If You Work With Actual People, Then. . .

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. Greg. 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 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. Developing Talented People. When 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's difficult for people to work with each other--or help each other--if they don't actual know each other.

What's your take?

Image source: www.tunetribe.com/

Comments

[Totally Consumed]

I love the idea and sentiment behind wanting to humanize roles and make it easier for people to relate and communicate across artificial boundaries. It also fits well with the "business casual" dress and attitude of Gen Y here in the US.

From a more global perspective, I wonder if in other cultures this type of informality might be viewed as offensive or off-putting?

[Mary Jo Asmus]

I follow your blog and loved this post. As an executive coach who focuses on "work relationships", I have a strong belief that what I do boils down to humanizing the people I work with. Once a leader is humanized, the positive changes he or she can create in others (through humanizing) can be quite far-reaching.

Good stuff, and I've linked back to this post from my own site.

[Chris - Manager's Sandbox]

Steve - When I think about interactions I've had at work when just starting at a new organization or in a new role, I find that the most successful ones were the ones with A) peers of mine, or B) people who's title I didn't know prior to the interaction. It's amazing how knowing someone's title can hurt your ability to work with people at higher (or in some cases lower) levels in an organization. You come in to the situation with all sorts of preconceptions and assumptions that may or may not actually be correct.

Great article, today!

- Chris

[Ellen Weber]

Thanks for the refreshing post, Steve. Have you noticed that when you have people tell you who they are in a firm, that role description often differs from the roles on paper for that person. Without alignment here - problems multiply. That's why it's often good to hear it from people's own perspective first. Would you agree? Keep the faith friend:-)

[Steve Roesler]

Dear Totally,

Your global perspective question is a good one. Many places that I slink off to for consulting gigs would not easily adopt that posture.

The title itself is, culturally, a sign of success and stature in the community. That said, I've seen a softening of this in many places and imagine that over time, it will not be as prevalent.

[Steve Roesler]

Mary Jo,

Thanks for the link love and the encouraging comment.

I share your view of, and approach to, humanizing work relationships as part of the coaching role.

Many people would be surprised at how often and how deeply organizations are affected when executives are able to get straight talk and support in the relational area.

[Steve Roesler]

Chris,

Aren't titles fascinating?

As I read your description of how you interacted in those specific situations it caused me to think more honestly about my own tendencies. Ooh...Not always a pretty sight.

Perhaps this is a topic worth a bit more exploration. . .

[Steve Roesler]

Ellen,

Wow, your observation is a timely one; have been working with a job description scenario in a client organization. It is quite an eye opener-when you hear someone describe their role, it's perceived importance, and how others experience it.

This is a heck of a good activity to go through periodically. It's a lot easier to deal with inaccuracies when they are brought into the light of day than allowed to quietly smolder. These are the kinds of things that can get tossed off as a minor "administrative" glitch when, in fact, they define who someone is in the workplace.

Your note regarding alignment is dead on and that's why these aren't just administrative exercises.

Thanks for the added perspective. . .

[Meg Bear]

I think the primary thing you should gather from the title of a person is something about the job function they are doing/thinking about. Title gives you no insight into their personality or how you might best connect with them (formal, informal, serious, light, etc.). What you do know of someone with a big title is that they probably have a big job and in knowing this you might do a better job presenting information in a way they can best relate to it.

[Steve Roesler]

Meg,

I'm with you on the "big title" part; it certainly prompts me to communicate with the bigger picture in mind.

Not so confident about titles giving insight into personality or how best to connect. I've met some pretty wacky accountants and some darned serious sales and marketing folks.