decisions, critically examine my plans and assumptions and work really hard to prevent the circumstances that lead to terminations and lay-offs.
John Payson says
Here here!.
The existence of an Human Relations Department in modern corporations is the ultimate of your example of dehumanizing.
The reason the function exists is so that operating management does not have to face the human beings they decide to fire. I am sure there are those who argue otherwise. But upon full reflection most people will see that the reality of how HR is used is that work is assigned to keep people occupied so that they are available to carry out the firings– so that the executives do not have to face anyone.
diodado azarraga says
dear John Payson,
i aggree with you about the humanity. one question who will going to fire those executives?
Sandi Longhurst says
Pete,
Minutes after reading your post I suggested “escalating” an issue. As the word came out of my mouth I laughed inside and questioned what I really meant. Powerful stuff. As your work is focused on efficiency I imagine you are keenly aware of de-humanization on a daily if not hourly basis. I applaud the fact that you recognize the pitfalls of de-humanization and are concerned enough to write about it. Social interactions take time, energy and consideration – making them more “efficient” is counter-productive as deep human relationships are both highly productive and rewarding. We are by nature social creatures and have developed an interdependent society that is crucial for our survival as individuals and as a species. Technology, particularly communications technology, as a means of both connection and division for people is interesting to watch.
btw, Welcome to Backcountry!
-Sandi
Hydraulicus says
Funny that you mention a Socratic dialogue. My recollection is that Plato utilized analogies and allegories–the cave, the charioteer, the cicadas–to make his points. Words like good, bad, love and hate don’t achieve the full scope of meanings that nuanced ideas carry. Language is going to constantly change. Redundancies will be delayered. Even saying that 300 people were layed off or clipped or cut loose is more vague and dehumanizing than listing each person by name and explaining the impact of that job loss on each life. For what it’s worth, I’m speaking as someone who has been on both sides of that interaction: as the velvet chainsaw and as the chainsawee. Orwell wrote screeds against what he saw as the modern abuses of language, but abused it in his own way. The most clear and, I suppose, humanizing model would be Mamet’s preferred deliveries–no upspeak, no nuance; direct, profane, lucid monotone speech. Try it sometime and I think you’ll find that most people don’t respond to this clarity of form with the embrace that they might have presupposed. That is to say, when push comes to shove, most folks would still prefer to hear “we’re going to have to let you go” and not “we’ve taken all we can from you and have chosen to force you into a state of joblessness and, most likely, despair.” And yet, that’s exactly what it is. To take it a step farther, consider interactions within the family, between spouses. Rarely (rarely) is language completely unfiltered. Part of the human condition is seeking balance. To me this is represented by the concept of Upaya that Buddha introduces in the Lotus Sutra. Expedient Means. How can we communicate most effectively? By communicating at the level of skill required to conjugate that human interaction. Sometimes it’s with upspeak–a personal pet peeve of mine–and sometimes it’s with analogies, anecdotes or words that soften the ugly blow.