Last week Jack Shemtob, 53, a senior manager at Transport for London, was told he was being made redundant after 30 years' work. Shortly afterwards he took the lift to the sixth floor and plunged to his death in the office atrium.
Earlier in the week Mark and Helen Mullins, both aged 48, died at their home in Bedworth, Warwickshire. It was thought Mr Mullins, a former Army PE instructor, and his wife had killed themselves in desperation after what the Metro newspaper described as 'a series of health and benefit setbacks', including having their 12-year-old daughter taken into care.
A Salvation Army worker was quoted as saying: "This couple were simply allowed to slip through the net with tragic consequences." When they needed help, it wasn't there.
Whatever was going through Mr Shemtob's mind, it was clear he too had reached the end of his resources. An organisation that is making a fifth of its 25,000 staff redundant had not foreseen the consequences for one individual.
Maybe you can't blame Transport for London, in the same way that maybe you can't blame the social services and health workers assigned to Mark and Helen Mullins. Mostly people soldier on and get by. Those struggling on benefits remain out of sight and out of mind, and those struggling to cope with redundancy disappear quietly, as they are no doubt meant to.
It's embarrassing when people do something extreme, like committing suicide. It disturbs the order. It tells us all that the systems don't work. It's an affront to management, an intrusion of an alternative reality where people placed under intolerable stresses really do crack up.
Most of what we read about management and running organisations - especially public services - preserves the veneer of respectability and recasts organisational changes that mess up people's lives as efficiencies and innovations. So it's been refreshing in the last few days to read David Boyle's new book, The Human Element.
Boyle is one of the more underrated writers of our age, and his latest book is both grounded and far-sighted. He counters the organisational cultures that cannot handle human beings with a call for the introduction of a 'people principle' throughout businesses and public services: a belief that people work better when trusted to do the job well, and that organisations based on relationships and human understandings are more likely to act efficiently and effectively.
David Boyle has long been an advocate of co-production, where ordinary people are involved in shaping public services or businesses, and The Human Element renews that call. It proposes 10 people-centred rules for getting things done, first of which is to hire people for their personality rather than their qualifications.
He rails against the empires of global corporations and monolithic public institutions, demanding a really localist approach that gives everyone the chance to feel useful. He calls it 'the radical devolution of work to people, aware that their innate skills are their main tool to make things happen'.
Echoing Edgar Cahn's belief that there should be 'no more throwaway people', he rejects the cultures of efficiency sold by the bucketload by consultants like McKinsey, instead arguing that human interaction and intuition should be at the heart of our organisations. He also challenges the version of localism dispensed by the current government, arguing: 'There is no point in localism if towns and cities stay powerless supplicants to the power of semi-monopolies such as supermarkets or giant waste contractors.'
Sometimes Boyle skates over the complexities and difficulties of human relationships and their scope for going disastrously wrong. But in a world that increasingly seems to think all risks can be overcome with the right set of algorithms, that considers the answer to Europe's financial problems is handing over power to unelected technocrats, and that looks on helplessly when people are driven to despair, his vision of people-centred institutions is not just timely but vital.
Follow Julian Dobson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/juliandobson
Nicola Smith: Government Needs to Take Responsibility for Rising Unemployment
Job seeker Vicky Harrison commits suicide after she was rejected for ...
Suicide, unemployment, and domestic gas detoxification in Britain.
BBC News | Health | Suicide linked to unemployment
Publications from Oxford Monitoring System for Attempted Suicide ...
In his seminal paper on people-centered economic development founder Terry Hallman wrote:
"By leaving people in poverty, at risk of their lives due to lack of basic living essentials, we have stepped across the boundary of civilization. We have conceded that these people do not matter, are not important. Allowing them to starve to death, freeze to death, die from deprivation, or simply shooting them, is in the end exactly the same thing. Inflicting or allowing poverty on a group of people or an entire country is a formula for disaster."
As it turned out, prophetically he became disposable himself when taking a stand about human rights and died in August for the want of healthcare insurance.
By way of an anecdote, he and I set up People-Centered Economic Development in the UK 7 years ago as a social purpose business. One of our customers is Transport For London, who are 3 years in arrears with payment of our support invoices.
Tragically there seems to be a disconnect between those writing books and the activists like my former colleague who's been active in practical development of localised people-centered economies since 1999 and his work in Russia.
I've not read Boyle's latest, but am familiar with his excellent writing. Now is the time for a consideration of a more people-centred approach to getting things done, as the realisation dawns that the future won't be a mere continuance of the past that has brought us to this point of collapsing institutions. Our models need a rethink, our monetary and economic models, our governmental models, and our corporate models. Do those with the apparent power to make changes have the imagination or the will to do so, or should people realise they actually hold the power and can build solutions from the ground up?
The prosperity dream is broken, but within the misery and disappointment lies an opportunity to review, rethink and innovate new solutions. How about innovating new corporate formats emphasising social responsibility over shareholder value? How about relinquishing the state / banking monoplistic control of money creation to allow the issue of money itself to operate according to free market principles? Perhaps new kinds of money to serve different purposes will evolve? How about even questioning the concept of statism which arguably provides the fundamental support for many of the world's broken systems? OK admittedly some 'far fetched' points of conversation there which come with a host of complexities and impracticalities but don't we need to start thinking differently?
Take this for example:
"This is a long-term permanently sustainable program, the basis for "people-centered" economic development. Core focus is always on people and their needs, with neediest people having first priority – as contrasted with the eternal chase for financial profit and numbers where people, social benefit, and human well-being are often and routinely overlooked or ignored altogether. This is in keeping with the fundamental objectives of Marshall Plan: policy aimed at hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. This is a bottom-up approach, starting with Ukraine's poorest and most desperate citizens, rather than a "top-down" approach that might not ever benefit them. They cannot wait, particularly children. Impedance by anyone or any group of people constitutes precisely what the original Marshall Plan was dedicated to opposing. Those who suffer most, and those in greatest need, must be helped first -- not secondarily, along the way or by the way. "
You'll find more in the paper, including the case for business with an embedded social purpose which appears 5 years later under the title of Creating Shared Value. Yesterday. Social Enterprise Day, I asked Allison Ogden-Newton why a UK support organisation was endorsing the theories of an American University when the concept derives from the work of UK social enterprise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/social-enterprise-network/2011/nov/17/spin-out-public-sector-social-enterprise-sel
They don't realise because they aren't listening.