Treat everyone like a person and an equal first and foremost. The work sorts itself out in the end. Photo by Louis Hansel on Unsplash
Social Sharing block
I hate the use of the word just in front of anyone’s title, as in, “He’s just an analyst,” or, “She’s just a cafeteria worker,” or, “I’m just an administrative assistant.”
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
No one is just anything. The word is demeaning and pejorative. We’re all people—we happen to have different responsibilities. The connotation of just is that someone is worth less than someone else, as if that just someone has a defect.
One of the most powerful leadership skills I’ve seen and used is valuing everyone’s contributions equally. How do you do that? Simple: Treat everyone like a person and an equal first and foremost. The work sorts itself out in the end.
For example, I walked by a senior vice president’s office one day. I knew his assistant—she was a wonderful lady. We got to talking, and she mentioned a problem she saw regarding how assistants were paid. I told her, “You see it, you own it. Raise the issue and see if you can get it fixed.”
“But I’m just an admin,” she said.
…
Comments
The word "just"
I couldn't agree more with your discouraging the use of just in describing a person's position within an organization. It can be demeaning and de-motivating. Treat everyone with respect and you will be surprised at the result. Keep preaching!
"Just" an Interested Reader
“But I’m just an admin,” she said.
Mike, I'm grateful and impressed that you have the passion and the influence to post this content on Quality Digest -- but I have to ask -- what are you trying to accomplish? Personally, I don't think just came from the admin. It came from the way she was perennially treated, job after job, work culture after work culture. Same thing goes the engineer. The 'individual contributor' at any tech firm or pharma, or biotech, etc. Especially the big ones, but all of them. I can only name one that was an exception in my 15+ year career and in my conversations with countless peers and myriad people outside of my work environment in positions at similar levels. I don't think you'll reach executive leadership at these levels: they are unfortunately the ones who promulgate this kind of thinking at the individual contributor level. Why? They may actually be nice people who treat people well enough. But it's not their behavior. It's the structure. The Indvidual contributor is given a small desk in an open office. They are given little decision-making power, or all of the decision-making power, they are the most stressed because they see and feel the impact of business problems (not their leadership teams). They are given the least environment for concentration (no office or even a cubicle with four walls). We ultimately have to claim personal responsibility in any role, I firmly believe that. But how will we be truly empowered to cast of the word "just" when the systems and cultures that drive our individual contributors are disempowering them?
Just a thought...
Last weekend I read a great management essay - Dr. Seuss' 'Yertle the Turtle'- to my granddaughter. Why is this relevant? Take a look at an org chart - any org chart. The C-suite level is at the top, supported by all those 'underlings'. Looking at the org chart where I work, I have actually referred to myself as 'The annoying little quality turd stuck on the heel of manufacturing operations.'
If leadership really wants to promote the idea that all staff should be treated as people first, maybe stop stacking those boxes under themselves and turn that chart upside-down. I've yet to see an inverted org chart, where the leadership level is the foundation supporting all those little bricks that actually do the work and make the organization a success. Isn't that their real role? As long as the chart shows how they 'rule over', the perception can't change.
Add new comment