leaders_to_be_human.jpg

What do we mean when we're asking leaders to be more human? I genuinely want to ask the question since I'm starting to hear the word used more and more lately, especially here on LinkedIn.

I understand when some colleagues use human when comparing to technology - robots, artificial intelligence, the metaverse. We need more human versus tech to drive decisions, deliver service.

Here is my issue. I think we're really asking leaders and organizations to be more empathetic, transparent, honest, authentic, but we use the word human instead as if human means being inherently good. The truth is being human is equally biased, greedy, selfish, flawed. Being human right now is equally causing divisions, strife, wars, inequities.

The communication professional in me feels like the word human is vague. I'd rather call out the actions and behaviours we expect and advise in order to provide clarity. And if you are asking leaders to be more human, what exactly are we accusing them of? Being less than human? Bringing unfeeling monsters to their organizations today? They are all human.

I just feel that it's the wrong word. I bristle a little every time I hear it. Am I over-reacting? I would love to hear both sides. To use the word human or not to use the word human and when is it appropriate. I would love to hear your thoughts.

 

Related Posts
Let me first start this post by saying that I am making a conscious effort to refer to practitioners differently, but that I often find myself falling into the trap of referring to myself and others, who make a living as experts in communication, as communicators.
It's 2021, and there is a lot of work to do to 'walk the talk' when it comes to diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Although there was attention paid and much performance in diversity commitments, this is the year to make progress on real action.
Loading Conversation