Is Your Company a Family or a Team? Why Smart People Still Don’t Get Human Business

About a month ago on the HBR website in their HR Blog section, some smart and successful people wrote a post called Your Company Is Not a Family. The article was penned by Reid Hoffman, cofounder and Executive Chairman of LinkedIn, Ben Casnocha, award-winning entrepreneur and bestselling co-author, with Reid Hoffman, of The Start-up of You and Chris Yeh, entrepreneur and co-author of The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age. Some pretty nice pedigrees there.

But unfortunately, like many in the “business” world they are living in the past (IMO).

Let me explain.

The point of their article on the HBR site was that businesses shouldn’t talk about employees as members of the “family” but as members of a “team” and adopt the attitude that many sports franchises do where they put together the best team based on skills, for the money they have. In other words – approach your business like a money manager approaches their investment portfolios. No real people – just skills and talent profiles. Plug and play so to speak. Need an SEO person? Go buy the best and brightest you can with the money you have.

Remember – this isn’t show-friends this is show-business.


While this discussion sounds right at first, it is so wrong for the vast majority of businesses and for almost every single employee.

First of all: In the world of sports the visibility into talent and performance is almost 20/20 – for business however, we are Mr. Magoo behind the wheel of a Formula 1 car – business is moving fast and everything is blurry. There is no way to assess performance in the way sports franchises can, and therefore before the word go, this analogy falls apart.

Second: By comparison, the money we pay most employees doesn’t give us the ability to create the expectations we put in place for our multi-million dollar athletes. They can expect to be traded and moved around at a moment’s notice. They know they will be out the door when the next great player graduates from 8th grade. We don’t have that reality for most employees.

And Third. It’s just not the right thing to do (see #2 above). Because we don’t provide our employees with the ability to weather an employment world where, if you get let go after 2 years you can arguably not have to work for quite awhile, we need to be more human. We have to take into account how the organization’s needs intersect with the individual’s. That’s what human organizations do. Not to mention that most of the jobs we’re talking about in most of our organizations aren’t so specialized that we can’t retrain and reset employees into new positions much easier than a pro sports team.

Sure, the idea of buying and selling talent to create the best possible team sounds good and cool – ‘cuz we’re all masters of the universe don’t ya know – but the real world has to be taken into consideration. And the real world is approximately 150 million people supporting themselves and their families. For the record – the analogy in this article applies to approximately 2,000,000 professional athletes (but in reality, we’re talking probably the top 1%) who could arguably support about 100 families each based on their “average” salary. The analogy is a 3 sigma discussion. It only applies to the very tip of the tail in a normal distribution—not the people who we rub shoulders with every day.

Family Values VS Family

Where these smart guys go wrong is thinking that applying family “type” values is the same as treating people like “family.” Of course you can’t fire your kids. But there isn’t a financial and business contract involved with kids (okay maybe on the parents’ side there is.)

However, if you want to elevate your relationship above the transactional then having an organization that tries to leverage values that are similar to what you find in families can get much more out of the investment you make in your employees.

Courtesy, honesty, gratitude, second chances, training and support are all ways you can inject family values into an organization. These “values” have value. Maybe not in the traditional monetary sense. But they do offset monetary offers to a degree. Research has shown that employees will take less salary to work for a company that matches up to them in the values category. That is a #FACT.

I personally find the advice in this article a bit too sterile, transactional, logical. I don’t know about you, but I like my employer with a little emotion… a little humanity.

If you want to build a company using sports franchises as your model, go right ahead. But don’t be surprised when the competitor down the street (or the city of Cleveland) offers your best employee more money and they take it.

Because, just like in the advertisements about drug abuse that ran a few years back… they learned that from you.



FOT Background Check

Paul Hebert
Paul Hebert is the Senior Director of Solutions Architecture at Creative Group Inc and a writer, speaker and consultant. Paul focuses on influencing behaviors and driving business results through employees, channel partners and consumers. Over the course of his career, Paul has worked closely with clients to design influence, marketing, motivation, incentive, loyalty, recognition and reward programs to increase effectiveness and reduce costs. Paul is a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation. Want to know what’s going to motivate your people to perform at their best and impact the bottom line? Want to know whether your service award program really means anything at all? Curious what psychological principles drive sales behavior? Paul’s your guy… unless you fervently bow down to Maslow. Check out his personal blog at "What Is Paul Thinking?" when you're tired of his FOT rants.


  1. kd says:

    Paul –

    Nice take on a hot topic. For the employees who really, really want the sports handling, I think the best way to go is to foster an environment where the company isn’t viewed as a franchise/team, but where the manager is viewed as a career agent. That puts the manager in a spot to develop, be on the lookout for the employee and become a trusted part of the employee’s career.

    If that happens, I think retention is more possible than in the “what have your done for me lately” environment you’re describing, which I agree with.

    In short – i’d rather be the employee’s agent than the owner of the team they play for.

    No way Cleveland robs ME of talent…


    • Paul Hebert says:

      I’ve seen your riff on the agent thing before and like that approach too. Somehow there has to be a requirement or focus on what’s good for the employee. Too much of what passes for management advice is all about the company. Same goes for engagement – way too focused on what’s good for the company.

  2. Kellee Webb says:


    I couldnt agree more on considering your employees family. It doesnt mean you dont make the hard decisions when you need to, but it’s a realization we are working with human beings, not resources, and acting accordingly. It’s a balancing act to consider what is good for the family member AND the organization, and we teeter from side to side sometimes, playing in the gray areas.

    As a non-profit, not having deep pockets, we have to attract and retain our family members based on our values, mission of service to others and continuous investment/development in each person. The mission of service to others is not just for our clients, it’s for each other as well.


    • Paul Hebert says:

      service to others… operative phrase – and something executives need to consider more often. Thanks for the comment – really appreciate it.

  3. Marisa Lloyd says:


    Finally someone who gets it. Your article is incredibly relevant – globally engagement is one of the greatest challenges most organisations face, and why because they are mechanistic, transactional and have missed the point – humanizing the business environment translates into great leadership, unleash masses of potential and constructing a business which actually in the big scheme of things can purposeful and bring value to the world in which operate.

    • Paul Hebert says:

      It is truly amazing what can be accomplished if you really care about people first. Sure we need profit – it’s like oxygen – but it is only one thing in the mix… we need to adjust the mix for optimum output. And you get to help the world… win/win/win!

  4. Jason Pankow
    Jason Pankow says:

    Paul…I love this. But, mostly from an employee point of view. One of the reasons I love where I work is because I’ve always had the feeling that my people will cheer for me when I succeed and pick me up when I fall. I am closer to many of my coworkers than I am to my family. I know it’s a business…but, my team is a significant part of my life.


    • Paul Hebert says:

      Thanks Jason – my team has always been a big part of my life as well. Our owner always said he likes to do business with people he likes to do life with first. That is a great way to look at it in my opinion.

  5. la libert di Roberto And ottiene invece due David, ma molto importanti quello per sceneggiatura e quello come miglior chanel non protagonista (Valerio Mastandrea). Un contratto da sogno per qualsiasi chanel ma che non ha impedito la disaffezione di Ibra nei confronti del suo mestiere: “Con l’età bisogna curarsi di più. Basti pensare che il commissario della Camera di Commercio Fausto Piazza chanel nominato su indicazione di Venturi e non ha portato i suoi 3 voti in dote a Lo Bello, anz

Trackbacks for this post

  1. Is Your Company a Family or a Team? Why Smart People Still Don’t Get Human Business - Fresh

Comments are now closed for this article.

Contact Us | Hire FOT to Speak | About FOT