Trending
Language is the first step to turning people into non human objects. ~ Mark Neary
“CEO-ification” refers to the trend of nonprofits and charities to increasingly mirror corporate and military structures. Often they will adopt similar language, hierarchies, and strategic approaches. The trend began in the late 20th century, with a significant acceleration in the 1980s and 1990s.
You can easily spot the signs:
- The use of “C-Suite”, a preponderance of Chief-dom and officers, alongside a sort of obsession with leadership and leadership development.
- The use of military metaphors like “the frontline”, “campaigns” and getting “boots on the ground”.
- The adoption of strategic planning models and performance metrics more commonly used in the business world.
In truth this stemmed from Taylorism, also known as Scientific Management. This theory was developed by Frederick Winslow Taylor in the late 19th century, but influenced today’s corporate language by introducing efficiency-focused terms like “time and motion studies” and “optimised workflows.”
It emphasised standardised terminology and the use of quantitative metrics like “productivity” and “efficiency ratios.” Taylorism also reinforced hierarchical communication structures, often with a top-down approach. Whilst it promoted efficiency, the focus on standardisation led to dehumanising language, referring to workers as “resources” or even”units of labour.”
Dehumanising it maybe, but the idea of people being reduced to mere units has leaked out from our institutions – and is now applied to the very people we were set up to help or serve.
I spoke to Bryony Shannon about this on the Let’s Talk Ideas podcast. Bryony argues that the words we choose reflect our values and feelings, and shape how we think and act. She argues that when language focuses on processes, bureaucracy, and transactions, it can reduce people from individuals to labels – like “service user” or “case.” These words distance us from the very people we were employed to develop relationships with.
Those relationships then become mere transactions. As Rob Mitchell has said, when you’ve got a form and a process for every relationship “Love becomes relationships. Relationships become processes. Processes get processed.”
Frederick Winslow Taylor would have loved today’s world of process, customer segmentation and journey mapping. Such methodologies can approach humans lives as something that can be managed just like a car production line, or a canning factory producing baked beans.
Human lives don’t work like that – as Bryony says: “People’s lives don’t go in straight lines and relationships are messy and, people don’t fit into boxes, but the world has evolved in this way that we want people to fit into boxes. We want to put a label on somebody so we know which box they fit into, which pathway they need to follow, which service they’ll fit into”.
“I think everyone gets more and more frustrated by that bureaucracy and that lack of humanity And then everything breaks down, trust breaks down, then everything just takes longer as well. Because instead of us having really good relationships, human relationships with each other, we just have endless tick boxes and referral forms, and work in little silos and move people around the system.”
This focus on managing resources rather than forming relationships with people can sometimes overshadow the importance of understanding and addressing the individual’s specific concerns and values.
In “The McDonaldization of Society,” George Ritzer warned that the principles of fast-food restaurants are dominating various sectors of society. He emphasised how the pursuit of efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control through technology often leads to unintended negative consequences. Ritzer argued that while these principles may seem rational, they can result in irrational outcomes like decreased quality and even alienation. This phenomenon, he observes, has spread globally, shaping cultures and societies worldwide. The McDonaldization of society represents a shift towards standardisation and efficiency at the expense of individuality, creativity, and genuine human interaction.
Putting people in boxes in social care, healthcare, housing and in discussions around income inequality is harmful. It leads to misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and perpetuates harmful stereotypes, limiting opportunities. This labeling can erode trust, hinder relationships, and reinforce systemic inequities by masking the root causes of disparities.
This is one of the reasons why many of our systems, designed in the name of efficiency, are anything but. We have set up processes designed for the canning of baked beans rather than helping improve lives.
We need a new vocabulary and new process that restores humanity to the system. One that centres on people, communities, relationships, and dreams. One that focuses on strengths and possibilities, not labels and limitations.
Being efficient is not half as effective as conventional management would like to think.