I was talking with my effervescent friend CK over Twitter about how, sometimes, it just seems to be so damn hard for people and companies to be human. And it got me thinking hard about why that is. (She wrote about it, too, probably better than I did.)
We’ve always drawn lines between business and personal. We’ve been told not to cross the streams, that business and personal are expressed in different languages somehow, and as marketers, we sure as hell developed a vocabulary all our own for the “business” application (often whether or not anyone was speaking that way).
Insecurity.
Being human makes us vulnerable. It’s an admission that we’re fallible, that we’re susceptible to emotions and insecurities, and that we are not omnipotent. “Human” carries with it the connotation that you’ve got weaknesses as well as strengths. From a personal perspective, we welcome that in people, because it makes us feel less alone in our imperfection.
From a business perspective, we’re sometimes not sure we WANT to be seen as human. Wouldn’t that mean we’re admitting what we don’t know? That we’re not authoritative, convincing, and decisive? That maybe we didn’t think things through thoroughly, and that there’s a chink in our armor somewhere just waiting to be discovered?
Trust.
Being human means we put trust in others to judge us based on the balance of our merits, warts and all. Being human as a business means we’re inviting people to judge us based on what’s up front AND what’s backstage, and let’s face it. Sometimes, our backstage is messy. If we let them see it, once again we have to trust that they’ll do something positive with that information instead of trying to find a way to bring us down.
We also don’t trust the rest of the world to understand our business as well as we do. We’ve built messaging for years and focused on making sure we saturate the world with our view of our own company, as opposed to encouraging others to tell us what our business is to THEM. It’s almost as if we have a complete lack of faith in people’s ability to understand and articulate our value as well as we can.
Improvisation.
Winging it makes businesses especially uncomfortable. We have strategic plans, business plans, processes, flowcharts, and procedures all designed to make sure we color inside the lines. That we reduce the variables and mitigate the unexpected.
Being human pulls the rug out from under some of that. Because when you’re personalizing conversation with people, you can’t cram it into a process or a flowchart. You have to think on your feet and improvise based on where the conversation takes you. Sometimes it’s where you expect, but sometimes not. And we just don’t much like the unknown when it comes to our company and our business.
Can You Teach This?
Here’s what’s really nagging at me. If you’re predisposed to burying your humanity in the face of business, can you be reformed? Is it going to become a world of the businesses that are human-driven, and those that aren’t? Is that going to start determining who wins and who flounders?
I wonder if being human is something you can teach. Like intuition or work ethic or attitude, can you teach this to businesses? And what’s the opposite of human?
I’m not done thinking on this, and I sure don’t have all the answers yet, but I hope you’ll help me get there. Chat with me about it?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=a07314d2-c842-44d5-aea7-3f25c60af134)
Intriguing post.
I think that the lack of “humanness” in business is an extension of the common misunderstanding that vulnerability, even stemming from authenticity, is a weakness and not a strength.
I’ve encountered businesses in which the principals wore their humanity on their sleeves, and those businesses had the most engaged employees and the most loyal customers (other characteristics being considered equal).
I think it can be taught, but if it doesn’t flow naturally from the leadership, teaching employees to be more human will be in vain, as the company culture will strongly tend to rebound to its previous detached/formal status quo without exemplary leaders.
Intriguing post.
I think that the lack of “humanness” in business is an extension of the common misunderstanding that vulnerability, even stemming from authenticity, is a weakness and not a strength.
I’ve encountered businesses in which the principals wore their humanity on their sleeves, and those businesses had the most engaged employees and the most loyal customers (other characteristics being considered equal).
I think it can be taught, but if it doesn’t flow naturally from the leadership, teaching employees to be more human will be in vain, as the company culture will strongly tend to rebound to its previous detached/formal status quo without exemplary leaders.
Amber, not sure I have the answers either. I have always been taught to lead by example and understand that you can’t change anyone unless they are willing to change themselves. I think this theory applies to business as well. Sometimes it is difficult to be who really are, especially if it is not like anyone else, in fear that we will be ridiculed for it (it’s happened to me many times). However, as I watch, grow, and learn from others and see them continue to take risks and step outside the lines of “ordinary,” the more I am willing to try it all over again. We see companies becoming more human every day, these are ones I watch, follow, and admire.
This may be ingrained in who I am as a person, but I would argue that it has a lot to do with all the great people we surround ourselves with everyday, and all the new ones I have yet to meet.
Nicole Hamiltons last blog post..Don’t Tell Me What to Do!
Amber, not sure I have the answers either. I have always been taught to lead by example and understand that you can’t change anyone unless they are willing to change themselves. I think this theory applies to business as well. Sometimes it is difficult to be who really are, especially if it is not like anyone else, in fear that we will be ridiculed for it (it’s happened to me many times). However, as I watch, grow, and learn from others and see them continue to take risks and step outside the lines of “ordinary,” the more I am willing to try it all over again. We see companies becoming more human every day, these are ones I watch, follow, and admire.
This may be ingrained in who I am as a person, but I would argue that it has a lot to do with all the great people we surround ourselves with everyday, and all the new ones I have yet to meet.
Nicole Hamiltons last blog post..Don’t Tell Me What to Do!
Yes you can teach it… Or rather, you can – over time – help people become comfortable with that kind of emotional honesty. (And keep it aligned with a brand’s culture and/or a company’s business objectives.)
It takes time though, and it takes practice, like everything else. Some of us might jump into the fray and find the transparency, openness and honesty of it all refreshing and liberating. Others may require months if not years to truly feel comfortable with it.
You must have been a fly on the wall earlier this week when I had this same discussion with Randy McDougald, a good friend and former client who had a pretty interesting take on insecurity and mother complexes in the business world. (Man, I could write a whole book on that topic. “How Fisher Kings killed the American Corporation.” Pow. I just got all Jungian on you.)
But seriously. You hit the nail on the head with your focus on insecurity and trust. Fear is a huge factor in this. Transparency and openness does make people feel vulnerable, open to criticism, and retaliation. There are layers of risk attached to this, from social rejection to professional embarrassment that some people are always going to have a tough time dealing with.
This is as much a question of helping people exorcise personal demons as it is teaching them to be good communicators. When someone is desperately hanging on to their place in the pecking order, getting them to agree to take off the armor and increase their exposure is a tough sell. Sticking their necks out like this takes a level of confidence that many execs lack, even if they put on a good show that would make you believe the opposite. In the backs of their minds, they are wondering “how will this come back to haunt me? Could this cost me my next promotion? My job, even? Will I get criticized? Will I screw this up?”
Fear of professional failure and social embarrassment can be pretty powerful barriers.
Part of our job often involves progressively easing companies and execs into comfort zones they didn’t think they would ever achieve. Learning to recognize certain behavioral patterns and knowing how to work with them to influence change over time (yes, even on a schedule) really helps in that regard. 😉
Great post. Again.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Who exactly is driving the Social Media bus in the Enterprise space?
Yes you can teach it… Or rather, you can – over time – help people become comfortable with that kind of emotional honesty. (And keep it aligned with a brand’s culture and/or a company’s business objectives.)
It takes time though, and it takes practice, like everything else. Some of us might jump into the fray and find the transparency, openness and honesty of it all refreshing and liberating. Others may require months if not years to truly feel comfortable with it.
You must have been a fly on the wall earlier this week when I had this same discussion with Randy McDougald, a good friend and former client who had a pretty interesting take on insecurity and mother complexes in the business world. (Man, I could write a whole book on that topic. “How Fisher Kings killed the American Corporation.” Pow. I just got all Jungian on you.)
But seriously. You hit the nail on the head with your focus on insecurity and trust. Fear is a huge factor in this. Transparency and openness does make people feel vulnerable, open to criticism, and retaliation. There are layers of risk attached to this, from social rejection to professional embarrassment that some people are always going to have a tough time dealing with.
This is as much a question of helping people exorcise personal demons as it is teaching them to be good communicators. When someone is desperately hanging on to their place in the pecking order, getting them to agree to take off the armor and increase their exposure is a tough sell. Sticking their necks out like this takes a level of confidence that many execs lack, even if they put on a good show that would make you believe the opposite. In the backs of their minds, they are wondering “how will this come back to haunt me? Could this cost me my next promotion? My job, even? Will I get criticized? Will I screw this up?”
Fear of professional failure and social embarrassment can be pretty powerful barriers.
Part of our job often involves progressively easing companies and execs into comfort zones they didn’t think they would ever achieve. Learning to recognize certain behavioral patterns and knowing how to work with them to influence change over time (yes, even on a schedule) really helps in that regard. 😉
Great post. Again.
olivier blanchards last blog post..Who exactly is driving the Social Media bus in the Enterprise space?
Your timing is great — for reasons both good and bad.
The bad: a lot of this is cultural, in the corporate sense, and the economy is making many risk adverse. There is no shortage of people in companies (not agencies) who crave a more human means of telling, answering, conversing and even *marketing* in the old school broadcast sense (yes, this is still popular ;-)). But these people unfortunately answer to a more buttoned-up crowd — that applies to the community/communications people and the CXOs. Too often it comes down to the attitudes of the leadership (board and CXO). Without their support, few will take the risk to make the change. Though I applaud the grassroots efforts within.
The good: it’s user conference season and these create a comfort zone for all parties. An open community incubator of sorts. It’s OK to openly discuss ugly but common product shortcomings in such a group — they all know it exists anyway. It’s the rare event where a CEO doesn’t mind seeing a product manager and a customer discussing a hairy upgrade process, partners talking about how they differ in opinion with the event organizer, or even competitors swap war stories and tips. Ask attendees what they remember from an event and the flashy keynotes rarely make the list. It’s great marketing because its authentic and often unscripted. These events can be community/communications pros jumping off point. A place to try new things in the comfort of “friends” and badged off areas. And definitely a place to be, well, more human.
Your timing is great — for reasons both good and bad.
The bad: a lot of this is cultural, in the corporate sense, and the economy is making many risk adverse. There is no shortage of people in companies (not agencies) who crave a more human means of telling, answering, conversing and even *marketing* in the old school broadcast sense (yes, this is still popular ;-)). But these people unfortunately answer to a more buttoned-up crowd — that applies to the community/communications people and the CXOs. Too often it comes down to the attitudes of the leadership (board and CXO). Without their support, few will take the risk to make the change. Though I applaud the grassroots efforts within.
The good: it’s user conference season and these create a comfort zone for all parties. An open community incubator of sorts. It’s OK to openly discuss ugly but common product shortcomings in such a group — they all know it exists anyway. It’s the rare event where a CEO doesn’t mind seeing a product manager and a customer discussing a hairy upgrade process, partners talking about how they differ in opinion with the event organizer, or even competitors swap war stories and tips. Ask attendees what they remember from an event and the flashy keynotes rarely make the list. It’s great marketing because its authentic and often unscripted. These events can be community/communications pros jumping off point. A place to try new things in the comfort of “friends” and badged off areas. And definitely a place to be, well, more human.
I’m not as sure as the others here that the reluctance to be human is about fear of showing vulnerability. When I show my weakness, I can also be prepared for what is coming next. All of us has enough experience with mean people to know that some people will be mean and others will be unexpectedly kind.
I think what we are more afraid of is that we will show our emotional strength – and then we will be accountable for doing something with it. Corporations without hearts do not have to go the extra mile to be profitable by doing the right thing. Business people who are barely people do not have to respond to the vulnerability of workers or customers or innocent bystanders.
When I am training or coaching, I don’t find it all that hard to have people open up about their weaknesses. I also don’t encourage it. What is challenging and rewarding is to have them open up about their kindness, their emotional balance or their courage.
Thanks for asking.
I’m not as sure as the others here that the reluctance to be human is about fear of showing vulnerability. When I show my weakness, I can also be prepared for what is coming next. All of us has enough experience with mean people to know that some people will be mean and others will be unexpectedly kind.
I think what we are more afraid of is that we will show our emotional strength – and then we will be accountable for doing something with it. Corporations without hearts do not have to go the extra mile to be profitable by doing the right thing. Business people who are barely people do not have to respond to the vulnerability of workers or customers or innocent bystanders.
When I am training or coaching, I don’t find it all that hard to have people open up about their weaknesses. I also don’t encourage it. What is challenging and rewarding is to have them open up about their kindness, their emotional balance or their courage.
Thanks for asking.
Olivier touched it. Comes down to fear. Fear of being exposed for not knowing everything. Fear that a mistake will cost you your job. Fear that showing a vulnerability means that you will be exploited. The industrial model was predicated upon this and we’re only at the beginning of this era where “being Human” is actually more profitable.
It’s going to take time and anecdotes to show it, but I see it happening.
In the last week, I wrote 2 unsolicited recommendations for friends/colleagues/contacts on LinkedIn (it’s a habit of mine), just as a way of saying “I appreciate you.”
As a result, other members of my network saw those recommendations, read them, and TWO DEALS were closed as a result! That’s it.
I was being human in just saying “I appreciate you.” (the notes were authentic, I don’t BS) and the rest of my network saw that and responded.
There’s some being human ROI for you.
Anyway, I was inspired by your post, as usual. Well done. Thanks.
jeremys last blog post..Why You Should Connect With Everyone You’ve Ever Met…
Olivier touched it. Comes down to fear. Fear of being exposed for not knowing everything. Fear that a mistake will cost you your job. Fear that showing a vulnerability means that you will be exploited. The industrial model was predicated upon this and we’re only at the beginning of this era where “being Human” is actually more profitable.
It’s going to take time and anecdotes to show it, but I see it happening.
In the last week, I wrote 2 unsolicited recommendations for friends/colleagues/contacts on LinkedIn (it’s a habit of mine), just as a way of saying “I appreciate you.”
As a result, other members of my network saw those recommendations, read them, and TWO DEALS were closed as a result! That’s it.
I was being human in just saying “I appreciate you.” (the notes were authentic, I don’t BS) and the rest of my network saw that and responded.
There’s some being human ROI for you.
Anyway, I was inspired by your post, as usual. Well done. Thanks.
jeremys last blog post..Why You Should Connect With Everyone You’ve Ever Met…
50 yrs of education designed to feed worker bees to the industrial revolution has resulted in a stilted and distinct separation of the public persona and the private persona. MySpace and Facebook have pretty much eliminated that for the NEXT GENS and the previous gens will bridge the gap to some degree (or not)but if you are brand building on the 100 year plan (and you should be), you will look back in 25 yrs and remember the transition as just another blip on the radar.
50 yrs of education designed to feed worker bees to the industrial revolution has resulted in a stilted and distinct separation of the public persona and the private persona. MySpace and Facebook have pretty much eliminated that for the NEXT GENS and the previous gens will bridge the gap to some degree (or not)but if you are brand building on the 100 year plan (and you should be), you will look back in 25 yrs and remember the transition as just another blip on the radar.
I think the presuposition is that human feelings and business are separate or that business has no emotion. At least thats what I’m getting from the article. Let’s not forget that everything we do is human and comes from our emotions. I think we just like to structure things and create patterns and systems (hence the business plan, etc.) We are emotional beings yet we seek structure and pattern and safety and security. Why do we create businesses? Creative expression, financial security,etc. I’ll bet any reason we can come up with is to serve us emotionally. My point is: we will never truly create a non emotional business, because we will always be human. What do you think?
Dan W, you raise an excellent point. How ever we deny it by convention, all human enterprise has an emotional basis.
Is it necessary to pretend otherwise? For myself and many others, probably not, though given the diversity of personalities and their correspondingly diverse propensity and tolerance for emotional openness, for some it may be. At least if we are aware of it, and its costs and benefits, we can participant in the organizations and communities that suit us.
I like to think that emotionally honest organizations are generally more successful, though I have no hard data to back that up.
I think the presuposition is that human feelings and business are separate or that business has no emotion. At least thats what I’m getting from the article. Let’s not forget that everything we do is human and comes from our emotions. I think we just like to structure things and create patterns and systems (hence the business plan, etc.) We are emotional beings yet we seek structure and pattern and safety and security. Why do we create businesses? Creative expression, financial security,etc. I’ll bet any reason we can come up with is to serve us emotionally. My point is: we will never truly create a non emotional business, because we will always be human. What do you think?
Dan W, you raise an excellent point. How ever we deny it by convention, all human enterprise has an emotional basis.
Is it necessary to pretend otherwise? For myself and many others, probably not, though given the diversity of personalities and their correspondingly diverse propensity and tolerance for emotional openness, for some it may be. At least if we are aware of it, and its costs and benefits, we can participant in the organizations and communities that suit us.
I like to think that emotionally honest organizations are generally more successful, though I have no hard data to back that up.
Loved your post, Amber. You raise some good questions. Was just referred to this blog for the first time today.
I’m with Trevor that leadership has to be on board with the whole idea, otherwise it doesn’t tend to happen. Whoever makes the rules sets the tone. Subordinates can influence management, but management still makes a decision on it.
I was faced with these ideas when our Human Resources department offered a survey about what areas of training would be most beneficial for various levels of employees. I commented that in general, employees need to be treated more like people and less like tasks to be achieved.
I believe that impersonal handling of business processes is the least risky and also the laziest way out. If all you’re interested in is conservative goals, then you can put a cap on productivity and think your company’s output sufficient. But if you want to unleash greater potential, then flexibility must be there.
What happens is that if a boss is less personal or human, then he or she can pretend that those people underneath are just figures and payroll slots. If they deny the reality, then they won’t have to worry about getting emotionally involved, thus complicating everything. And they’ll have less explaining to do. They won’t have to own up to their ideas as much. The downside is that this approach stifles creativity.
If you want to engender loyalty and trust, you have to take the personal route. If a boss doesn’t care whether an employee is getting considerable satisfaction out of his work, then that boss probably has the mistaken notion that all the company owes the employee is a paycheck. Technically, that’s true in a faceless world, but the unwritten laws of decency, compassion and altruism state that if you really want an employee to feel like an integral part of the system, you have to help them feel appreciated beyond just the salary and benefits package. Money doesn’t solve everything. It might be the bottom line, but it’s not the complete solution.
Rusty Southwicks last blog post..Recalcitrant Dissonance in Nascent Autonomy
Loved your post, Amber. You raise some good questions. Was just referred to this blog for the first time today.
I’m with Trevor that leadership has to be on board with the whole idea, otherwise it doesn’t tend to happen. Whoever makes the rules sets the tone. Subordinates can influence management, but management still makes a decision on it.
I was faced with these ideas when our Human Resources department offered a survey about what areas of training would be most beneficial for various levels of employees. I commented that in general, employees need to be treated more like people and less like tasks to be achieved.
I believe that impersonal handling of business processes is the least risky and also the laziest way out. If all you’re interested in is conservative goals, then you can put a cap on productivity and think your company’s output sufficient. But if you want to unleash greater potential, then flexibility must be there.
What happens is that if a boss is less personal or human, then he or she can pretend that those people underneath are just figures and payroll slots. If they deny the reality, then they won’t have to worry about getting emotionally involved, thus complicating everything. And they’ll have less explaining to do. They won’t have to own up to their ideas as much. The downside is that this approach stifles creativity.
If you want to engender loyalty and trust, you have to take the personal route. If a boss doesn’t care whether an employee is getting considerable satisfaction out of his work, then that boss probably has the mistaken notion that all the company owes the employee is a paycheck. Technically, that’s true in a faceless world, but the unwritten laws of decency, compassion and altruism state that if you really want an employee to feel like an integral part of the system, you have to help them feel appreciated beyond just the salary and benefits package. Money doesn’t solve everything. It might be the bottom line, but it’s not the complete solution.
Rusty Southwicks last blog post..Recalcitrant Dissonance in Nascent Autonomy
You’ve added some great insights here, Rusty. Glad to have you aboard, and your thoughts. Please keep them coming. 🙂
Part of the reason can be explained by the dominance of the ‘managerialist’ mind-set that prevades business education. In an attempt to attach ‘scientific’ credibility to the study of business, the emphasis has been on the rational, unemotional and objective. Most Marketing mega-texts conveniently air-brush the messy aspects of ‘managing’ from their normative prescriptions. To do business ‘properly’ you have avoid being human they claim. This of course flies in the face of evidence and instinct. Business is built on social interactions, relationships, trust, reciprocation, care, likeability and so on. (and…of course commercial viability is crucial too…that’s why its called business!)Commercial viability, analysis and structure are merely the table stakes for playing the business game. The differences that make a difference are all human. Just check out Ted Levitts Total product concept to see this idea modelled. Differential human factors are key. The MBA approach relegates the fundamental essence of operational competitive marketing (Face to Face selling and Marketing communciations) to sub-elements of the marketing mix. Marketing is put across as ‘not selling’ and ‘not advertising’which by definition means it is not really about people. Now that is absurd!
I have never seen a SWOT or PEST analysis inpire or sack anyone, I have never seen a Campaign Plan seel something or handle a complaint. People do these things not analyses and tools.
Reasonable Robinsons last blog post..The Difference Between Statesmanship and ‘Politicks’
Part of the reason can be explained by the dominance of the ‘managerialist’ mind-set that prevades business education. In an attempt to attach ‘scientific’ credibility to the study of business, the emphasis has been on the rational, unemotional and objective. Most Marketing mega-texts conveniently air-brush the messy aspects of ‘managing’ from their normative prescriptions. To do business ‘properly’ you have avoid being human they claim. This of course flies in the face of evidence and instinct. Business is built on social interactions, relationships, trust, reciprocation, care, likeability and so on. (and…of course commercial viability is crucial too…that’s why its called business!)Commercial viability, analysis and structure are merely the table stakes for playing the business game. The differences that make a difference are all human. Just check out Ted Levitts Total product concept to see this idea modelled. Differential human factors are key. The MBA approach relegates the fundamental essence of operational competitive marketing (Face to Face selling and Marketing communciations) to sub-elements of the marketing mix. Marketing is put across as ‘not selling’ and ‘not advertising’which by definition means it is not really about people. Now that is absurd!
I have never seen a SWOT or PEST analysis inpire or sack anyone, I have never seen a Campaign Plan seel something or handle a complaint. People do these things not analyses and tools.
Reasonable Robinsons last blog post..The Difference Between Statesmanship and ‘Politicks’
Amber,
What about those of us at the opposite end of the question — those who’s role’s requires emotional insights, trust, personal risk, and the ability to embrace fear and change and turn it into a creative solution? There are also many like me who are million mile members of SeatPant Air who struggle with how to be corporate. My sense is that it’s a yin-yang, seek out those traits that you don’t have in others.
A few years back the London School of Business conducted an executive coaching series for WPP and this “lack of corporateness” was clearly evidenced on my 360 reviews. I panicked, but I’ll never forget their interpretation. It went something like this, “Bridget, if you abandon your creative/emotional (human) contributions to focus your energy and skills on financial, you lose, the company loses. Delegate it.”
Perhaps for those of us in marketing services and social media, our willingness to be human is a marketable asset, why would I want everyone to have it?
Just thinking out loud here…
@bcavanaugh
Bridget Cavanaughs last blog post..360 Pet Medical
Amber,
What about those of us at the opposite end of the question — those who’s role’s requires emotional insights, trust, personal risk, and the ability to embrace fear and change and turn it into a creative solution? There are also many like me who are million mile members of SeatPant Air who struggle with how to be corporate. My sense is that it’s a yin-yang, seek out those traits that you don’t have in others.
A few years back the London School of Business conducted an executive coaching series for WPP and this “lack of corporateness” was clearly evidenced on my 360 reviews. I panicked, but I’ll never forget their interpretation. It went something like this, “Bridget, if you abandon your creative/emotional (human) contributions to focus your energy and skills on financial, you lose, the company loses. Delegate it.”
Perhaps for those of us in marketing services and social media, our willingness to be human is a marketable asset, why would I want everyone to have it?
Just thinking out loud here…
@bcavanaugh
Bridget Cavanaughs last blog post..360 Pet Medical
Bridget, I’m right there with you. I’m as un-corporate as they come, which is perhaps why I struggle with understanding those who really are.
I want others to have it, though, because I believe universally that the success of business depends on it. Some people are going to naturally be better at it than others, and maybe it’s okay for some to fail as a result. But I’m an optimist, and I want to believe that bringing business back to a human level is nothing but good, period.
Amber, what a timely post! I am reading a book called “Pitch Like a Girl” by Ronna Lichtenberg that explains a lot of what you are discussing here. Basically, she narrows it down to “pink” and “blue” people. Nothing sexist, I assure you, both men and women can be pink & blue. Pinks build relationships in business, blues are all business. She explains that the corporate world is built on the “blue mentality.” That is, it’s perceived by blues as ‘unprofessional’ to build relationships with co-workers, ask how their kids/animals are, and compliment people on their shoes, etc. I’ve found out that I am a pink (no surprise there, huh?). I highly suggest the book…it’s an eyeopener for sure.
In the workplace IQ is respected, but EQ isn’t (nor tolerated). Clare Munn, over at claremunn.com, is writing a book on CQ (Connect/Collaborate/Communicate Intelligence)…the bridging of IQ & EQ. She has some very interesting perspectives (http://claremunn.com/2009/04/social-medias-value-proposition/) that you might find interesting.
Beth Hartes last blog post..Does accreditation have value for PR pros?
Amber, what a timely post! I am reading a book called “Pitch Like a Girl” by Ronna Lichtenberg that explains a lot of what you are discussing here. Basically, she narrows it down to “pink” and “blue” people. Nothing sexist, I assure you, both men and women can be pink & blue. Pinks build relationships in business, blues are all business. She explains that the corporate world is built on the “blue mentality.” That is, it’s perceived by blues as ‘unprofessional’ to build relationships with co-workers, ask how their kids/animals are, and compliment people on their shoes, etc. I’ve found out that I am a pink (no surprise there, huh?). I highly suggest the book…it’s an eyeopener for sure.
In the workplace IQ is respected, but EQ isn’t (nor tolerated). Clare Munn, over at claremunn.com, is writing a book on CQ (Connect/Collaborate/Communicate Intelligence)…the bridging of IQ & EQ. She has some very interesting perspectives (http://claremunn.com/2009/04/social-medias-value-proposition/) that you might find interesting.
Beth Hartes last blog post..Does accreditation have value for PR pros?
Hi Amber! Enjoying following you and Beth Harte.
I don’t know if you can *teach* humanness. What you’re asking people to do, at some risk, is show themselves.
The self they have to show you can’t do anything with. BUT – I think you can create safe laboratory spaces where people can experiment with boundaries/showing themselves in social media where the opportunities for thoughtful feedback are high and the consequences of overshare/undershare are low. Safe lab environments + practice = more confidence.
Of course I’ve never tried this. Just guessing!
Best,
Wendy
Hi Amber! Enjoying following you and Beth Harte.
I don’t know if you can *teach* humanness. What you’re asking people to do, at some risk, is show themselves.
The self they have to show you can’t do anything with. BUT – I think you can create safe laboratory spaces where people can experiment with boundaries/showing themselves in social media where the opportunities for thoughtful feedback are high and the consequences of overshare/undershare are low. Safe lab environments + practice = more confidence.
Of course I’ve never tried this. Just guessing!
Best,
Wendy
The issue of ‘managing marketing’ as opposed to ‘marketing management’ needs to be THE conversation of change in the profession. I would recommend readers of this blog to also plug into a fine blog with a HR basis created by Scott MacArthur, one of his recent posts addresses issues related to the comments above it can be found here emotional intelligence works. In relation to the idea of managerial ‘typologies I would always urge caution because they are invariably generalisations. If they become ‘reified’ they can have an adverse impact on management because they are believed to ‘real’ rather than a sense making tool and guide.
As for the whole EQ thing, I would also recommend going to Dan Goleman’s inspiration Howard Gardner and read Frames of Mind and his theory of multiple intelligences. The ‘objective linear rational’ mindset I mentioned above is ‘selected for’ by standard IQ tests and has been undermined as a sole indicator of intelligence for decades. It seems some areas of business haven’t caught on with the idea.
As for ‘training’ to be human, I think the issues might be more about ‘selecting for’ the attributes that are desirable rather than attempting to ‘train out’ a dominant paradigm. The change has to be profound otherwise we simply get the lip service.
Fascinating conversation I think Amber 🙂
Reasonable Robinsons last blog post..The Difference Between Statesmanship and ‘Politicks’
The issue of ‘managing marketing’ as opposed to ‘marketing management’ needs to be THE conversation of change in the profession. I would recommend readers of this blog to also plug into a fine blog with a HR basis created by Scott MacArthur, one of his recent posts addresses issues related to the comments above it can be found here emotional intelligence works. In relation to the idea of managerial ‘typologies I would always urge caution because they are invariably generalisations. If they become ‘reified’ they can have an adverse impact on management because they are believed to ‘real’ rather than a sense making tool and guide.
As for the whole EQ thing, I would also recommend going to Dan Goleman’s inspiration Howard Gardner and read Frames of Mind and his theory of multiple intelligences. The ‘objective linear rational’ mindset I mentioned above is ‘selected for’ by standard IQ tests and has been undermined as a sole indicator of intelligence for decades. It seems some areas of business haven’t caught on with the idea.
As for ‘training’ to be human, I think the issues might be more about ‘selecting for’ the attributes that are desirable rather than attempting to ‘train out’ a dominant paradigm. The change has to be profound otherwise we simply get the lip service.
Fascinating conversation I think Amber 🙂
Reasonable Robinsons last blog post..The Difference Between Statesmanship and ‘Politicks’
In my experience most businesses avoid the “human” side in the beginning, but that deficiency is often overcome once personal connections are made. With my important clients and vendors that personal relationship has allowed me the freedom to speak my mind, as well as to admit my company’s shortcomings.
The beauty is that once such relationships are in place, dialogue (without the spin) occurs and you have the opportunity to solve problems from a place of partnership. Those relationships continue to strengthen, and that results in more profit for all.
Global Patriots last blog post..Global Patriot Mission Statement
In my experience most businesses avoid the “human” side in the beginning, but that deficiency is often overcome once personal connections are made. With my important clients and vendors that personal relationship has allowed me the freedom to speak my mind, as well as to admit my company’s shortcomings.
The beauty is that once such relationships are in place, dialogue (without the spin) occurs and you have the opportunity to solve problems from a place of partnership. Those relationships continue to strengthen, and that results in more profit for all.
Global Patriots last blog post..Global Patriot Mission Statement
Great point of view. Let’s also keep in mind that – in a company – for each single decision you have lots of stakehoders. This doesn’t happen with humans and this might be another reason why companies find it so hard to behave like a human.
Building effective workflows and policies, while nurturing an open and “social” set of values could help solve this, IMO.
Great point of view. Let’s also keep in mind that – in a company – for each single decision you have lots of stakehoders. This doesn’t happen with humans and this might be another reason why companies find it so hard to behave like a human.
Building effective workflows and policies, while nurturing an open and “social” set of values could help solve this, IMO.
I’m always advising people to forget about being ‘professional’ and to just be themselves and leverage what they’re best at, but it’s not always easy.
Human being hide behind roles and labels based on what we think others expect of us, rather than what we believe to be the best thing. Those roles and labels can be hard to shift, and can often force people down a course of behaviour that doesn’t fit well with their values or strengths.
Crazy.
Roles, labels and automatic patterns of behaviour are no match for being you, and organisations that realise that will always be a great place to be.
Steve Errey – The Confidence Guys last blog post..Taking a Break
I’m always advising people to forget about being ‘professional’ and to just be themselves and leverage what they’re best at, but it’s not always easy.
Human being hide behind roles and labels based on what we think others expect of us, rather than what we believe to be the best thing. Those roles and labels can be hard to shift, and can often force people down a course of behaviour that doesn’t fit well with their values or strengths.
Crazy.
Roles, labels and automatic patterns of behaviour are no match for being you, and organisations that realise that will always be a great place to be.
Steve Errey – The Confidence Guys last blog post..Taking a Break
I mulled this over a bit. I want to be an optimist and believe that humanness can be taught/fostered/coddled into being. I’m not sure I believe that, though.
In approaching companies without that human element, I think you’ll see a distinct dichotomy where one group won’t believe in the importance of the human element and won’t want to be taught how to cultivate it and the other will believe in its power but question its use as a successful business procedure.
If businesses can be taught to be more human it’ll be done by demonstrating from the inside out how those most human employees within a company succeed and thrive over those who put themselves aside to behave the way they think they’re supposed to or the way they’ve been told they’re supposed to.
The human element is what makes us connect to brands, products, and services. It’s where businesses need to go to keep up with their customers, advocates, and influencers. At the moment I think we can hope businesses will begin to understand the importance of connecting with people and integrate that human element into/back into their culture.
I mulled this over a bit. I want to be an optimist and believe that humanness can be taught/fostered/coddled into being. I’m not sure I believe that, though.
In approaching companies without that human element, I think you’ll see a distinct dichotomy where one group won’t believe in the importance of the human element and won’t want to be taught how to cultivate it and the other will believe in its power but question its use as a successful business procedure.
If businesses can be taught to be more human it’ll be done by demonstrating from the inside out how those most human employees within a company succeed and thrive over those who put themselves aside to behave the way they think they’re supposed to or the way they’ve been told they’re supposed to.
The human element is what makes us connect to brands, products, and services. It’s where businesses need to go to keep up with their customers, advocates, and influencers. At the moment I think we can hope businesses will begin to understand the importance of connecting with people and integrate that human element into/back into their culture.
Great lead Amber! I think I’m in the same camp as Stefano Maggi and Therese Basich.
Accountability, relationship and owning our own role as a cog in a larger framework (regardless of the title) will only work well if authenticity about weakness as well as strength is rewarded. It is the clean energy of service industries.
It’s just the right thing to do. Businesses can be taught to be human, because human choice drives whether a business fails or succeeds. There has never been a time more likely to draw the interest of C-level decision makers to connectivity as a business solution than now.
Why? Because in a volatile market where no position or industry is exempt from scrutiny in either internet time (a) or each 24 hour cycle, there are more opportunities for decision makers and the support structure to develop empathy.
Even those C-level employees who were given no slack when they built the business from the ground up are seeing that the market is just too sparse to go hunting as a lone wolf. So as in nature, the cycle of change takes time.
Driven by survival instinct, the C-level decision maker is motivated to earn a place in the pack, yet entrance to the pack will take some tolerance and adaptation from those who have been hunting with the pack since birth.
I like the example given by Douglas LaBier who wrote in the Washington Post, “When empathy is aroused [in any role], you let go of your usual attachment to yourself and you want to help, or connect in some way. I invite people to think of it this way: When you cut your finger, you don’t say, “That’s my finger’s problem, not mine”; nor do you do a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to take action. You respond immediately because you feel the pain.”(b)
(a) http://www.internettime.com (Jay Cross)
(b) http://www.adultdev.org/papers/empathy.php (Douglas LaBier)
Who’s backstage isn’t messy?! Life happens. But, that’s what makes connecting so important. There is a dual consequence of decisions made with the justification of “It’s nothing personal, it’s strictly business.” Yes, handing out pink slips and trying to fit everyone into a box brings quantified results that can be measured in “widgets produced”(a), but like fossil fuels the long term ROI has a threshold – the cost of a “pound of flesh” is the gradual erosion of a human’s capacity to produce.
Authenticity builders cost a little more in time and energy to put in place, but the long term ROI is that the investment made to get to know the pain leverages the potential of getting to root causes for our employees and our clients.
Your post makes me pause and ask, “Do my actions say I believe this?”
Am I willing to accept feedback about my own blind spots so that I remain authentic in business and in personal relationships? It is a daily goal.
The old educational adage of “I don’t care what you know until I know that you care” comes to mind. Perhaps I’m naïve, but it would appear that in a tough economic climate it is also relevant to business.
Great lead Amber! I think I’m in the same camp as Stefano Maggi and Therese Basich.
Accountability, relationship and owning our own role as a cog in a larger framework (regardless of the title) will only work well if authenticity about weakness as well as strength is rewarded. It is the clean energy of service industries.
It’s just the right thing to do. Businesses can be taught to be human, because human choice drives whether a business fails or succeeds. There has never been a time more likely to draw the interest of C-level decision makers to connectivity as a business solution than now.
Why? Because in a volatile market where no position or industry is exempt from scrutiny in either internet time (a) or each 24 hour cycle, there are more opportunities for decision makers and the support structure to develop empathy.
Even those C-level employees who were given no slack when they built the business from the ground up are seeing that the market is just too sparse to go hunting as a lone wolf. So as in nature, the cycle of change takes time.
Driven by survival instinct, the C-level decision maker is motivated to earn a place in the pack, yet entrance to the pack will take some tolerance and adaptation from those who have been hunting with the pack since birth.
I like the example given by Douglas LaBier who wrote in the Washington Post, “When empathy is aroused [in any role], you let go of your usual attachment to yourself and you want to help, or connect in some way. I invite people to think of it this way: When you cut your finger, you don’t say, “That’s my finger’s problem, not mine”; nor do you do a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to take action. You respond immediately because you feel the pain.”(b)
(a) http://www.internettime.com (Jay Cross)
(b) http://www.adultdev.org/papers/empathy.php (Douglas LaBier)
Who’s backstage isn’t messy?! Life happens. But, that’s what makes connecting so important. There is a dual consequence of decisions made with the justification of “It’s nothing personal, it’s strictly business.” Yes, handing out pink slips and trying to fit everyone into a box brings quantified results that can be measured in “widgets produced”(a), but like fossil fuels the long term ROI has a threshold – the cost of a “pound of flesh” is the gradual erosion of a human’s capacity to produce.
Authenticity builders cost a little more in time and energy to put in place, but the long term ROI is that the investment made to get to know the pain leverages the potential of getting to root causes for our employees and our clients.
Your post makes me pause and ask, “Do my actions say I believe this?”
Am I willing to accept feedback about my own blind spots so that I remain authentic in business and in personal relationships? It is a daily goal.
The old educational adage of “I don’t care what you know until I know that you care” comes to mind. Perhaps I’m naïve, but it would appear that in a tough economic climate it is also relevant to business.