Is People First Leadership Utilitarian?

Several years ago I engaged in a debate with a colleague over the nature of People First Leadership. The issue in question was how to make decisions when the interests of people conflict. My colleague took a distinctly utilitarian view on the matter. I did not.

What is Utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is an outcomes-based ethical framework that suggests the "right" choice results in the most total utility (i.e., well-being, welfare, happiness, etc.). In other words, we're looking for the most positive outcome, the most net good. If you have to choose between improving the lives of two people or improving the life of one person, you choose the two. Additionally, if an outcome results in someone suffering, you still choose that outcome when it produces the most net good. Moral philosophers will no doubt assert there is more to utilitarianism than this basic explanation, but this provides enough context to understand my colleague's point of view.

Group Good vs. Individual Good

My colleague, a self-proclaimed people-first leader, was using the utilitarian perspective to justify a decidedly business-first decision, and it pained me to see the leadership style twisted in such a way. The premise of my colleague's argument was that this decision would benefit the most people on our team; therefore, it was "people first." But that's not how People First Leadership works.

My utilitarian colleague believed a fellow employee to be an under-performer and suggested that taking steps to remove her would benefit our team and the organization. From a business-first perspective, that course of action can be hard to argue with. Replacing an under-performing employee with a high-performing employee will likely produce better business results, but I'm not convinced it would ultimately lead to better outcomes overall.

For starters, this employee was a part of our team. She was a colleague, a friend. Morale certainly would have declined with the exit of this employee. Furthermore, this would have been a blatant termination, no doubt instilling some fear and/or anxiety in remaining employees. Will I be next? they would wonder. The cultural implications could be far reaching.

Yet, even if this employee was despised and morale would have improved with her termination, People First Leadership challenges us to consider the individual, too. Sure, if an employee is actively harassing people, maliciously harming the business, or participating in illegal activity, then there is a clear case for termination. But this employee wasn't. She was doing her best, and with a good attitude. You can't teach attitude.

People or Person?

This employee, though a singular person, has value. She has a family. She has friends. She has passions and beliefs and flaws and vices, like anyone. What's more, she has the capability to grow! Why waste company resources firing and hiring when you can simply train and develop? We have someone who is already familiar with and loyal to the mission. Why take a chance on a new hire who may not ultimately stay or be a good fit? To marginally improve the numbers? The grass isn't always greener, as the saying goes.

In these situations, People First Leaders must first look to themselves. Am I supporting this employee? Have I been clear in communicating expectations for the job? Does this employee have extenuating circumstances preventing her from accomplishing her duties? Is she being unfairly treated by her colleagues? Where has my leadership failed her? These were the questions I encouraged my utilitarian colleague to ask. I wasn't able to convince her to change her mind about our colleague (who wasn't terminated, by the way), but maybe these questions will help others consider another perspective.

Is People First Leadership Utilitarian?

Is People First Leadership utilitarian? The answer is yes and no. In general, People First Leaders try to make decisions that result in good for people, but the leadership style cannot be attributed to a single moral philosophy—real-life scenarios are much more nuanced (which is perhaps why philosophers have failed to arrive at a widely accepted, one-size-fits-all ethical perspective). In this case, the net good of the many does not outweigh the suffering of the one. (I guess that means people-first leadership is sometimes person-first leadership, too.)

It's important to remember that leadership isn't always black and white, right or wrong, good or bad. We lead for the many and the few, even the one. Each person has value and that truth must always sit heavily with us. People are first.