It really is incredible how many people we come across in a day. A number of them are very familiar to us, and some of those are incredibly important. Our spouse, our kids, our parents, close friends, etc. After that there is probably a group of people we see most days like our co-workers, parents of our kids friends, the staff at the coffee shop, etc. But the vast majority of people we see in a given day aren’t quite so close. The accounting team on the 14th floor, the people walking in the mall, the drivers next to us in traffic and many other strangers.
Just recently I’ve started thinking about my relationships with this latter group of people. How do I think of them when I see them? I think a lot of the time it goes something like this:
- The barista
- My doctor
- The person in the gray suit
- The man who never smiles
- The lady with the infectious laugh
- The guy walking toward me I need to go around
- The budget analyst
- The helpful clerk
- The receptionist.
In fact as I think of this, it seems to be a constant procession of people that we almost automatically assign a label to. In a way we change them from “you” to “it“. We tend to think of them based on their job, their appearance, their outward behaviours, and other characteristics we can assign to them. When we label we depersonalize … we risk turning connections into transactions.
This idea of it and you is the work of 20th century philosopher Martin Buber. His work on the philosophy of dialogue focused on the distinction between two types of relationships we form with others, which he defined as “I-It” and “I-You” (he called it “I-thou”). The I-It relationship is characterized as a relationship of separateness and detachment, whereas the I-You relationship is a relationship in which the other person is not separated by discrete bounds.
To me this is as simple as grammatical construction of first, second or third person. I is in the first person. You is in the second person, and a requirement to be in relationship as it takes two people to form one. It is speaking in the third person. When we speak of “he” or “she”, we might as well say it as we are not speaking of that person as a connection. We objectify them.
As humans we long for meaningful connections, but we may also associate risk with them. Risk of rejection, risk of judgement, risk of exploitation, risk of emotional harm, etc. So when it comes to strangers we may erect subtle barriers to moving from I-It to I-You.
When we walk in a busy place, we may avert our eyes so as to avoid an eye-to-eye personal connection. We may scan the appearances of people so that we can assign what meaning they may have to us in that moment. Some that occur to me on my morning walk are: useful, obstacle, threat, opportunity, in front of/behind me, needs space, etc.
When we engage at work, we may manage risk by engaging people as their work function first. This is a subtle I-It shift because that engagement may be warm and helpful, but if the primary purpose of the connection is to transact work it still acts as I-It because the purpose of the connection is not purely to be in relationship.
When I think of this concept within the field of leadership, it occurs to me that we might apply this at two levels:
- Leader To team member – what is the driving force behind our relationship with each of our team members. Do we see them as manifestations of their job role (a drilling engineer for example)? Alternatively do we see them as a thriving and vibrant person (for example, an energetic woman with strong ties to her children, a spirit of creativity and a powerful desire to make a difference in the world)? The first is an I-It relationship as it is attached to the transaction of work. The second is an I-You relationship as it encompasses the whole person and derives its strength from the connection between you. In this second instance, we have the opportunity to develop a working relationship within the I-You space that is defined on mutual purpose and benefit. Very powerful!
- Organization to team member – what is the fundamental attachment between organization and team member? Do team members feel like pieces of the puzzle,
cogs in the machine, functional contributors? Or do they feel like family members, do they say “it feels like home”, and do they connect emotionally with the mission of the company? Do they look forward as much to their engagement in their work as they do their pay cheque? Corporate culture is an elusive concept, but one where I believe the best corporate cultures are founded on I-You relationships. In public companies where quarterly earnings, price-earnings ratios and return on shareholder equity are king it can be a really tough challenge. To do so we have to get past the I-It relationship that has us think of people as a commodity to be hired and/or shed based on business plans and latest profit estimates.
How about your day-to-day engagements? How many of your interactions with others are I-It vs. I-You. What might you do to shift a bunch of the I-It ones to be I-You?
8 thoughts on “Corporate Culture: Do We See People As “It” Or “You”?”
Ian, this made me think of how the thought of I-You and I-It will change depending on where you live. Typically, those who live in a smaller community, are more connected so they practice I-You regularly. Those who live in much larger towns or large unknown cities you are visiting, practice I-It. I live in a town of about 30,000 and most of the time, there is a I-You interaction. I think of when I traveled to New York City – I really felt the I-IT interaction….yup, capitalized the word it on purpose. I had never met a more uptight and grumpy group of people.
Thanks for the reminder to stay present in the moment and to continue to make I-You connections.
Thanks for the great perspective Chris. I think you are bang on. The It-You choice has a lot to do with safety. The more risk we feel, the greater the probability we will choose I-It.
This is so timely and topical, for me. Having just moved back into the management world, I find myself at these very crossroads. It is such a natural inclination, in the onset of running a team, to think of everyone as “it” for awhile. I kept trying to understand how the pieces are supposed to come together, rather than really getting to know everyone. Now, that I get it all enough, I have moved into really trying to get to know my team on a much more personal level. I have a ton of work to do here, as I owe it to every one of them. But, it really is interesting how many people I keep in the IT column. Great write up, Ian!
Thanks for the thoughts. What an interesting example. When you think of the context of being the new guy in a new group, the danger really is to the new guy. If I-It relationships are first formed, it is quite possible that the group will institutionalize this relationship as they alreeady have functional I-You relationships amongst themselves, thus making it more difficult for the new guy to connect!
Great post Ian! 🙂
When I worked at the Mustard Seed I very much was concerned with my team’s I-you relationships, and out of necessity and getting the job done, I guess I was also concerned the I-it relationships. In the corporate world, is that not necessary.
It’s funny Ian, my post today asks if we should not consider fellow humans as our family members, our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters….
I can imagine the difficulty of I-You relationships when working with homelessness. The embracing of difficult life stories and guilt associated with being more fortunate would be significant barriers. Off to read your post!
Interesting topic with a twist for me as a manager. If someone complains to me about a job not being done, they are complaining about “IT” and I find the situation easy to resolve. I break it down to the process or procedure itself that wasn’t done correctly. As team, we can talk about making an improvement to the procedure itself so it is easier to follow, rather than the staff think that someone somehow got. However, when someone comes to me complaining about a specific person, and about that person always being late, lazy, unproductive, inefficient, clumsy; I find it more difficult. The situation has become personal. There is this situation and YOU have to fix it. Sometimes it is even the complainers unrealistic expectations and always having to find blame in someone. I find it easier dealing with the ‘IT’ complaints over the ‘YOU’ complaints.
Thank you Elizabeth and yes an interesting twist. I think there might always be something “easier” about It as we somehow feel we don’t have to put the same diligence into dealing with It as with You. When we are in a You relationship we know we are connected and thus we care for the person as a whole, not just the current transactional issue!