‘Healthy’. ‘Healthy’ and ‘safe’. These are two adjectives that have started popping up in conversations about organizations (and institutions), among the traditional ‘agile’, ‘nimble’, ‘digital’, ‘inclusive’. There have been many debates comparing the functioning of an organization to that of a human body, and within this context the use of ‘healthy’, ‘safe’, ‘well functioning’ is particularly meaningful. Most of the conversations are centered around the functional dimension, how highly specialized parts perform specific roles and duties within the given system. According to Socrates, a perfect system is one in which every part performs its role well, and the system is managing itself. What makes the system healthy is its transparency, the flow of energy between parts. It is synergetic and symbiotic. For the human body, it is our consciousness that is responsible with noticing when some parts of the body are not functioning well. Building on the human body – organization analogy, we could argue that the role of the management is the equivalent of our consciousness, namely to establish the system and see to it that the system functions well. And when it doesn’t, it is also its role to fix it. My personal favorite is the metaphor of management (middle or executive) as the (most often constructively opposing) thumb – enabling the other four fingers to act as a hand. According to an article in Medical News Today, dated July 31, 2017, the word ‘health’ refers to ‘a state of complete physical and emotional wellbeing’. And it goes on to mention that ‘it refers not only to the absence of disease, but the ability to recover and bounce back from illness and other problems’. And also ‘factors for good health include genetics, the environment, relationships, and education’. All these being said, and for the sake of starting an open and healthy conversation, here are some personal take-aways from the ‘human body as an organization’ analogy: Change . It is unclear how the myth of a 7 or 10-year cycle for complete cell regeneration started, but the scientific truth is that cells have a finite life span, and when they die off they are replaced with new ones. And this happens all the time. Red blood cells live for about four months, while white blood cells live on average more than a year. Skin cells live about two or three weeks. Brain cells typically last an entire lifetime (sadly, neurons in the cerebral cortex, for example, are not replaced when they die). Add to this the fact that ‘organ follows function’, which means that entire body parts can disappear if no longer useful. By 2500, humans will no longer have toes. At some point no more wisdom teeth either, and no more muscle fibers that produce goosebumps. With all this natural change happening inside us, it is intriguing to analyze and manage change within organizations that seems so complex, sometimes outright alien, and raises so much resistance. Change happens to drive performance. From this perspective, we can look back at the organization of the human body and try to derive some key learnings for the organizational performance management system. A cell is the basic structural and functional unit in human body. It is the smallest unit of life which is classified as a living thing. A single cell is often a complete organism in itself. The boundaries of a cell are selectively permeable which regulates incoming and outgoing cell traffic with the help of specific receptors on it. Cells perform all the roles assigned to them effectively and if the brain finds them unfit, it stimulates them to leave to protect the whole body from its adverse consequences. The life span of a cell depends upon the function carried by it as a cell can remain in the body and function till the body finds it fit. A cell which is not performing up to the desired levels due to infection, damage or any other reasons, is rejected by the body irrespective of its life span. If we visualize a cell as an employee of the organization, it can be observed that it possesses all necessary skills to perform and also bears accountability for its non-performance. Is that how it truly works today? Or is that wishful thinking? Diversity . Millions of highly specialized cells, grouped into body parts, depending on each other to function properly, organized into subsystems, suprasystems. Changes occurring across our life stages, others accommodating specific environment conditions. Still so many things we do not fully comprehend about the human body. While all our bodies carry the same basic functionalities and seem to follow one grand master plan how we are built, there is infinite power and strength in the human (body) diversity. We each look different, think different, play different, enjoy different things, we may even smell different and believe different things. For a long time, the gender balance has been the flagship topic for diversity within the organizational environment. But more and more companies open their diversity and inclusion agenda to cover other deeper topics: generational and cultural diversity, diversity of opinion, diversity of ways of working. Even diversity of work-life balance understanding and expectations – acknowledging that different people are willing to make different investments and contributions to their work, and they want and expect different value out of it. The question is how much of who we are we can bring into our work that yields the best business and personal value? Noise . From the rumbling in our stomachs to the popping of a joint, the human body produces a curious symphony of sounds – I remember reading somewhere that it would be absolutely deafening, if we could listen to all of it at the same time. Most are perfectly normal (if slightly embarrassing). But in some cases, they can be alarm bells, and it's the context that helps you figure out if a particular noise is worrisome. This being said, it is quite puzzling (and worrisome) how some companies still do not address heads-on the ‘culture of silence’ within their organizations. In her book ‘The Fearless Organization. Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth’, Amy C. Edmonson – The Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School brings together a wealth of research and real stories to showcase how dangerous a culture of silence can really be; ‘when people fail to speak up with their concerns or questions, the physical safety of customers and employees is at risk (...) we live and work in communities, cultures, and organizations in which not speaking up can be hazardous to human health’. Whether it is the case of excessive confidence in authority, ‘going along to get along’, ‘promoted and protected’, ‘not safe to fail’ or any other instance, by not acknowledging or even drowning the noise, we are building and preserving a toxic culture. A ‘Cassandra culture’ (Cassandra, one of the most tragic characters in classical Greek mythology, was given the gift of prophecy along with the curse that she would never be believed) is an environment where speaking up entails drawing attention, is belittled and warnings go unheeded. Such a culture is also one in which people fail to listen thoughtfully to those who do speak up (especially when they are bringing unpleasant news or touch on sensitive topics). Emotions . The starting point for modern research on emotion in organizations seems to have been sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild’s (1983) seminal book on emotional labor ‘The Managed Heart’. Ever since then the study of emotions in the workplace has been seen as a near science, discussing positive and negative emotions, difference between emotions and moods, ‘rational vs. emotional’ or ‘(how much) rational and (how much) emotional’. In a corporate world where there is talk driven by business case, facts and figures, planning and milestones, Key Performance Indicators and ‘everything quantified’, I have found this quote from Simon Sinek particularly refreshing: ‘Great companies don’t hire skilled people and motivate them; they hire already motivated people and inspire them. People are either motivated or they are not. Unless you give motivated people something to believe in, something bigger than their job to work toward, they will motivate themselves to find a new job and you’ll be stuck with whoever’s left’. After years of change management work, I have come to believe strongly that it is as much about how people feel as it is about what they think. In other words, engage the cortex, and harness the vortex. Most of the discussions around the human body – organization analogy raised the ‘Body Corporate’ concept, meaning deriving key takeaways to set up organizations along the lines of the human body, which ultimately – and hopefully, will make organizations genuinely fit for human beings. Based on how people react to change, how they drive diversity, what they make noise about, and how they manage emotion, and also what a wealth of research highlights, we could make an educated assumption that human beings inherently seek freedom. There is an ongoing debate as to how much actual freedom organizations should/ could/ do offer for their employees, yet expecting them to be happy, productive and most importantly, loyal to the company. In a post on managementexchange.com from a few years back, it is asserted that ‘the human body organization can be a good guide as it is built on freedom, no bureaucracy yet is exceptionally efficient. It has no management hierarchy, can combat external threats, has strong sense of purpose, which is proved for millions of years’. There are many other equally fascinating aspects of human body that can bring inspiration into the business world. Below are just a few ‘teasers’ that touch on the key dimensions of organization, structure, ownership, governance and information exchange: The human body works for itself. It doesn't work for someone external to the body. The cells, which are fundamental building blocks are designed in a complimentary and mutually supporting structure The work done by each cell and organ is well defined and not subject to interpretation. Two coordinating bodies exist – Heart for the distribution of the most critical resource (i.e., blood and oxygen), while the mind distributes the other critical resource (i.e., information). Extraordinary evidence of co-existence and interdependency. The malfunction of one organ in a remote part of the body can affect the performance of the rest of the body. Multiple sub-systems (e.g., cardiovascular, respiratory, immune) exist in a perfectly synchronized manner The body produces its own critical resources (i.e., blood and thoughts) The process of converting food into required energy is extremely efficient and predictable The logistical network for sending the ‘blood and nutrition’ to various parts of the body is flawless The energy levels and thoughts produced in the body are self-regulated. Knowing and understanding all of this, where should we take this in the business context? Is it wise to follow a seemingly perfectly functioning body analogy and translate it into organizational wisdom? Or should we rather accept that the human body has its limits and imperfections that we should aim (in fact, have already begun) to eliminate and replace by something rather more robust, enduring and stronger like technology, supplements and hybrid physiology solutions? Either way, it is worth appreciating the natural well-functioning of our bodies as they give us the basic abilities to even start such thought experiments like this one. But given the aspect of freedom of choice, what would you do if the build up or transformation of an organization was solely up to you - like a grand master? What would your blueprint look like? And most importantly, why? And now that you’ve gone through the thought experiment, will you enforce your idea? Or let nature do its thing? We’d love to hear.