"People Are Our Most Valuable Resource"

The title of this post -- "People Are Our Most Valuable Resource" -- is one common version of an almost universal belief, at least in connection with businesses or other purpose-driven organizations. This is particularly true in the US, which is perhaps the most individualistic society on the planet. In the US, it is assumed that the "secret" of organizational success is no secret at all: it is simply the quality of the people associated with the organization, a belief which leads directly to the current trend to hire "talent". Since talent, by definition, will be sought out and fought over, it becomes wise to search for undeveloped or latent talent, which can be developed by and for that wise organization. 

In this view, the organization is simply a container, into which (hopefully talented) people are poured ; the container in itself is not important. Thus, if a company does well, we can be confident that we have an adequate or better supply of talent. On the other hand, if things go ill, in whole or in part,  we must have a few bad apples in our barrel. It follows that we need to root out those untalented or inadequate people and either replace them (a draconian but powerful tactic) or develop them (an enlightened but uncertain tactic.) If this tactic doesn't seem to work, we must be doing it wrongly. In either case, the container has little to do with our effectiveness as an organization.

But Maybe Not. As it turns out, this is an astonishingly misleading and inaccurate assumption. Although it is certainly true that people differ greatly in their natural or distinctive strengths, these may have surprisingly little to do with the organization's ability to function effectively and smoothly. Both research and a little unblinded reflection shows that the container itself has a great and generally determinate effect on the organization's performance, success, competence and value. Think about it for a moment. Imagine what would happen when someone (anyone) is simply replaced, or gone in the morning, and her position filled with someone else that same afternoon. What is likely to happen next?

In a very short time, she will be doing almost exactly what her predecessor would have been doing, picking up on incomplete or continuing tasks almost seamlessly, and attacking problems in the in-box or the emails requiring attention. She will probably also have been given a copy of her job's description and heard a pep talk reminding her of the performance to be expected from her. (This is, in fact, a very common device used to evaluate or assess candidates for a position. It's called the in-box exercise and it confronts a new and uninformed notional new employee with the full in-box left behind by the desk's previous occupant.) 

Under these circumstances, whatever her background and potential, she will literally be forced to carry out the same tasks within the same constraints experienced by every previous sitter at that desk. Almost all the important actions will have already been either required or forbidden by command. The tasks to be done are specified, often in detail, the relationships with other people (in their organizational roles) are laid down, meetings will already be set up and scheduled, with the other members known and on board, reporting relationships and constaints are defined, their physical location is fixed, as before, and measures of performance will be clear. In short, the new person will have little flexibility, because the container itself has set the most important terms of the job.

The likelihood of producing genuinely superior results will accordingly be small. Worse yet, so are the opportunities for her to find and use innovative ways of contributing to the organization.