Employee: A Person Or A Role?

Director of Sales. VP of HR. Research Associate. Customer Service Agent.

Every time I receive a call to consult or coach, one of the first things I hear is the person's title and location on the organization chart. Invariably, the client turns out to be an actual person:

Laura. Luis. George. Dottie.

There's something about organizational roles that allow them to--at least initially--take precedence over the identity of the humans behind them.

I'm quite practical and get the need for org charts, functional titles, and visual relationships. I'm also aware of how the initial focus on titles and roles can subliminally influence the beginning of a working relationship. Here's what I mean:

1. Manager to direct report: "Set up a meeting with the Director of Sales, Europe to review the projections for next month."

Direct report doesn't know the Director. Conjures up images based on title, function, and location. Puts them through the "great mental filter of life." Starts to lose confidence about the ability to interact successfully.

2. VP of HR to external coach: "I'd like you to work with our CFO. She's a real detail person and needs to get the big picture regarding our business. The CEO has a time line for this. Could you get involved as soon as next week?"

Not unusual. If it were me I'd ask the clarifying questions needed to get a more complete picture. But all I can see at this point is the top of an organizational chart.

3. New Director of Customer Service, pointing to screen: "Here is the re-organization as I see it. Notice how the Call Center associates will have a dotted line relationship with Distribution as well as reporting directly to me."

OK. I know what it looks like in a presentation. But who are these people and how will we actually work together?

Humanize or Objectify: The Choice Matters

Humanize: The faster we can begin to relate to other people as people, the more of a chance we have of making a connection that matters. (You may find that you don't like someone, but at least it's based upon real data).

Objectify means that we assign meaning to things, people, places, activities, and the like. But they may not be correct and can be based upon preconceived notions, stereotypes, and the comments of others. The worst part: it makes the person an object. Once we do that, we no longer see them as someone with the same kinds of needs, wants, frailties, talents, and humanity as ourselves. And then begin to act accordingly.

What I hope you'll think about today:

1. When talking about your organization, talk about the people by name. Mention an interesting characteristic that you value about them. Then mention the title and role.

2. If you're calling a coach or consultant, talk about the person by name if you can (sometimes you can't at first). Offer some insights regarding their experience and background--their uniqueness. Then talk about their role and the developmental goals.

3.Talent Management. When you are discussing the movement of people up and around the organization, talk about characteristics as well as skills. Humanize the roles that need to be filled. How often have you seen really intelligent people cause distress because they simply didn't have the characteristics--or character--to relate to others.

4. It seems safe to keep a distance from others. It's dangerous if you want to have a fulfilling life on or off the job.

It would be useful to hear situations or comments around this phenomenon. It's tough for people to work with each other--or help each other--if they don't actual know each other.

What's your take?

Speaking of roles: We want to thank Kevin Eikenberry and Best Leadership Blogs of 2008 for nominating All Things Workplace. You can vote at the link and check out the lineup of terrific leadership blogs in the action this year.

Image source: www.tunetribe.com/

Comments

[RobynM]

Steve, I think many people work so hard to get where they are in their corporation that job titles or functions take on a significance beyond a description of what they do there. I know I used to be impressed by titles until I started giving myself titles for fun (at events for my last job, my nametag often read "chief flunky" or "girl genius").

I like what you suggested for thought; I'm sure many people don't realize they're objectifying others - perhaps they like being referred to by their title and referring to others in the same way is their way of paying respect or maybe reminding themselves of their own place in the hierarchy, or maybe a corporate version of celebrity (non)name-dropping ("I hang out with CEOs and VPs and stuff"). Or as you say, they are keeping a distance from others (fear of being discovered as a fraud or perhaps bad hygiene?).

I hope they take your advice; it could change things significantly for them and for the other titles they work with. If not, they should be on notice that their titles won't get them cuts in front of ME in the grocery line.

President of My Own Fan Club,
RMc

[Jim Stroup]

Hi Steve,

This is a particularly interesting topic for me since I (like you) spent so much time working in parts of the world where a person's function is of much less of interest to others - even in the workplace. What's important is who you are and who you're connected to, as well as your personal circumstances.

The identification with function seems to be particularly American. It is related to our frontier experience and the importance that gave to individual contributions.

In parts of the Middle East Americans can be somewhat taken aback by questions - right after being introduced to someone - about whether or not their parents are still living. On the other hand, locals can be puzzled at the relevance of the typical first question from the American: "and what do you do for a living?"

These speak volumes about the cultures that they originate in, but it is also worthwhile to use surprises like these to reexamine them.

Thanks for a great, thought-provoking post!

[Beth Robinson]

Then there was the time I met the general manager of another of our divisions at an industry conference. I was just making chit chat with another employee (our name tags had our company affiliation on them) and asked what he did for the company. Boy did I get a funny look. In my defense, his picture in the newsletter was a few years old and used his nickname...

I agree with your point, although I'd never thought about it before. There's something definitely different about being asked to call Peter and being asked to call the Head of R&D in Europe, even though I've met the man before. We also recently had a bit of a reorganization and I'm waiting to see how giving ultimate responsibility for a certain section of marketing that Jon manages directly to Bob instead of Jack is going to change things, because Bob and Jack take such different approaches that something is going to have to change.

[Steve Roesler]

Robyn,

Well, I actually didn't intend to get crazy about this. It's something I noticed over time.

The idea of titles in order to organize things makes sense; and, when people move on, the job title usually still needs to be filled and obviously serves a descriptive function for hiring criteria as well.

What I see happening a bit too often is a gap in real communication as a result of preconceptions about a title, whatever it is.

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks for adding that aspect, Jim,

Yes, the distinctions culturally are fascinating and can be awkward at the outset.

There's somewhat of a paradox now as well. While titles are still important here, there is also call-me-by-my-first-name casual approach. That seems quite "down home" but creates some angst when a secretary is addressing a CEO. A number of executive assistants and secretaries I've spoken with are having a hard time getting used to it. When they realize it's for real, the personalization works quite well.

Maybe there's a whole other post in this for the cultural aspect. Given that our readers are quite global, it could be interesting.

Thanks for moving the discussion to another arena...

[Steve Roesler]

Beth,

Let me know how that's working for you:-)

OK, here's my story that I should have told in the post:

I'm on a flight from NY to Saudi Arabia. My seat mate is a distinguished looking man who is also a good conversationalist. He takes an interest in what I do and asks some very good questions about human behavior and developing organizations. I must have talked endlessly because about 4 hours into the flight I finally asked, "And what do you do?"

He handed me his card: "Ambassador to the United Nations, Algeria".

Had I known that first, I probably never would have engaged in the level of conversation that we had.

[peter vajda]

Hi, Steve,

A topic near and dear to my heart. Allowing one's self to choose to view another as a "function" gives one tacit permission to not see the humanity in another, often a defense mechanism employed, consciously or unconsciously, to, for example, cover one's own vulnerability, or lack of sociability, or shyness, or protect one's ego need for control or power, or to take a "this is all about business" approach to workplace relationships as their life is all about rank, privilege and ego....

Too, this stance allows one to rationalize and justify the projections one often puts on another, or one's biases, assumptions, expectations, judgments, criticisms, etc., without feeling the need to explore the truth of the stories they make up about another.

Sadly, too, this "function" dynamic also plays out just as often at home: you are the "outdoor"/yard person, I do the inside work and the laundry; I am the breadwinner, you take care of the kids; I do the budget, you provide sex...and on and on...where there is little to no space for true and real connection, intimacy, humanness, exchange of responsibilities...life is all about roles and robotics...

[Steve Roesler]

Peter,

That last line rings my chimes and sounds like a great title for a post: Roles and Robotics.

Have to think about that one during the drive up to a client site in a few minutes.

The whole nature of conflict revolves around roles and their related expectations, met and unmet. It doesn't make much difference who does what, when--as long as the conversation takes place and a genuine agreement is reached about what's going to be mutually satisfying.

As always, it gets back to the "real" conversation...

Thanks, Peter.

[Wally Bock]

Congratulations! This post was selected as one of the five best business blog posts of the week in my Three Star Leadership Midweek Review of the Business Blogs.

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2008/07/16/71608-a-midweek-look-at-the-business-blogs.aspx

Wally Bock

[Michael Lee Stallard]

Steve,

I believe it was in the last decade that Gallup research showed Americans' identities became more defined by their work than by their families and communities. The president of Gallup described it as an inflection point in history.

It feels to me that so many work cultures today are hyper task-oriented and indifferent to people. The use of titles rather than names is yet another indicator. It's an unhealthy state that we are presently in and one that is unsustainable. Now when I meet people in short order I begin to feel whether they are relating to me in terms of my status or in terms of my humanity. The work environment is so much more enriching when we work alongside human beings, use our colleagues names and know their stories.

I have to confess that last week I began a conversation that in hindsight felt too focused on status and not on the person I was speaking with. As I went on about what I do, I could feel the women distance herself from me. After the conversation ended, I remember thinking that I blew it. The point is that even though I want to relate to people as human being sometimes I will unconsciously slip into status speak. It's something I want to become more aware of as well as become more intentional about relating to people as human beings and avoiding the status speak.

Very thought-provoking posts...thank you.

[Steve Roesler]

Michael,

I wasn't aware of that particular Gallup research; much appreciated.

You know, I'm not sure that in order to run replicable systems, that it's possible or even advisable to get rid of titles--especially since the people change jobs over time. From an efficiency viewpoint, that's what we've got right now.

So the issue becomes "How do we keep the boxes on paper and the people human?"

Your recent example illustrates perfectly the trap we all fall into doing business and falling back on preconceived notions about how to respond to titles. I doubt that it was deadly; and, knowing you, probably wasn't nearly as serious as it felt.

Maybe the real issue isn't the idea of org charts and organizational status. It's how we learn and choose to act out our reactions to it.

[usman]

I agree with your point, although I'd never thought about it before.