Wow! This phrase really resonated with me when I came across it in one of the newsletters I receive regularly.

I don’t know about you, but all too often, life seems to revolve around what you do, rather than what you are. Whenever we meet someone new, one of the first questions we ask is invariably, “What do you do, Joe?” (It is even embedded in the way I was brought up to say, “How do you do” when first introduced to someone. For me it was just a polite expression; something one always said when meeting someone for the very first time. Thus I never saw it as a question and so, even now, I am always somewhat taken aback when someone – usually a North American – replies, “I am doing just fine thank you!”)

With the emphasis on networking in today’s business environment, the question “What do you do?” has become almost as commonplace as “How are you today?” Only now, especially for consultants, it has a whole new importance, and we have to be trained how to answer – how to give an “elevator pitch” (a rehearsed spiel built on the premise that you are a salesperson with only the time between the elevator doors closing and reaching the executive suite in which to engage the CEO’s interest in your product or service.) Get it right and you are well on your way to making your first million: get it wrong and you are doomed to walk the streets forever! At least that is what the underlying message seems to be.

However, while networking may have given the question a new significance, the tendency is hardly new. In fact, not only is our social status determined by what we do, but also our entire working lives. The whole recruitment process is primarily shaped by

a) The work we are required to do; and
b) Our previous experience and the manner in which it has prepared us to do this work.

Then, once we have the job, our future prospects and our chances of promotion are also determined by what we do. So it does seem that it might be more appropriate to refer to the human race as “human doings” rather than “human beings.”

As with most humour, it is the element of truth that makes the idea amusing, but it also gives us cause to stop and think about the serious aspect, for such thought processes do rather belittle us. We are all much more than the role we have at work, and we all have more potential than we are expected, or even allowed, to use at work. Consequently it is hardly surprising that there are tensions in the workplace.

On the one hand such constraints have helped contribute to record levels of employee estrangement, while on the other, changing workforce demographics and increased global competition, with the resultant pressure on innovation, productivity, growth and customer service, have caused executives to recognise that an organisation’s people are vital to its continued success and even its survival.

A paradox when the major justification for technology has invariably been its power to reduce dependence on people, but the fact is that technology costs have reduced to such an extent, and its use is so widespread, that technology itself is no longer a major business differentiator and provides little competitive advantage. This may not come as a surprise to those for whom the old sales adage, “People buy from people” is a fundamental tenet, but the fact is this is no longer strictly true. Just think Amazon or eBay. Nevertheless, it is still people who determine the quality of service, and both systems design and ultimate delivery depends on the human factor, and, in the face of the pressures already outlined, business leaders are waking to this. Thus the pressure is on to find new methods to change attitudes and behaviours.

However, the pressures driving such change are not just commercial. Employment practices have evolved from slavery and serfdom, through the piece-work of the late agricultural age and early industrial era, on to ever more humane practices through the course of the industrial age and into the information age, spurred by the growth in democracy. One might argue as to which is the chicken and which the egg, but it is inevitable that the spread of democracy should affect attitudes in the workplace. It should be no surprise that employees who have democratic rights, and take them as given, find it difficult to accept the “command and control” attitudes that, until recently, have been so prevalent in business.

Unfortunately, even though these “command and control” attitudes are changing, the systems used to reinforce it have not changed, creating an inherent, unrecognised conflict in the workplace, where people are referred to as assets but not treated as such. It is thus hardly surprising that lack of employee engagement is a major, growing issue.

This is where the headline comes in, because seeing people as human beings is an essential element of this process. This requires looking at people in their totality and hiring people for who they are rather than as “job-fillers.”

In order to introduce and embed such thinking, however, it is vital to find new approaches. This is why the concept of treating people as assets offers an ideal solution, for it starts at the very root of the problem. While the prospect of creating a whole new field of accounting may seem pretty daunting, it need not be quite so sophisticated but could rather facilitate a whole category of new KPI measures and so begin the process of moving people management from a “soft” skill to something more tangible and systemic. It provides a framework to:

a) Look at the total person and thus compel change from the traditional approaches;
b) Ensure a consistent approach to valuing people;
c) Encourage and reinforce value-enhancement;
d) Create the alignment necessary to implement strategy effectively;
e) Measure and drive continuous improvement, both individually and organisationally.
f) Measure (and compare) management effectiveness.

This is essential in an economic environment where, executives agree, people issues are at the top of the strategic agenda. How else can executives expect to develop an organisation in which people act like owners in their own business; are responsive to change – initiating it rather than fighting shy of it - and are committed to offering a level of service that keeps customers coming back? How else can management gauge how effective their people-spend is, or how well new strategies and initiatives are really working? It is one area where we need to be doing!


______________________________________
About the Author
Bay Jordan is the author of Lean Organisations Need FAT People (ISBN 0-9768447-4-5) and founder of Zealise Limited, www.zealise.com a consulting firm that inspires business transformation by the creation of organisational zeal and teamwork, through the proper recognition and treatment of human assets.