No one is opposed to humanity. But what does it mean, and how do you put it into practice?
Humanity is a widely used concept in organisations, yet it is rarely given concrete meaning. As a result, it often remains vague and non-committal, with dehumanisation as an unintended consequence. According to Marjon Bohré, practising humanity requires making deliberate choices, in language, decision-making and leadership.
Humanity features prominently on organisational agendas. Policy documents emphasise the human dimension, and leadership visions revolve around empathy and connection. In practice, however, many professionals experience distance rather than recognition. According to Bohré, this is not a contradiction but the result of ambiguity. ‘What is not explicitly defined cannot be applied consistently.’
What do we actually mean by humanity?
Bohré approaches humanity not as an abstract ideal, but as an organisational reality. ‘The question is not whether organisations value humanity, but what they concretely mean by it.’ Humanity takes shape in everyday interactions at work: who is heard, who is invited into the conversation, and what happens when discussions become tense or uncomfortable.
A common misconception is that humanity is simply about empathy and softness. ‘That is only one side of the coin,’ Bohré emphasises. Humanity consists of two inseparable dimensions. The emotional dimension concerns space for feelings, empathy and connection. The rational dimension relates to moral awareness, judgement, reflection and the capacity to make one’s own choices. As Bohré explains: ‘People want to be recognised not only in what they feel, but also taken seriously in what they think.’
Dehumanisation arises when one of these dimensions is structurally absent. ‘When emotions are dismissed as unprofessional, or when people are formally allowed to participate but their judgement carries no real weight,’ says Bohré.
How dehumanisation quietly takes hold
Dehumanisation rarely manifests openly. It often emerges, paradoxically, in organisations with good intentions, through language, routines and structures. Bohré points to terms such as human resources, personnel numbers, or remarks like ‘leave your emotions at home’. These may appear harmless, she argues, but they implicitly reduce people to instruments.
Decision-making processes also play a crucial role. ‘Who is consistently involved in strategic choices, and who is merely informed afterwards? Who is allowed to express concern or criticism without it being framed as “negativity”?’ Such patterns erode the sense of being taken seriously and undermine psychological safety.
When things become uncomfortable
Moments of tension reveal most clearly how organisations deal with humanity. Discomfort is often avoided: difficult conversations are postponed, criticism is downplayed, or people are subtly distanced through procedures or formal processes. Participation may be formally organised, while key decisions have already been made. The conversation disappears, yet the problem remains.
‘These are not exceptions,’ Bohré stresses. ‘They are recognisable patterns in organisations that want to do the right thing, but are unwilling to carry the discomfort that comes with it.’
Conditions for humanity
Based on her empirical research, Bohré identifies three interconnected conditions for genuinely organising humanity: bounded space, attentive care and connection.
The first condition concerns the space people need to be human—for instance when dealing with workload or caring responsibilities—while also knowing where they stand. ‘It is precisely the shared articulation and maintenance of boundaries that creates a sense of safety,’ Bohré notes.
The second condition, attentive care, can be understood as follows: attention only becomes humane when it is consistent. This means being genuinely present, following through on commitments and making room for feedback—even when it is uncomfortable. As Bohré puts it: ‘Being heard does not mean that a decision changes, but that someone’s perspective is taken seriously.’
Finally, connection is an essential condition for reciprocity. Employees expect leaders to show themselves as human too, within clear professional boundaries. Structural distance undermines the sense of togetherness that is necessary for reciprocity and sustained mutual engagement.
Humanity requires firmness
Humanity is often confused with avoiding conflict. According to Bohré, the opposite is true. ‘Acting humanely means holding people accountable for their behaviour, setting boundaries and taking responsibility.’ She explicitly describes the structural avoidance of difficult conversations as inhumane. ‘You end up organising around the problem, while everyone knows it is there.’
What it yields, and what it costs when it is absent
When people feel seen as human beings, not only does wellbeing improve, but so do creativity, learning capacity and engagement. In the literature, this is referred to as extra-role performance: employees who are willing to go beyond their formal job description.
‘We also see the reverse,’ Bohré adds. ‘When people feel reduced to a means, they withdraw. Engagement cannot be enforced. It only emerges when people are genuinely involved.’
Everyday choices
Humanity is not an abstract ideal, but a series of everyday choices—in language, in attention, and in the willingness not to avoid discomfort. According to Bohré, awareness is the first step. She concludes: ‘Only when people begin to recognise how often humanity is quietly undermined does space emerge to do things differently.’
Do you want to do more than promote inclusion, do you want to embed it sustainably in your leadership? Gain practical, research-based tools to provide direction in building a diverse and inclusive working environment.
More information & registration (Dutch speaking course)