Courage, connection and curiosity

The case for human centred leadership

The announcement from Jason Fried this week, co-founder and CEO of Basecamp, about the changes he (and co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson) are implementing in their organisation seemed to me to be the perfect example of how NOT to lead with your people at the heart of what you do. 

Here are my reflections on a select few of their changes, and my take on how they could have better served their people through human centred leadership. The link to the changes in full is in the comments.

Change No 1. No more societal and political discussions on our company Basecamp account.

Firstly, it’s worth acknowledging that I see the distinction they are trying to make between personal and business activity. It’s understandable, as a leader, to want to protect the business space. To wish to support our people in whatever they choose to do privately, but feel it’s ok to ask that it’s not brought in to work out of respect for everyone else. However, it’s also important to understand that this standpoint operates from a position of privilege. The privilege to be able to separate the personal and work spaces, as if you simply take them off like your shoes at the door, and pop them back on again when you leave. 

For most employees, being able to bring our whole authentic selves to work is of paramount importance. And rightly so. Asking people to “shed” their societal and political beliefs before entering the building (or logging in to their machines) is like asking them to remove a part of themselves. Many marginalised groups have been working tirelessly to get to a place where they feel welcomed and included in the workplace for who they are. But now, when there is finally some recognition that diverse perspectives and lived experiences shape and improve our organisations for the better, we’re asking our people to roll it back. To stop being curious about the lives of others who we work alongside. To keep our heads down and just focus on the work. Really?

There is also the further question of Hansson’s statement that Basecamp will “continue to engage with politics that directly relate to our business or products”. So, some politics is ok, it just has to be the right kind of politics...

What would I do differently?...I would encourage courageous conversations.

What would I do differently?

Allowing people to “battle it out” in the workplace on whatever platforms are available was never going to work. Societal and political views are emotive and their discussion requires deliberate attention, sensitivity and support.  

I would encourage courageous conversations.  

As leaders we have to be open to our people - they are our biggest asset after all. Failing to recognise the lived experiences of those who make our organisations work is failing to recognise them as full and valuable human people. Human people. Not machines.

Make no mistake, engaging in these conversations is uncomfortable. It needs to be done in the right way, with the right intention and impact, and the right ownership. Leaders need to own these conversations by being prepared to engage with their people, by allowing space for views to be expressed, and by listening to those views, experiences and ideas.  

Leaders need to learn from what they hear and the discomfort they feel. They need to understand they will not have all the answers themselves, and that they will, undoubtedly, get it wrong at times. Leaders need to know that this is ok, providing they continue to engage, to provide space, to listen and to learn.

There are many ways to facilitate conversations like this, depending on the nature of our organisation. The first step is to be willing to see your people (all of your people, both present and future) and invite them in.

Change No 3. No more committees

So, whilst I think the intention here is to streamline the decision making process by removing the amount of input and discussion required, what has actually been achieved is a narrowing of the perspective available in arriving at decisions. So narrow in fact, that all decisions will be made by Jason and David. Except for DEI decisions though, these will be made by their Head of People Ops. One person to represent and decide what’s best for everyone. Good luck Andrea! 

Definitely, there is merit in not managing every decision by consensus, but the danger in removing all committee or advisory teams is that we can become blinkered by our own perspective. Yes, they have said they will ask individuals with “direct relevant experience” when they need advice or counsel, but what mechanisms are in place to alert them to this need? How diverse is their universe when asking for help and support?

My suggestion?

Keep the committees. One size does not fit all.  

If we feel there is too much bureaucracy in our decision making, then there probably is. We should definitely review our processes, how our committees are arranged and who is involved. But closing the grip of control completely eliminates much needed perspectives for innovation and challenge. If you’re a CEO, then it’s likely those people in your committees will be much closer to the day-to-day operations than you are (at least they should be). Why would we not want to understand the very real impact of our decisions on the operations of our business?

Additionally, having committees is a great way to allow people to step up, and for the voices of our future talent to be heard and feel valued. Inclusion and talent retention? Yes please.

Change No 5. No more 360 reviews.

So this one, I do actually understand where they're coming from. As they say, it’s so much easier for people to give each other “positive and reassuring” feedback. And yes, we all do need that reassurance sometimes, but we do also need to be able to understand our areas for improvement and have meaningful conversations that help us develop.

I also agree that formal feedback processes, such as 360 reviews, are a cumbersome paper exercise that don’t deliver the desired return in terms of the energy they take to conduct. So frequent manager check-ins are a great idea to make sure feedback is timely and free flowing.

However, where I disagree with Basecamp’s approach is that feedback should be restricted to a management conversation only. One person’s perspective of how we do our work is, again, pretty narrow and doesn’t guarantee we will get the support and information we need. Afterall, our managers were peers too, so they probably need help with the skills to have effective feedback conversations also.

The alternative?

Creating a culture of feedback, with everyone role modelling human centred leadership.

In addition to Jason’s request for manager led feedback, I would also be recommending that employees continue to engage with their peers too. Feedback conversations can be tough and uncomfortable when we’re not used to doing them. But as they say, practice makes perfect! With the right support and techniques, everyone can begin to have meaningful conversations about their work, regularly and at the time when it is most useful.

Yes, our manager will likely be the person having the most conversations with us, but if we engage in project work, don’t we also want to know how we’re performing there too. Do we want our manager to go and ask for feedback on our behalf? Or would we rather be treated as adults who can seek our own feedback, and then share what we’ve learned with our managers.

Likewise, if we can see a recurring issue with a colleague that we feel they need to know about, would we rather wait for their manager to ask us? Or worse still, have to approach their manager instead of them directly? I’m not sure a feeling of being “escalated” on will be good for anyone.

Treating our people as adult human beings is at the centre of good leadership. Why would we want to restrict employees by adopting a paternal approach to their development.

So what does this mean for Basecamp?

Whilst there’s a lot to be said about being transparent with your vision, and I must at least applaud this is what they have been, the “proof of the pudding” will certainly be in how their employees, customers and investors feel about this confirmed direction. Will they vote with their feet? Only time will tell.

But while we’re waiting... if you would like to talk more about how to lead with courage, connection and curiosity, join me in the comments below or drop me a message. 

Together, we can certainly do better than Basecamp.

#courageousconversations #onesizedoesnotfitall #humancentredleadership