Some of the fatalistic and dystopian predictions of recent years about robotic futures and the elimination of the need for human workers were overblown. On the other hand, there remains a strong imperative in some quarters to push forward with workforce substitution using a range of technologies. It would be hyperbolic to call this a shift towards ‘worker obsolescence’, but dehumanisation is a real issue in many workplaces.

The following image, (ironically) created by AI, borrows from the Matrix movie series in suggesting that the way technology is being positioned now has flipped the old concept of client-server systems upside down. (This is also referenced in the header image above). Instead of the IT system serving the needs of staff, employees are becoming worker bees in the AI Queen Bee’s hive. The pods they work in are not eggs being incubated in anticipation of new life, but rather isolation chambers in which the worker bees can be kept in line and on task.

The last year or so of rapid and widespread developments in the use of AI have also been accompanied by a steady stream of stories about fully autonomous no-human business models. Samsung has just announced that they plan to build fully autonomous “no-human chip” factories by 2030. A fully autonomous restaurant has been opened in California. Driverless cargo and delivery fleets, robotic warehouse and logistics facilities, AI website creation services, and many others continue to emerge – often replacing businesses that once relied on human beings.

In my own family, I have seen how audio transcription businesses treat their ‘piece workers’. Short audio recordings extracted from a longer recording of a meeting or trial are sent to a pool of transcribers whose every keystroke is monitored for speed and accuracy. The transcriber has no context for or concept of the meaning of the work. Instead, they wait for the breadcrumbs of new isolated audio files to drop into their feedbox, to earn a low base fee, with only modest bonuses for exceptional speed and accuracy. I imagine that these services are being rapidly replaced by AI, as they have already been dehumanised to a large degree – by design.

What does dehumanisation involve?

Whether we approach dehumanisation from an organisational or socio-political perspective, the symptoms and tactics are essentially the same. They treat individuals or groups as outside or beyond the boundaries in which moral values and considerations of fairness apply.

Immanuel Kant‘s highly influential categorical imperative included a prohibition against treating individuals as mere means rather than ends in themselves. That principle has been enshrined in legal and ethical codes the world over, and yet it is challenged in many parts of the world today. Kant was not the first to suggest that we should treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. Indeed all of the major faith systems, and even secular humanists, agree with this ‘golden rule’.

Moral exclusion, delegitimisation, and moral disengagement are all evidence of ethical blind spots. The charts below describe each of these and show dehumanisation as both an outcome in its own right, but also as a tool for worse crimes against humanity – up to and including genocide.

Systems of control and sources of motivation

Our governance and management systems tend to be control-oriented by design. Compliance and conformance sit right alongside performance concerns, and consequently justify the adoption of rules, policies, codes, procedures, standards, quality controls, risk management boundaries, limits on delegations, and work plans (both strategic and operational).

If we ask ‘What are employees for?’, the framing of the question cues us to see these people as instruments; human capital to be deployed in ways that serve the organisation’s purpose and needs. The risk that we objectify staff, and in the process dehumanise them, is built into our role definitions and organisational systems. That risk needs to be balanced by the recognition that for employees to want to achieve good outcomes at work, they need to be intrinsically motivated, not simply follow the dictates of supervisors or organisational controls.

The title of this post hints at a problem embedded in the language we use to describe our systems and structures. While People and Culture departments may have replaced old-school HR departments, this area remains a highly objectified cluster of functions. We still tend to lump human resources in with finance, technology, and other resources, and in doing so, we depersonalise employees, and contribute to a more dehumanised culture.

Organisational dehumanisation manifests when workplaces prioritise operational efficiency and profitability over the well-being and dignity of employees. This is not merely about those employees feeling undervalued; it’s about a systemic reduction of the value of individuals to their output, sidelining their aspirations, needs, and humanity. If we create a world where an employee is seen more as a function than a person, we are curating an environment where stress, burnout, moral injury, and disengagement are more likely.

The Ethical Dilemma

The dilemma at the heart of this issue is profound: How do we balance the need for efficiency and competitiveness with the moral imperative to treat employees with respect and dignity? Our challenge is to navigate the fine line between utilising human skills for organisational objectives and recognising that employees are more than the sum of their job functions.

Addressing organisational dehumanisation requires us to move from managing human resources to nurturing human beings. This shift involves recognising and valuing the holistic well-being of employees, understanding that they bring more to the table than their professional skills: they bring their hopes, challenges, and humanity. To the extent we see some of the symptoms of objectification and dehumanisation of our staff in our own systems and behaviours, we can choose to initiate action to rehumanise our workplaces. Some ideas on measures by which to do that are offered in the next chart provided here.

Strategies for Human-Centric Management

A growing body of literature has been published in recent years supporting and promoting human-centred workplaces and practices. Beyond positive thinking and well-being measures, the authors of these resources encourage us to look deeply at the culture we express through our behaviours, structures, and processes. Examples of the genre are highlighted in the chart below.

Thankfully, in recognition of risks associated with the shift to reliance on AI, the OECD has published a set of AI Principles in which human-centred values and fairness are featured. These principles may also be worth considering for inclusion in your staffing policies the next time they are updated.

Building a culture of respect for the human beings we manage requires us to encourage them to have ownership of their work, not just accountability for completing set tasks. This is a complex undertaking, but well worth the effort.

The call to build a human-centric workplace is a reminder that in the quest for operational excellence, the spirit, dignity, and well-being of employees must remain paramount. After all, our organisations thrive not merely on the strength of their strategies and systems but on the vitality, creativity, and engagement of their people.

See also:
Ways of knowing and being in organisational culture
Integrity: greater than the sum of its aspects
Moral governance
Interdependency, Mutual Dependency, and Codependency in your NFP
Getting on board with employee engagement