Understanding Humanistic Management
The following contribution comes from the Springer portal, which defines itself as follows: With a portfolio of more than 2,700 journals and more than 220,000 books, Springer is a world leader in scholarly and scientific publishing. We enable authors to share impactful research, provide readers with access to trusted content, and collaborate with institutions and communities to advance knowledge worldwide. Whether you publish cutting-edge science or foundational texts, Springer offers the reach, credibility, and support needed for your work to make a lasting difference.
Author: Domenec Melé
Humanistic management is a people-oriented management approach that seeks benefits for human purposes.
It contrasts with other types of management that are essentially profit-oriented, where people are seen as mere resources to achieve this goal.
This article reviews the historical development of humanistic management and the growing literature on the concept, as well as the different meanings attributed to it by academics. Next, it explores the form that genuine humanism could take by presenting seven propositions:
1) integrity
2) holistic knowledge
3) human dignity
4) development
5) common good
6) transcendence
7) sustainable management.
It then analyzes four characteristics of a humanistic ethos for business management: the vision of the individual and human work, the role of the individual in society and in their interaction with nature, the company, and the company’s purpose in society.
Finally, it presents some perspectives for the practice of humanistic management.
Introduction
Humanistic Management (HM), understood in a broad sense, focuses on the concern for people and the human aspects of managing organizations. It is oriented not only toward achieving results through people, but also, and above all, toward the people themselves, focusing on their development and well-being.
As we will see later, some have approached human management by introducing human psychology into management or by considering the centrality of people as essential to the success of business management.
Others advocate for a change in the dominant economic paradigm and for placing people, their development, and well-being at the heart of management.
This latter perspective underlies the Humanistic Management Movement, which emerged in the first decade of the 21st century, with important precedents in the last third of the 20th century. This movement has gained momentum since 2010, and a growing number of academics and business executives are showing interest in humanistic management.
Although many would likely agree with the general description of humanistic management presented at the beginning of this article, as a concern for people and the human aspects of managing organizations, this is too generic.
Therefore, a question arises:
What do academics mean by humanistic management?
Our first objective is to explore this very question. To this end, we will begin by presenting a brief overview of the historical development of ideas on humanistic management (HM) and then analyze the meaning of the concept from the perspective of several relevant scholars.
A second question we will also attempt to answer is what characteristics might define genuine humanism and how this can be applied to HM. After presenting a set of proposals for describing humanism, we will outline four key elements of a humanistic ethos for business management and present some perspectives for the practice of humanistic management.
The Historical Development of Humanistic Management
Humanistic Management as an Alternative to Mechanistic Management
As an antecedent to the current Humanistic Management movement, we could mention some academics in management thought who focus more on people than on management techniques. In the early decades of management thought, many authors defended the importance of the human side of management, even without using the expression «humanistic management.» Some emphasized the importance of human needs and motivations (Maslow, McGregor, Herzberg, Likert, Bennis, and others), while others presented a view of management that did not separate the technical aspects from the human ones or that emphasized the centrality of people (Follett, Barnard, Drucker).
Thus, Mary Parker Follett, a renowned pioneer in management studies, wrote: «We can never completely separate the human problem from the mechanical one. (…) But you all see daily that the study of human relations in business and the study of operational technique are closely linked.» Chester I. Barnard, for his part, emphasized the importance of cooperation in business and the manager’s responsibility to respect people and promote cooperation among them (Wolf 1974). Peter Drucker, the great management guru, maintained that management is about people, emphasizing the importance of the whole person, along with power, values, structure, and responsibilities (Linkletter and Maciariello 2011; Maciariello 2014).
Humanism and Management
The first time the terms «humanistic» and «management» appeared together was most likely in a book published in 1967, written by David E. Lilienthal, entitled «Management: A Humanistic Art» (Lilienthal, 1967).
The view of this book is that management is not a science, but an art. This contrasts with scientific management, proposed by Taylor (1911), and other conventional «mechanistic» approaches, very popular at the time. Lilienthal did not deny the importance of techniques and skills in management, but emphasized that managers must understand people and their motivations, and help them achieve their goals.
Following the ideas of the so-called «Human Relations School,» Lilienthal
defended the idea that the manager is essentially a motivator and facilitator for others. He emphasized the uniqueness of each employee, the uniqueness of each situation, and the need to manage «like an artist» rather than using a set of learned guidelines.
Swart (1973) used the term «humanistic management» to refer to a set of innovative proposals of the time to overcome the monotonous repetition of tasks established by scientific management to improve productivity, but without considering the motivation of the workers.
He stated: «Humanistic management, often called job enrichment, is a new way of addressing old problems: motivation, job satisfaction, morale, and productivity» (Swart, 1973, p. 41). Building on Herzberg (1968), this scholar suggested that humanistic management involves giving employees more responsibility and variety in their jobs to motivate them and increase their satisfaction and productivity.
In the mid-1980s, interpreting what might then have been a common understanding of humanistic management, Daley observed: «Many consider humanistic management as a means to both productivity and the development of human potential.» (1986, p. 131)
In his research, Daley (1986) uses several «humanistic» characteristics related to dealing with people in the production process as indicators, including job challenge, role clarity, fairness in performance evaluation (job design and performance appraisal), personal relevance, the supervisory relationship, and employee freedom (work environment).
More recently, several authors, even without presenting themselves as proponents of human-centered leadership, have emphasized the centrality of people within organizations and the consideration of the human being as a whole.
To mention a few, Plas (1996) proposed person-centered leadership, in which participation is essential. Ghoshal and Bartlett (1997) focused on people-centered policies, purpose, and corporate culture, rather than the conventional «industrial machine»; going beyond the traditional rigidity of structures and systems, they proposed the creation of «organizations of individuals» where, in addition to seeking results, organizations could be a forum for human interaction and personal fulfillment. For his part, Pfeffer (1998) suggested prioritizing people to achieve organizational success.
Humanizing Companies
From an ethical perspective, various voices have advocated for the humanization of companies. One of the first to do so was Pope Leo XIII at the end of the 19th century. He condemned the situations in workshops and factories where “employers imposed unjust burdens on their workers or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings” (Leo XIII, 1891, no. 36).
In positive terms, he exhorted employers to “respect in every person the dignity of the human person” (Leo XIII, 1891, no. 20). Several documents of Catholic social doctrine have continued along the same lines (see a 20th-century compendium in PCJP, 2004).
The United Nations and other international organizations have also urged businesses to be more ethical and humane. Focusing on labor, the International Labour Organization has promoted numerous conventions to humanize work in the business context.
Since the mid-1970s, several management scholars have advocated for the humanization of businesses. Among others, Mire (1976) proposed humanizing the workplace, and Meltzer and Wickert (1976) focused on humanizing organizational behavior. Cunningham and Tichy (1983) supported reforms within the business community, including changes in business relationships, attitudes, and methods that influence and shape people’s lives through corporate culture. French and Bell (1984) pointed to the need to introduce humanistic values into organizational development. They emphasized the importance of people, respect for freedom, and the importance of avoiding the abuse of power. Anderson (1997) suggested «values-based management,» and Argandoña (2003) analyzed how to foster values in organizations.
In the late 1970s, the business ethics movement emerged (De George, 2006), advocating for the humanization of businesses and the promotion of integrity in management. Humanism and business ethics should go hand in hand if we accept that ethics is “rooted in our humanity” (Kleinfeld et al., 2003, p. 1). This idea is not new—it is essential in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, for example—but it has not always been sufficiently valued. Among those who defend this approach are Dierksmeier et al. (2011), who have analyzed the concept of “humanistic ethics” in the context of a globalized world.
Humanism in Economics and Business
Lutz and Lux (1979, 1988) proposed a shift in perspective in economics and put forward what they called “Humanistic Economics,” based on a new and more precise view of the person in economic theory. They observed that “this [old] theory is largely a legacy of 18th- and 19th-century British philosophy, with its hedonistic, mechanistic, and narrow view of the person” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1). In contrast to a dominant economy based on self-interest as the sole motive for action, they do not deny that people seek personal gain, but they add: “if there is another facet of human nature that operates alongside self-interest, then to reduce human beings solely to the former is to distort reality” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 18).
Following this line of thought, they proposed a humanist vision of economics that “aspires to a more complete image of the person” (Ibid.). In their own words: “We need an economy with an inspiring and constructive vision, an economy that allows us to live fully” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1). On the one hand, we need an economy that works, an economy that “can sustain and support us physically,” but on the other hand, “we also need an economy that ennobles us, with which we can identify and proudly proclaim” (Lutz and Lux, 1988, p. 1).
From a different and more radical perspective, Aktouf (1992) advocated for a change in the current business paradigm.
He criticized dominant, and even innovative, management approaches for being based on the functionalist tradition. “Most proponents of new management trends,” he wrote, “focus current debates and concerns on the employee (human capital and resources). This is a clear sign of renewed interest in the human factor. However, by implicitly maintaining the status quo in all matters concerning power, profit control, and the division of labor, the new trend is a false and stunted humanism” (Aktouf, 1992, p. 412).
As an alternative, he advocated a radical humanist conceptualization of organizations and suggested a proposal based on neo-Marxist humanism, which entails a holistic view of humanity and emphasizes the concept of alienation.
In his view, management theorists and practitioners should integrate this concept to better understand how to transform the passive/obedient Taylorist employee into an active-cooperative one. This radical humanism with Marxist roots, focused not on the individual but on humanity, can be criticized (Gómez Pérez 1977, pp. 185 ff.), but its observation on the limited humanism of those who see human beings solely as human capital or resources seems quite valid.
A New Manifesto for Management
Ghoshal, Bartlett, and Moran (1999) published “
A New Manifesto for Management,” in which they advocated for management focused on creating value for society and individuals.
The concern for humanizing business and the management profession is also found in several scholars, including those included in a book edited by Ricart and Rosanas (2012). Furthermore, Andreu and Rosanas (2012) published a “Manifesto for Better Management,” which adopted a rational and humanistic perspective.
Humanistic Management
The following contribution comes from the Lumen Waymaker portal, which defines itself as: Deeper Connections.
Powerful Technology. Learning for All.
At Lumen Learning, we believe that a welcoming environment facilitates learning for all students. And this starts with educators. That’s why our easy-to-use suite of tools, including digital courses, teaching resources, and professional development tools, gives you what you need to build deeper connections with your students. Our products are designed to help you promote equity and are affordably priced. We take an agile approach to product development, carefully selecting open educational resources (OER) and continuously updating our learning materials. At every step of the process, our team is here, ready to listen and support you.
Authorship by the team.
Learning Outcomes
Explain the concept of humanistic management.
Summarize the work of Mary Parker Follett.
Explain the importance of Elton Mayo’s work (Hawthorne studies). As you have probably gathered from the name, humanistic management theory places great emphasis on interpersonal relationships. A previous section discussed scientific management and how it focused on productivity and cost reduction by developing efficiency standards based on time and motion studies. Its critics questioned scientific management’s emphasis on quotas and uniform standards for all workers.
There is very little evidence that the new quotas set for workers were unreasonable or that those who failed to meet them were systematically dismissed. However, workers did express concern about the low quality standards and lower wages under the so-called piece-rate system.
Trade unions began to address the growing fear among workers that all but a small elite would soon be out of work. Even the U.S. government became involved in the conflict between managers and workers, summoning Frederick Taylor to testify before Congress about the objectives of his proposals.
It was in this context that a new theory of management developed, one that examined social rather than economic factors. The humanistic approach focused on the individual worker and group dynamics, rather than on authoritarian managers, to achieve effective control.
Mary Parker Follett is now considered the «Mother of Modern Management.»
Mary Parker Follett’s teachings, many of which were published in articles in well-known women’s magazines, were popular among businesspeople during her lifetime.
However, she was virtually ignored by the male-dominated academic world, despite attending Radcliffe College and Yale University, and being invited to speak at the London School of Economics. In recent years, her writings have been rediscovered by American management scholars, and she is now considered the «Mother of Modern Management.»
Follett developed numerous concepts that he applied to business and management, including the following:
A better understanding of lateral processes within organizational hierarchies.
These concepts were applied by DuPont Chemical Company in the 1920s in the first matrix organization. A matrix organizational structure uses a grid instead of a pyramid system to illustrate reporting lines. An individual may report to both a functional manager (such as sales or finance) and a product manager.
The importance of informal processes within organizations. This relates to the idea that authority derives from experience, rather than position or status. For example, an informal group may form within an organization (during or outside of official working hours) to socialize, form a union, or discuss work processes without management intervention.
The non-coercive sharing of power, which he called integration,
describes how power functions in an effective organization. He wrote about the «group principle» that characterized the entire organization, describing how workers and managers are equally important and make equitable contributions.
The coining of the term «win-win» to describe cooperation between managers and workers.
He also spoke of empowerment and facilitation instead of control.
Promoting conflict resolution in a group based on constructive consultation among equals, rather than compromise, submission, or fighting.
This is known as the concept of constructive conflict.
Follett dedicated his entire life to the idea that social cooperation is better than individual competition. In his 1924 book, Creative Experience, Follett wrote: “Workers and [management] can never be reconciled as long as the workers persist in believing that there is a [management] point of view and [management] believes that there is a workers’ point of view. These are all imaginaries that must be broken down before [management] and workers can cooperate.”
Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne Experiments
The Hawthorne experiments were a series of studies conducted at a Western Electric plant near Chicago in the late 1920s and early 1930s, during the heyday of scientific management. The original experiment was designed to isolate workplace factors that affected productivity. Researchers offered and then withdrew benefits, such as better lighting, breaks, shorter work hours, meals, and stock savings and storage plans.
However, regardless of whether the change was positive or negative, the productivity of the test subjects increased. For example, as the lighting increased, productivity increased, as expected. What was unexpected was that as the lighting decreased, productivity also increased. Productivity didn’t decrease until the lighting levels reached candlelight, and the women couldn’t see their work. At that point, an Australian sociologist named Elton Mayo intervened.
Mayo visited the Hawthorne facilities and advised the researchers to adjust their interaction with the workers (subjects). A new trial was initiated with a smaller group of subjects. Again, the benefits were both added and subtracted. Previous experiments had collected data from the subjects using simple «yes or no» questions to more easily quantify their responses. But instead of «yes or no» questions, Mayo recommended that the researchers use the non-directive interview method. This allowed them to be more informal and sociable, and to develop relationships with the workers. Mayo discovered several reasons why productivity increased despite the withdrawal of benefits, including:
A sense of group cohesion
The more friendly attitude of the researchers (supervisors)
The attention that participation in the study generated in the individuals
In interviews with the test subjects, it was discovered that the reason for the increased productivity was simply that the subjects were having more fun. Mayo theorized that workers were more motivated by social dynamics than by economic or environmental factors.
Mayo published his findings in 1933 in «The Human Problems of an Industrialized Civilization.»
In this treatise, Mayo predicted that a group with negative behaviors and few social bonds would have very little chance of success at the task. A group with a high sense of mission and a close team consciousness would be more likely to achieve its goals. Other teams would have varying degrees of success. The implication for organizations, of course, is to foster groups with a sense of mission and strong interpersonal relationships.
Key points: The humanistic approach was developed to balance the overrationality and mechanistic approach of scientific management theories. He recognized the importance of the social needs of individual workers and the effects of group dynamics on efficiency and productivity. He expanded the traditional list of factors motivating work beyond tangible and economic factors. But this was not the end of management theory. Many more interpretations and theories followed.
Human beings are the most complex organisms on the planet, making the study of the complex act of leading or managing human beings of paramount importance.
The following contribution comes from the Pitch Labs website and reads: Hello! Thank you for your interest and for wanting to help Pitch Labs. Apply today if any of the positions below align with your passion or skills! Also, check out the benefits for our staff.
Do you believe you have a special skill you’d like to share with our organization that isn’t listed in any of the opportunities below? Write to us at volunteer@pitchlabs.org and we’ll find a place for you to contribute.
The author is Jyothirmayee Vishnusekhar, a team member.
The humanistic management approach evolved around social factors in the 21st century, unlike the scientific management theories prevalent at the time, which focused primarily on corporate profit. Humanistic management seeks to prioritize human needs and values, creating a more balanced relationship between interchangeable market goods (with a price) and non-interchangeable human dignity and well-being (beyond price).
The central point of humanistic management is human dignity.
The legendary modern philosopher Immanuel Kant is considered to have played a fundamental role in the formulation of this concept. His famous quote reflects this fact: “Everything has either a price or dignity. Everything that has a price can be replaced by something equivalent; everything that, on the other hand, is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent, has dignity.”
Formulation of the Humanistic Management (HM) Movement
The HM movement emerged in the first decade of the 21st century, with some advances in the last third of the 20th century. It has gained momentum since 2010 and has attracted the interest of numerous academics and executives.
In the early decades of management thought, many thinkers championed the human side of management, even without using the term “humanistic management.” For example, figures like Abraham Maslow, Douglas McGregor, and Frederick Herzberg highlighted the importance of human needs and motivations, while Chester Barnard, Peter Drucker, and Mary Parker Follett held a view that combined technical and human aspects or emphasized the centrality of people.
In his book «Management: A Humanistic Art,» David E. Lilienthal coined the terms «humanistic» and «management»
for the first time in 1967. As its title suggests, the book posits that management is not a science but an art, in contrast to popular scientific and mechanistic approaches.
While the author did not question the importance of management techniques and skills, he emphasized that managers must understand people and their motivations and act as facilitators in achieving their objectives.
In 1973, Carroll Swart coined the term «humanistic management» to describe a set of innovative proposals
made at that time to overcome the monotonous repetition of tasks. He suggested that humanistic management involves giving employees more responsibility and variety in their work to motivate them and increase their satisfaction and productivity, compared to the existing scientific management, which had not considered worker motivation.
Subsequently, several authors emphasized the centrality of people within the organization. For example, Jeanne M. Plas, in her book «Person-Centered Leadership: An American Approach to Participative Management,» proposed a person-centered leadership style where participation is coercive.
Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher Bartlett focused on people-centered policies, corporate purpose, and culture,
rather than the conventional “industrial machine,” in their book “The Individualized Corporation: A Fundamentally New Approach to Management.”
In 1998, Jeffrey Pfeffer suggested prioritizing people for organizational success in his famous book “The Human Equation: Making a Profit by Putting People First.”
A Three-Step Approach to Humanistic Management
The Center for Humanistic Management (HM), a think tank for HM practices, conceives of HM in three interrelated dimensions.
Human dignity: Human beings deserve unconditional protection from exploitation, and it is the responsibility of every society to guarantee this. People should never be seen as mere means of production within economic processes; rather, every human being should be treated with respect in all their depth and complexity.
Business ethics: Integrating ethical considerations into managerial decision-making is fundamental to ensuring the implementation of dignity. One-dimensional managerial objectives, such as profit maximization, can threaten human dignity by failing to balance the interests of stakeholders. Therefore, to ensure unconditional respect for the dignity of all people, it is necessary to review in advance the consequences of all business decisions that may affect others.
Normative legitimacy: Seeking normative legitimacy becomes essential to eliminate what are known as «honest mistakes,» which can be interpreted as the decision-maker’s inability to understand the concerns of others, even after sincere ethical reflection during the decision-making process. This can be overcome through dialogue with stakeholders about the ethics of a managerial decision or action, thereby sharing responsibility with them.
Together, these three dimensions can promote human well-being through economic activities that support life and contribute value to society as a whole.
Context for the Practice of Humanistic Management
The research and observations of Henri Fayol and Henry Mintzberg, two pioneers in management theory, were reformulated into the following seven key practices, each based on humanistic principles.
Creating Institutional Statements: Institutional statements (i.e., corporate values, mission, and vision) are solid and enduring elements of the company and a crucial guide for management. Developing institutional statements can combine humanistic values with technical and strategic elements.
Formulating Strategies, Objectives, and Action Plans: Formulating and establishing strategic planning are fundamental to achieving business objectives, often in turbulent times, and to predicting the future. Management relies on both an accurate diagnosis of the situation and defined institutional guidelines to make the best decision in each scenario. Adapting humanistic management must consider the human, social, and environmental aspects of achieving objectives, along with economic, political, and technical perspectives, and how to respect human dignity to the greatest extent possible. In addition, management objectives may include leveraging people’s strengths rather than highlighting their weaknesses.
Organization and Structure: Organizing people and the structured allocation of material resources are necessary to achieve established objectives. An organizational structure defines a specific organizational chart or specific roles and responsibilities for people, policies, income, coordination, supervision, and the allocation of raw materials, technology, information, and financial resources. While it is difficult to define an ideal humanistic organizational structure, it requires the utmost respect for people and full consideration of their dignity. The minimum requirement in humanistic management is to avoid treating people as mere order-takers, without the opportunity to show initiative, make suggestions, and participate in organizational activities.
Coordination and Control: One of the main functions of managers is to integrate people, so they must understand that simply giving orders is not enough to achieve the desired coordination. Humans are conscious and free beings. MH advises motivating those who need to be coordinated. Control is another managerial task, which means verifying progress against plans. Managers influence other members of the organization to implement the organization’s strategies through control. However, during this influence, congruence of objectives (the intersection of personal and organizational goals) must be achieved. In case of conflict between individual interests and the common good, the latter must prevail.
Communication: There can be formal and informal communication channels. A humanistic requirement in this case would be to avoid lies and manipulative information, and to ensure transparency in communication.
Decision-Making: Decision-making is essential for management and begins with the perception of the need to define the nature of a problem that must be addressed (or resolved) and the objective pursued with the decision. During this process, quality management advocates for considering ethical and human evaluation, as well as potential technical, economic, or social repercussions. The creation of economic value is relevant, but it must be balanced with other criteria that give weight to humanistic values in case of conflict with economic value. Such discord can disappear in the long term thanks to the trust and reputation that quality management can generate.
Leadership: Leadership refers to influencing or motivating others toward a common goal. Beyond the traditional boss-subordinate model and paternalistic leadership styles, humanistic leadership requires an interactive relationship and dialogue between leaders and followers, as well as the leader’s connection to the personal growth of their subordinates and an awareness of social needs.
The Center for Humanistic Management in Switzerland focuses on knowledge creation as a benchmark in humanistic management and agenda-setting for the transition to a humanistic business paradigm. Furthermore, the center develops higher education programs for university teaching and executive training, and offers services to management professionals and policymakers.
Conclusion
A brief overview of humanistic management, its evolution, and its practices has been presented. In conclusion, humanistic management views human beings as both rational and emotional; possessing individual talents and creativity, with the potential to introduce innovations; and as individuals who can be motivated to cooperate and work with varying degrees of morale and, consequently, can develop feelings of resentment toward the organization or pride in belonging to it. Humanistic management practices are especially important in today’s turbulent world, as they address people’s motivations and offer a more holistic view of human nature.
What is Humanistic Management?
The following contribution comes from the International Humanistic Management Association website.
Authorship: Team.
Managing as if People Mattered
Humanistic management is a distinctive management perspective where people matter. Have you ever heard of human resources, human capital, or people as fundamental assets?
All of these terms refer to people as a means to achieve some organizational purpose, such as productivity or shareholder value.
None of these terms indicates the intrinsic value of human beings as human beings, first and foremost. Humanistic management practitioners call that inherent value dignity.
Now, of course, not only human beings possess dignity, but all life. Even so, the dominant management approach tacitly assumes that if something cannot be measured, it cannot be managed.
As a consequence of this thinking, what has a price takes precedence over what does not, such as human integrity, environmental beauty, or quality of life. This process is also often described as commodification, and current reality demonstrates that all the goods traded in some market are part of the public debate (bacon, oil, stocks, and bonds) far more than what makes life worthwhile.
Humanistic management seeks to create a more balanced relationship between what can be exchanged in markets and what cannot, but which makes life worthwhile—that is, human dignity and well-being. Markets are an important tool and can help protect dignity and contribute to well-being, but our organizational practices must understand the inherent value and the values that matter.
Therefore, humanistic management fosters a greater awareness of who we are as human beings, what matters to us, and how we can live a good life without spending a fortune.
Developing a More Humanistic Approach to Organizational Health
The following contribution comes from the Singapore Government Agency Website.
It is authored by Soh Zhi Liang, a senior analyst in the HR Policy and Strategic Planning and Research teams of the Public Service Division at the Prime Minister’s Office. Before joining the Public Service, he worked in the private sector in corporate strategy and investment banking.
There is a famous parable in the social sciences about the malleability of human behavior. During a 48-hour London Underground strike in 2014, thousands of commuters rushed to find alternative routes for their daily commutes. After the strike, not everyone who changed routes returned to their usual ones; some, presumably, found a more convenient or cheaper way to travel. In other words, an unexpected shock had induced lasting changes in people’s behavior.
The global COVID-19 pandemic has also had repercussions in the workplace.
Remote work and the erosion of boundaries between work and personal life have brought mental well-being to the forefront. Many have been prompted by long periods of isolation to rethink their careers. Weighing the factors that attract and repel, some will ultimately resign and seek new opportunities, contributing to what has been called «The Great Quit.» Increased staff turnover as the global economy recovers will alter not only an organization’s workforce but also its leadership pipeline and its pool of institutional knowledge.
The Importance of Organizational Health
Employee well-being, attracting and retaining staff, and the resilience of the leadership pipeline are all aspects of organizational health. They are barometers of an organization’s ability to align its members with its mission, deliver high-quality execution, and renew itself when the need arises.<sup>4</sup> In the private sector, organizational health is becoming a key pillar of companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, which seek to address people-related issues such as workforce redundancy, wage inequality, and labor activism. This shift in focus from profit to people is best summarized by Larry Fink’s<sup>5</sup> call for CEOs to link corporate purpose to the benefit not only of shareholders but of all stakeholders, including employees. Other business leaders have expressed similar concerns.
While some of the rhetoric may be framed as a sign of corporate virtue, there is no doubt that increased public scrutiny will put pressure on management to be more accountable for organizational health.
The health of an organization lies in its ability to align its members with its mission,
deliver high-quality execution, and renew itself when necessary.
ESG objectives assess the sustainability of a company’s operations across three dimensions:
Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Indicators in the Private Sector
ESG objectives assess the sustainability of a company’s operations across three dimensions:
- Environmental criteria, which consider factors related to climate change and environmental degradation, such as the company’s carbon footprint;
- Social criteria, which encompass aspects related to people, such as salary policies, as well as practices and outcomes regarding diversity and inclusion; and
- Governance criteria, which examine issues such as oversight, transparency, and accountability.
The ESG concept has gained traction in global finance. Socially conscious investors can use companies’ ESG track records as a selection criterion for potential investments, considering that companies that consistently meet ESG objectives are sustainable and therefore tend to generate superior financial returns in the long term.
Consequently, the widespread availability of ESG data and research from independent providers such as S&P Global has facilitated ESG investing. Corporate scandals and their impact on the share prices of the companies involved have also reinforced the idea that ESG aspects are important to a company’s investors as part of its operations and business objectives.¹
Companies also face other pressures to pay closer attention to ESG issues. Governments and regulatory bodies are demanding stricter standards for ESG disclosure, while consumers and employees expect them to adopt ESG best practices.
However, ESG criteria are not without their critics. Some dismiss them as mere hype, while others question whether ESG investing actually delivers higher financial returns.
For the Singapore Public Service, the need to monitor organizational health will become increasingly important as we strive to attract and retain the talent that is right for us. This is not simply a matter of calculating staff turnover. Beyond the numbers lies the fundamental question of whether we can enable our managers to thrive in their various roles. It is an increasingly difficult question to answer as we face fiercer competition for talent and a new generation of managers with more diverse career aspirations and higher job expectations.
The Humanistic Approach
How can organizations help their workforce and leaders thrive? As a first attempt at an answer, we can turn to an emerging set of practices known as humanistic management: HR practices and organizational design that emphasize the centrality of the employee as an individual. The humanistic approach asserts that, fundamentally, people are intrinsically motivated.8 They may be motivated to adopt a growth mindset, strive to be better versions of themselves, and serve a higher purpose. Conversely, they may also engage in unfair competition or harbor resentment toward their colleagues and organizations.
Nurturing people’s motivations through appropriate policies and processes that duly consider these emotions, however irrational they may sometimes be, is therefore an important aspect of HR. A healthy organization is one that generates feelings of trust and satisfaction among its employees by effectively channeling these motivations toward productive goals.
The humanistic approach asserts that, fundamentally, people have intrinsic motivations.
This approach contrasts with more traditional management methods, rooted in Taylorism, which tend to view people as rational and self-optimizing agents who can be incentivized to exhibit productive behaviors simply through incentives.
Some researchers go a step further, stating that humanistic management should also promote employee self-determination; that is, the satisfaction of their innate needs for autonomy, competence, and a sense of belonging to their teams or organizations. This is a difficult task, as it requires HR interventions. to actively shape employees’ self-esteem as they progress in their careers.
Below are two concrete examples of how humanistic management could be applied to improve organizational health.
A healthy organization is one that fosters feelings of trust and satisfaction among its employees, effectively channeling these motivations toward productive goals.
#1: Diversifying Paths to Success
The humanistic approach stems from the idea that people are driven by an innate need to be accepted as part of a community and, therefore, seek rank as validation of their worth. Through highly visible symbols, such as job roles and other social cues, we measure our position relative to others within real and imagined hierarchies. This leads to odious comparisons, especially when validation claims are scarce: there can only be one CEO, just a couple of managing directors, no more than a handful of senior vice presidents, and so on. However, the contenders are many, most of whom will ultimately be disappointed along the way.
Viewed from this perspective, promotion processes and career management in general are not merely rule-based procedures: they are tools that directly impact employees’ dignity and self-esteem. And when paths to success are scarce, employees seeking status and validation can become obsessed with climbing the corporate ladder, leading to unfair competition, departmental conflicts, and unnecessary stress.
People are driven by an innate need to be accepted as part of a community and, therefore, seek rank as validation of their worth.
A humanistic response to this is to diversify the paths to success. Instead of having a single, standardized career path where every individual is evaluated using the same scoring system, offering multiple career paths that reward different skills can be a more realistic way to validate employees. This can take the form of different development tracks, such as economist, counselor, or even UX/UI designer, ranging from entry-level to senior management positions. It can involve creating dual career paths by identifying new specialized roles at each level, so that progression doesn’t have to be limited to managerial or generalist positions. As new niches emerge and organizational priorities shift, new career paths can be added or existing ones consolidated to maintain an agile structure that continues to recognize the value of employees in the diverse roles they play.
Alternatively, there could be multiple ways to pursue the same career path. For example, employees could be given greater freedom to manage their own development opportunities, both within and outside the organization, over extended periods. They could also be granted sabbaticals to pursue personal interests, such as starting a business or working as a freelancer in a related field. Performance reviews can be made more flexible to recognize these and other alternative experiences.
Diversifying career paths encourages employees to position themselves in niches that best suit their skills and competitive advantages. This has several benefits:
- On an individual level, more differentiated career paths reduce our tendency to compare ourselves to others in a reductionist way. Relieving unnecessary competitive pressure allows for more space for introspection. People have greater freedom to reflect on whether certain career paths are right for them without fear of negative social judgment if they choose others. In other words, the proverbial need to judge a fish by its ability to climb trees no longer exists. Consequently, they would be less likely to leave their organizations due to a lack of professional fit.
- At an organizational level, having multiple career paths encourages employees to experiment with different professional experiences. As they pursue diverse interests and gain new perspectives, they become more entrepreneurial. A greater diversity of skills and competencies within the workforce—some of which may be specialized—also contributes to organizational versatility, a key characteristic that has been shown to enable organizations to better weather crises.<sup>11</sup>
- An additional benefit for the organization is stability. Sociologist Jack Goldstone has written about the curse of “elite overproduction”: societies that produce too many competent people but offer too few high-status positions tend to create resentful cadres who never achieved the glory of success at the top.<sup>12</sup> This has historically generated conflict among those who succeed. Similarly, for organizations, it is necessary to balance the demand for talent with the supply of well-paid, high-status jobs. Having different pathways allows for greater scope to create more of these types of jobs at the top, in different areas, which prevents destabilizing behavior.
In this respect, the Singapore Public Service is moving in the right direction. As more civil servants take up positions in the private and human resources sectors, and as we welcome those who join mid-career, there are more opportunities to create and formally recognize alternative pathways. If done correctly, diversifying career paths can lead to greater job satisfaction and deeper meaning for employees in their careers, while organizations benefit from a more versatile and resilient workforce.
Diversifying pathways to success encourages employees to organize themselves into niches that best suit their skills and comparative advantages.
#2: Decoupling Job Satisfaction from Vertical Mobility
Besides career progression, a second, often contentious, aspect is career transitions. As working lives lengthen, organizations will have to deal with increasingly dense workforces. In an era where most people are accustomed to the idea that career progression can only mean upward mobility, many will eventually face the unwelcome dilemma of moving laterally or leaving their jobs.
How do organizations typically encourage their employees to move laterally? The usual narratives suggest that employees are given the opportunity to acquire new skills in new areas or build new networks across departments. Unfortunately, these benefits are framed from the organization’s perspective and are therefore unpersuasive to the employees themselves. Furthermore, they overlook the simple fact that lateral career changes can be disorienting for some, especially if they are uprooted and assigned an unfamiliar job role.
How do organizations typically encourage their employees to move laterally? Standard narratives are framed from the organization’s perspective and are therefore unpersuasive to the employees themselves.
As tempting as it may be to dismiss these effects as «frictional» and a necessary part of the process, there are real implications for organizational health. Employees in transition—especially those who had hoped for a promotion but were told to move to an adjacent position at the same level—may feel displaced, let down, anxious, or inferior. Morale and staff retention are common casualties. In more serious cases, the transition of older employees could raise suspicions of age discrimination and expose organizations to legal risks.
In contrast, a more humanistic approach acknowledges the relevance of these feelings and focuses on: (i) how to overcome them in the short term; and (ii) their potential positive effects on long-term individual growth. First, rather than avoiding these challenges, the humanistic approach examines how resources can be redirected to mitigate the psychological impact on employees. For example, it is helpful to already have a culture of differentiated assignments, agile and cross-functional teams, work observation, and short-term rotations even before career transitions occur, as these characteristics tend to blur the boundaries of job portfolios and normalize the practice of taking on different roles.
For those already in transition, in addition to having a suite of skills-based training programs, it is also helpful to build informal support networks among those in similar situations to reassure them that they are not alone. Developing profiles of those who have successfully transitioned and thrived in their new roles can provide valuable role models and opportunities for social learning. The key is to create organic platforms to facilitate the transition, as people tend to be more receptive to guidance from those with similar experiences, compared to stereotypical narratives.
The second aspect relates to the long term: how employees in transition can cope with the disorienting effects in a more positive way and emerge as a better version of themselves after the transition.
The key is to create organic platforms to facilitate the transition, as people tend to be more receptive to guidance from those with similar experiences.
A useful perspective is the «positive disintegration» model, proposed by psychologist Kazimierz Dabrowski.
This model describes personal development as a series of internal conflicts. When faced with stressors such as a career change, people are plunged into chaos and forced to confront uncomfortable narratives that challenge preconceived ideas about «how things are»; in this case, the idea that career progression is always upward. Deviating from this path by moving laterally, according to the status quo, represents a drop in social standing and a threat to the individual’s future within the organization. Their sense of security and self-confidence crumbles.
The person experiencing this disintegration then faces two possibilities: (i) retreating into frustration and insecurity, unable to escape the clutches of social judgment, real or perceived; or (ii) progressing by consciously revising existing assumptions about their life and career, replacing outdated mindsets with renewed narratives that make sense of their new circumstances.
These new narratives might, for example, refer to the simple joy of learning new things, acquiring greater self-awareness, and making greater use of personal strengths.
In other words, the initial imbalance that career transitions can cause can also create opportunities for people to grow and find new meaning in their subsequent careers.
The question, then, is how to ensure that employees facing these psychological obstacles tend toward the second outcome rather than the first.
While this requires a degree of discipline and self-management from employees, managers in their new roles can create an environment that facilitates a positive disintegration.
Managers can consciously assign their new employees tasks of increasing complexity; for example, from completing routine paperwork in a family services center to handling real cases of family dysfunction that require sound judgment.
Managing more complex work over time also gives the individual greater autonomy to formulate solutions and take ownership of their own recommendations, providing them with a sense of purpose and autonomy in their new role.
The initial disruption that career transitions can cause can also create opportunities for individuals to grow and find new meaning in their subsequent careers.
Warnings and Reflections
This article has argued that professional interventions that take into account individuals’ innate motivations are more effective tools for addressing everyday, often visceral, problems people face in areas increasingly relevant to organizational health.
It is encouraging that the Singapore Public Service is taking steps to humanize key moments in the HR lifecycle. For example, our career guidance networks can be a valuable resource for civil servants to overcome career barriers. Other initiatives, such as Structured Job Rotations and Talent Linkage Programs, facilitate greater openness to the public and the private sector. For public sector leaders, the Mid-Career Leadership Program better recognizes time spent outside the Public Service. All of these steps facilitate more diverse and fulfilling career paths.
Of course, the humanistic approach is not without its drawbacks. The most common criticism is that its implementation is unrealistic.
Some organizations, especially for-profit companies, may lack the budget to implement adequate development or support programs. Managers may also be insufficiently informed or trained to support their staff effectively.
It is also difficult to measure the effectiveness of humanistic interventions: we can only find unreliable indicators of employee fulfillment and self-actualization, concepts that are inherently nebulous. At best, the implementation of appropriate policies may only appear as a secondary effect, with a delayed impact on turnover rates and increased employee engagement.
The key lies in creating organic platforms to facilitate the transition, as people tend to be more receptive to guidance from those with similar experiences. This can be a problem for organizations that pride themselves on data-driven decision-making: interventions with intangible benefits—and which fail to influence the quantitative indicators that capture employee sentiment or turnover—may not garner management approval, however important they may be.
It’s difficult to measure the effectiveness of humanistic interventions;
we can only find unreliable indicators of employees’ sense of fulfillment and self-actualization.
But organizations that ignore the humanistic aspect do so at their own peril. Recent studies in several countries, including Singapore, show that employers often underestimate the importance of relational factors that drive turnover.
These factors include the need for employees to have a sense of belonging and to feel valued by their organization and manager—all basic needs that a more humanistic approach can address.
As labor markets adapt to the post-pandemic normal, organizational health will likely be a priority for both employers and employees. Perhaps it’s time to reflect on how we can help people develop into their best selves. And what better time to review HR practices in the wake of the pandemic, with the Great Quit in full swing? After all, we should never let a good opportunity pass us by; London Underground commuters certainly didn’t.
4 Ways to Maximize Remote Work Productivity with a Humanistic Management Approach
The following contribution comes from the Lepaya portal, which defines itself as: Developing a Workforce Ready for the Future
By 2030, 92 million jobs and 39% of skills will have been transformed. Lepaya empowers organizations to anticipate this change, turning workforce training into measurable business growth.
The article is authored by Gregor Towers, a content specialist with a deep focus on industry research and talent trends. As the author of Lepaya’s annual State of Skills reports, his work reveals key workforce challenges, data-driven insights, and solutions that help global Learning and Development teams design more impactful HR strategies.
Table of Contents
Switching to a Humanistic Management Style
The Importance of Humanistic Management
One of the requirements for leading the workforce of the future will be abandoning the idea that leadership is linked to hierarchy; that leadership is linked to rank.
While a leader occupies a position of authority, it is time to move beyond the concept that an effective leader is one who directs productivity and instead consider leaders as promoters of productivity. The leaders of tomorrow will not control, but rather influence with a humanistic management approach.
This distinction is important when considering what 21st-century leadership is and how it can be best implemented in the modern workplace.
Directing someone to be productive doesn’t work.
There are clear limitations to what this approach can achieve. An employee can only perform at their maximum capacity at that moment.
However, by supporting someone as they develop their own talents, confidence, and skills, it is evident how a more humanistic management approach can generate greater value for the workforce.
The University of Cambridge’s 2017 Leadership in Sustainability report
defines humanistic management as «the capacity of a human community to share its future and, specifically, to sustain the important processes of change necessary to achieve it.»
Transitioning to a Humanistic Management Style
A humanistic management style prioritizes people over profits to address some of the leadership and management challenges that arise in the changing world of work.
It is an approach that works to boost productivity from the ground up. It attempts to introduce change at the employee level, rather than the operational level, to create a stronger and more robust foundation upon which employees can develop their own skills and talents. The overall idea is to create an environment that organically fosters productivity through professional growth.
The results of this approach can be significant.
A Deloitte study found that leaders who prioritize the workforce experience
are statistically more likely to develop an efficient and innovative team that helps the company achieve its broader financial goals.
So how can leaders adopt a more human-centered management approach to boost productivity? Ultimately, it’s about meeting the fundamental needs of the workforce by giving them what they need. They need to be productive. Teams need to know they are valued.
- Turn Challenges into Opportunities
Skills gaps can be a major obstacle to productivity, impacting efficiency and slowing down processes as employees try to find the right person or resource for support. This can take even longer in a remote environment.
To boost productivity, leaders should look to turn challenges into opportunities: ongoing training, coaching, and professional development opportunities that address skills gaps, boost self-esteem, and future-proof the workforce through knowledge.
- Understand that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Everyone has their own preferred methods for boosting productivity. There is no right or wrong way. As a leader, and especially as a humanist leader, you know that what works for you may not work for your team. Humanist leaders trust their teams; they give them autonomy and introduce a degree of flexibility that allows them to design and use processes that work for them. To adopt the humanist management style, leaders value dynamic processes, not rigid ones.
- Focus on culture.
To be productive, employees need to be happy and satisfied with their work environment. However, while leaders have some influence on this work environment, it becomes more difficult when part, or all, of the team works remotely.
It is possible to build a culture in remote teams. It requires a seamless blend of in-person and virtual environments, based on trust, inclusion, diversity, and accountability. It must be a culture where each person’s skills are valued individually, regardless of the organization.
- Prioritize Interpersonal Skills
Leaders, by nature, want their teams to perform well. It’s easy to fall into the trap of building a team with industry-specific skills and overlooking the most basic interpersonal skills, which aren’t direct drivers of growth. However, interpersonal skills like empathy, compassion, and emotional intelligence aren’t simply “nice to have.” These skills help forge values-based connections that support the team in reaching its full potential.
The Importance of Humanistic Management
Dr. Ernst Kimakowitz, founder of the Humanistic Management Network in Switzerland, believes that “we must integrate ethical considerations into management decisions, as this will not only foster a more human-centered approach but also help us build more resilient systems.” Resilience is key to success in the workplace of the future.
Adopting a humanistic management style facilitates this benefit, as it’s an approach that supports the growing importance of resilience. Recent times have demonstrated how quickly things can change; How can proven operational processes become obsolete overnight? A humanistic management approach addresses this problem.
Its goal is to build a more resilient company from the ground up, ensuring that, whatever the future holds for critical business processes, the organization has the necessary foundation to survive, adapt, and thrive.
The Six Core Values of a Humanistic Workplace
The following contribution comes from the Medium portal, which defines itself as follows: Medium is a space for human stories and ideas. Here, anyone can share knowledge and wisdom with the world, without needing to build a mailing list or followers. The internet is noisy and chaotic; Medium is quiet, yet brimming with information. It’s simple, engaging, collaborative, and helps you find the right readers for what you have to say.
The author is Kulcsár Zsolt, a member of our team.
Following the slight growth of our team over the past six months, the following question has become increasingly relevant:
How can we grow and develop as a successful company with humanistic values?
I am convinced that the conscious decision to create an authoritarian or self-organized work environment must rest with the leader. When the very existence and survival of a company are at stake, even the noblest principles can degenerate into anxious unease if they are not consciously and iteratively built upon designated values.
Below, I will detail the six core values of organizational development, according to the article on the book by Marguiles and Raia. I believe these six points clearly define the principles we should focus on when our goal is to create a humanistic workplace.
- Allow your coworkers to behave as human beings rather than human resources.
The way managers refer to their colleagues says a lot about a company. The term «my man» is often used, especially to express proud recognition. However, this expression implies the manager’s view that the «man» was acting on their behalf, thus entitling them to the reward.
During regular performance reviews, it is important for the (team) leader to praise each colleague’s work. It is practical to highlight achievements in front of the group, while criticism is best delivered privately, thus providing positive collective feedback and avoiding individual humiliation.
- Allow your colleagues to reach their full potential. While job descriptions can define the operational framework quite well, they can often hinder development and growth. Therefore, it is also practical to set individual development goals for each person. Management can facilitate the achievement of these goals in harmony with daily work and the training plan. In knowledge-based companies, this can be a crucial factor in maintaining motivation. In these companies, individual competence and personal development goals are the driving force; therefore, these should influence the formulation of your business strategy.
- Increase organizational efficiency by achieving clearly defined objectives. It is worthwhile to take a couple of days each year to discuss the strategy with colleagues. Making them feel involved in the corporate strategy is an important element in fostering commitment. Building a company on a well-defined value system attracts people with similar convictions. During the selection process, candidates’ worldviews should be examined to determine the importance they place on the organization’s guiding principles.
One of my favorite and most relevant quotes remains the following from Michael E. Gerber’s book, *The E-Myth Revisited*:
“IBM is what it is today for three special reasons. The first is that, from the very beginning, I had a very clear picture of what the company would look like when it was finally built. You could say I had a mental model of what it would look like when the dream—my vision—became a reality.
The second reason was that, once I had that picture, I asked myself how a company that looked like that should act. So I created a picture of how IBM would act when it was finally built.
The third reason IBM has been so successful is that, once I had a vision of what IBM would look like when the dream became a reality and how such a company would have to act, I realized that unless we started acting that way from the very beginning, we would never make it.
In other words, I understood that for IBM to become a great company, it would have to act like one long before it actually became one.
From the beginning, IBM was designed according to the model.” of my vision. And every day we tried to shape the company according to that model. At the end of each day, we asked ourselves how well we were doing, discovered the disparity between where we were and where we had committed to being, and, as we started the next day, we set out to make up the difference. (Thomas J. Watson)” (Gerber, 1995)
- Create an environment that allows your staff to experience their work as exciting and challenging. The emphasis is on positive feedback: in the long run, no one will be satisfied without it. I worked for a company where the evaluation of developers’ achievements was neither regular nor consistent. Regardless of the development phase, meeting deadlines was the project manager’s primary and sole concern. Regardless of the team’s performance, developers had to shoulder the stress of communicating with the client. In this constant anxiety, people tried to compensate by producing spectacular work. Overtime became the norm, with a shadow of suspicion cast over those who didn’t participate. Pizza and Pepsi were consumed en masse, but so was good humor.
Become a member
In a large organization, it’s highly recommended to have motivating key people (Scrum Masters, Product Owners, Project Managers, Lead Developers) who also take the time to provide positive feedback to team members publicly after delivery.
- Empower your colleagues to influence the development, operation, and environment of the organization. Make them feel that the company’s success and the quality of their work experience depend on them.
Stephen M. R. Covey’s «The Speed of Trust» is worth reading about how to increase trust at the individual, group, organizational, market, and societal levels. Developing this trust should be the first step in establishing a culture of empowerment. Without trust, no corporate strategy can lead to success. Without it, there is no positive work environment or prosperity.
Before making a decision that will fundamentally influence the future of your company, be sure to consult your colleagues. Listening to them is not only important to obtain their relevant judgment but also to ensure their participation.
In companies with a couple of colleagues, this may work easily, but at large companies, where people are grouped into business units, divisions, and working groups, the CEO doesn’t have the opportunity to talk with every employee. Even so, I believe a forum should be created that allows employees to express their opinions, regardless of their hierarchical position. This can be done personally or anonymously, if necessary.
In companies with a couple of colleagues, this may work easily, but in large companies, where people are grouped into business units, divisions, and working groups, the CEO doesn’t have the opportunity to talk with every employee.
Even so, I believe a forum should be created that allows employees to express their opinions, regardless of their hierarchical position. This can be done personally or anonymously, if necessary.
- Keep in mind that every human being has their own needs, so personalization is always a more important factor for job satisfaction than establishing and following standards.
The larger the company, the harder it is to practice individualization. What should be standardized at the corporate level? Too many regulations paralyze, while too few create insecurity. Are you standardizing the infrastructure? Be sure to consider how much room you leave for individual preferences when creating configurations, as the quality of hardware is often comparable to the compensation system in terms of motivation. In the long run, it costs the company less and generates similar satisfaction.
But do you have an overview of your colleagues’ preferences and ideas? What tools do you have to gather them?
You realize that your colleague isn’t happy with the company phone, but it’s the one that came with the package. What will you do? Will you explain that it’s the regulation and leave it at that, or will you prefer to look for where you can cut costs and reallocate the savings to acquire the device they so desperately want?
Summary
To create humanistic working conditions, it is advisable to consult the specialized literature on empowerment, organizational development, and humanistic psychology. The framework I have developed around six principles can serve as a guide on which topics to consider regularly to create a culture of empowerment. Naturally, the list is endless, and if you have any ideas not mentioned here, please share them in a comment.
Humanizing Organizations: From Ideal to Real
The following contribution comes from Switch Education for Business, which defines itself as follows: We are committed educators who believe in the innate power of human action and are passionate about helping leaders empower themselves and others to create happier, healthier, and more sustainable organizations. We look forward to collaborating with you to create safer spaces that are more than just workplaces, with conscious, self-actualizing, and collectively effective leadership teams.
The author is Dr. Richard Carter, who has over 25 years of experience as a management educator and leadership development consultant in business schools, consulting firms, and non-profit organizations in Australia, the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. His approach to learning is strongly influenced by social cognitive theory, and his research has been published in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, the International Journal of Human Resource Management, and the Journal of Marketing Education.
I have long believed, and research consistently demonstrates, that adopting humanistic management principles and practices, such as empowerment and treating people with dignity and respect, generates positive economic value for organizations.
Mental Health and Wellbeing
The recent surge of interest in mental health and wellbeing at work further confirms the negative economic value associated with outdated management practices that cause stress, anxiety, employee turnover, and reduced productivity. However, according to Stanford professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, humanizing organizations will likely remain a futile effort without substantial systemic change.
Education, Regulation, Reputation
Pfeffer is a prolific author and one of the most influential management thinkers of our time. His recent book, «Dying for a Check: Why the American Way of Doing Business Is Harmful to People and Companies,» outlines the cost of poor management practices. In a recent interview with Michael Pirson of the International Association for Humanistic Management, he proposed three substantial changes needed to create more humanistic organizations.
First: Education. Too many managers and organizations are unaware of the costs of dehumanizing management practices based on command-and-control behaviors and Theory X mindsets. This lack of education about the costs of dehumanizing approaches means that organizations externalize human costs (mental and physical health) to the community, rather than absorbing them.
Second: Regulation. Partly due to the costs associated with the aforementioned externalities and partly due to their broader social responsibility, governments must introduce laws and regulations that guarantee health and safety in the workplace, both mental and physical.
Third: Reputation. In Pfeffer’s view, we must shift our veneration toward leaders who embody humanistic management and away from those who do not.
In addition to Pfeffer’s three systemic changes, I would like to suggest one more substantial change: diffusion. By characterizing «humanistic management» as a new idea or innovation, we can apply the late Everett Rogers’ diffusion of innovation model. Rogers (also a Stanford professor) determined that there are five attributes that influence the adoption rate of an innovation like humanistic management over time.
Diffusion of Innovation
Relative Advantage: Utility and Status. Emphasizing the true economic cost of dehumanizing approaches, as well as the positive value of humanizing ones, will generate greater perceived utility and accelerate the adoption rate. Furthermore, recognizing organizations/leaders that adopt human-centered management approaches will grant them higher status and increase adoption rates.
Compatibility: Focusing on what doesn’t change with human-centered management practices, rather than what does, will accelerate adoption rates. However, I recognize that shifting from command-and-control mindsets and behaviors to empowerment and engagement mindsets is a fundamental change for many managers and their organizations. Complexity: As expected, less complex innovations are adopted more quickly than complex ones, and unfortunately, adopting a human-centered management approach in organizations will be perceived as complex. There is no easy solution, but keeping the change as simple as possible in the early stages will help.
Testability: Try before you buy is an age-old sales tactic, and humanistic management is no exception. Implementing pilot programs for humanistic management in areas of the organization with the greatest affinity for or need for change will create a solid foundation before rolling out these practices organization-wide.
Observability: We need to promote organizations that have successfully adopted humanistic management practices and give them the greatest possible visibility.
Humanistic Psychology: It has been more than half a century since humanistic psychologists such as Mayo, Maslow, and McGregor introduced the principles of humanistic management as a novel approach. Substantial changes in education, regulation, reputation, and dissemination provide the framework we need to realize the ideal of humanistic management. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait another half-century before the benefits of humanistic management practices are realized across the widest possible spectrum of organizations.