The following is a conversation between Michele Zanini, Co-Author of Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them, and Denver Frederick, the Host of The Business of Giving.
Denver: Today, many organizations are feeling stuck and struggling to move away from outdated management practices towards a more human-centered approach. It’s no easy feat, but luckily, there’s a book that can help. Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them offers powerful strategies for creating organizations that truly value their people and empower them to reach their full potential. And we’re delighted to have one of its co-authors with us today, Michele Zanini, who also is a co-founder of MLab.
Welcome to The Business of Giving, Michele.
Michele Zanini, Co-Author of Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them
Michele: Thank you so much for having me here today.
Denver: So, let’s start with the basics. What does the term “humanocracy” mean, and why is it important for organizations to embrace this philosophy?
Michele: It’s a good question because the name is a new word. We termed it to really describe organizations that are in stark contrast to the traditional form of organizing and managing, which is “bureaucracy.”
Bureaucracy sounds like an old-fashioned term, a little bit like horsepower and in many ways, it is, but it still defines how most organizations are run, led, and managed. So, if you think about characteristics like power is lauded in positions; big leaders appoint leaders; roles are formally and narrowly described; strategy set at the top; people compete for the scarce resource of promotion; influence correlates with rank, not necessarily value added— all those things are the defining features of bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy is great at delivering, in a way… control at scale, and we need control, and there are a lot of benefits to bureaucracy… certainly when it was invented 120 years ago.
But, we now live in a completely different world where control is important, but so is innovation, so is resilience, so is passion, and bureaucracy really is not good at that because it is geared towards driving conformance at scale. And what we wanted to describe — and happily, there are a lot of organizations that do this so we can get into it — is an organization that delivers to maximize not so much conformance, but contribution of people.
And so humanocracy is a way to think about an organization that is really designed to maximize human contribution, as opposed to maximizing control and conformance.
“… the environment around them shifts, but they are not willing to let go, and unless they write off their rapidly depreciating intellectual capital, then the organization remains stuck”
Denver: There are four principles as you lay them out in the book, and let’s run through them. Let’s start with one, which I think is really central to bureaucracy, and that would be “centralization.”
You are advocating for decentralization. How does that work?
Michele: Most bureaucratic organizations presume that the thinking is done at the top of the organization, so even though we may not like to think about this and talk about it this way, but there is a bit of a caste system where the thinkers are at the top, and the doers are at the bottom. And the thinkers have unique perspective and skills that they can use to set how their organization works, the direction it takes, and so on. So, it’s partly centralization in the sense that authority and power are centralized at the top, but it’s also a part of this idea of a very vertical organization.
With all these layers, and information and direction kind of flow from the top to the bottom, and I actually hate that word “bottom” because I don’t think organizations really have a bottom, but that’s sort of how ingrained this is, that it’s kind of a pyramid.
And again, you could argue that 100 years ago, 50 years ago even, information was really hard to move around the organization; skills in your organization, especially administrative skills were kind of scarce. You know, a lot of people didn’t go to college or didn’t have access to computers, and all the information that they have, and they can kind of make it available freely.
So, it kind of made sense maybe, in an early era, to direction setting and task management and all of that at the top, but the problem is that if you do that, then you create all sorts of problems. One of them that we talk about in the book is that the organization then remains kind of hostage to the ability of the people at the top to really imagine new challenges, new threats, new opportunities. And so you can see that time and time again, organizations missing the future because the people at the top of the organizations may have had their career in a completely different environment; the environment around them shifts, but they are not willing to let go, and unless they write off their rapidly depreciating intellectual capital, then the organization remains stuck… like the bottleneck really often is at the top of the bottle.
The other thing that centralization does is that it creates these very kind of coarse and blunt trade-offs, like if decisions need to be made at the center, you don’t have the nuance that you sometimes need to make the right decision at the local level.
And so you have these policies that make sense at the top because they make their organization easier to manage, but they make very little sense at the periphery, like at the call phase where the frontline employees deal with the stakeholders or customers and the like. So, you create organizations that are very slow to change and not very nuanced, and so the trick and what we talk about in the book is, “How do you get the benefits of centralization? How do you get that coherence at the strategic level and that discipline without the costs?”
“…there may be a lot of people who are not managers who have amazingly brilliant ideas and are adding a ton of value to the organization, but unless they are in that administrative chain, they’re not heard.”
Denver: You know, I’ve always thought that the future of the organization is probably on the phone of your most junior employees, and you got everybody up in the boardroom, the senior people, but it’s down there below, and they know what the future is going to bring, so that’s a really good point.
And the way you described bureaucracy, it really did sound like the old assembly line when you had the thinkers there, and then people would be on the line, and they would just be tasked, but it’s a completely different world as you say.
Let’s talk about another one, “meritocracy.” How does that come into play, and what does it do to employ motivation and engagement in this new way of thinking?
Michele: In a way, it’s ironic because in bureaucracies, by depersonalizing decisions about promotion and about resource allocation, they were really designed to make the whole process more meritocratic. So, it used to be that nepotism and politics ruled the day in terms of who got hired, who got promoted— it was the nephew. I mean, nepotism, it comes from Latin, and so like you’d basically hire your nephews, and so on.
So, bureaucracy, certainly, is an advancement relative to pre-modern ways of organizing, but the problem is that it assumes people are kind of like super rational and not very social beings, but we are very social; we are sometimes not hyper-rational, so what you end up getting is a system that often doesn’t work as meritocratically as intended. In particular, when decisions about something like promotion are left to the manager, or even performance review to a manager, the manager is often quite biased.
If the manager hires the person that he or she’s reviewing, it’ll be more favorably disposed and unwilling, maybe, to give that person a bad mark. The person who is being reviewed or is being promoted will do everything in his or her power to please the boss, and sometimes that means not giving the feedback where it’s warranted or not speaking truth to power because that could be a career-limiting move.
So, that’s one problem that the way decisions are made about merits, it’s an hierarchical process where the boss makes the decision…and creates all sorts of problems.
The other thing that I think bureaucracy does is that it correlates influence and voice with position. Position is often really about how good an administrator you are.
If you’re like someone who’s doing really, really well in an organization, the only way to advance is to become a manager and an administrator. You could be a great individual contributor, a great frontline employee, but you’re not gonna necessarily have more clout unless you go up the chain.
First of all, it puts people in a managerial track where they may not necessarily be best deployed in that way, but second of all, it’s not really allocating influence based on value added because there may be a lot of people who are not managers who have amazingly brilliant ideas and are adding a ton of value to the organization, but unless they are in that administrative chain, they’re not heard.
So, one of the things that a lot of the companies that we talk about in the book that are a little bit post-bureaucratic… more resembling of a humanocracy… what they do is they try to separate voice and decisions about impact from that hierarchy. They introduce ways of bringing in the voice of the customer, the voice of the stakeholder, the voice of the peers in deciding who’s really adding value, irrespective of where they sit in the organization, whether they’re an EVP or frontline employee.
“What drives me crazy often is that people think very intuitively about prototyping new services or new products, but when it comes to management practices, they don’t, but they should because that’s a way to learn and de-risk the change.”
Denver: That makes an awful lot of sense, and having been part of a few bureaucratic organizations in my time, I can only remember the time and energy you spent in trying to play that game and trying to manage that bureaucracy to be able to get ahead, and it really didn’t do anything to foster the good of the organization or bring in profits or revenues; it was really… you’re going in there saying: Who do you need to see, and who do you need to please, and what do you got to do? And it was really, at the end of the day, a lot of wasted energy.
You know, there are a couple of other principles there, but let me go onto this and say, How do you make this shift?
I talk to a lot of people, Michele, and you know, you’re right on point when I speak to them about these things, but they just can’t let go to what they know, what they’ve been trained in, and really take that leap to try to make this shift from a bureaucracy to a humanocracy.
What have you seen, and what are some of the ways to get them over that hump to begin to embrace this change?
Michele: It’s a very good question and in a way, it is the critical question because you could argue that what we have in the book is not entirely new. We may have some interesting examples, anecdotes, and some data, but this idea that our organizations are not as capable as the people inside them– it has a long, long pedigree.
The problem is making this shift, and it is a difficult shift to make because it involves restructuring a social system and changing power relations and shifting mindsets… and doing it in an environment that is not necessarily reinforcing this because I think we have this analogy in the book: it says you can try to do this, but it’s hard. It’s almost like, you’re in the UK where they’re driving on the other side of the road, but with an American car; it could work, but it’s difficult. So, you have to recognize that it’s difficult and I would say this: it can be done; it takes work, and it’s a worthwhile challenge to take, but what you need to do is you need to work on this both at the individual and the institutional level.
At the individual level, especially if you are a person in a position of power, you need to maybe start by doing a bit of a fearless moral inventory and understand like, “When am I acting more as a bureaucrat than as a leader?” and I think you’ve got to separate those two things because… even this idea, the word “leadership” is now being conflated with basically being up the chain of command, but I think leadership has more to do with followership than where you sit and create.
Mary Parker Follet, an amazing manager and writer from the early 20th century, talked about the fact that the work of leaders is to create more leaders. So, think about like, “When did I basically undermine my leadership integrity to pursue bureaucratic goals? When did I not speak up when I needed to? When did I take credit for work that my team did?” Or “When did I decide to exercise my positional prerogative instead of having my teams take a chance and try something new?” And just ask yourself, “When did I fall down on this?” And then try to have the team hold you accountable for this as well. So, I think there’s a personal shift one can make. It’s kind of detoxing yourself from these old and ingrained beliefs and behaviors that one has learned over time.
And then the other thing that you can do is have an honest conversation with your team, ideally with the entire organization on, “How do we change this? How do we take these principles?— principles like meritocracy, like openness, like markets and ownership”– we have seven of them in the book— and, “If we were serious about these principles, what would change?” in “How we set direction? How we reward people? How we evaluate performance? How we allocate resources?” And have this be an open conversation that involves everyone because when you open this up, you get a ton of enthusiasm, but then it’s also hard. You set kind of an expectation that you are serious about change, and so it’s kind of hard to walk it back, and you are involving a lot of people in the change process. And that, I think, makes it more sticky.
And then the last thing I would say is: When you think about the ideas that might come out of an open conversation about how the organization ought to be different, think about these in a very kind of experimental way because often, you know, in my work at large consultancies, when we changed the organizations, we always went in with sort of like a fully-baked solution that you, at some point, would flip the switch and you would go from 0 to 1… a completely different way of doing things, whether it’s performance review or strategy development or whatever. And instead, what we advocated in the book is being very experimental… thinking about prototypes.
So, let’s say you wanted to change the way you review people, you hire people, don’t change it as a blanket policy from one day to the next. Try a different way of doing it, a little like a prototype. Maybe in one part of the organization, run an experiment for like 30 days with not much budget. Be very hypothesis-driven, and then learn from that and iterate.
What drives me crazy often is that people think very intuitively about prototyping new services or new products, but when it comes to management practices, they don’t, but they should because that’s a way to learn and de-risk the change.
“So, everyone is like a manager. It’s not like, ‘Oh, there’s no management.’ No, there is plenty of management, it’s just done differently.”
Denver: Yeah, well, I think we have this mindset of the HR manual, and you want to put it in there and codify everything, and that’s probably not the way to do it. I liked a couple things you said there too. One is that the leader has to change first. You have to have that self-awareness to be able to change.
And then it sounded almost as if, Michele, you begin to put into practice humanocracy when you decide to change to humanocracy. Don’t do it from the top, but get everybody in the organization involved in an open conversation right away.
You mentioned also something about organizational structure, and I’d be curious as to get your thinking on that because we’re pretty all locked in and have imprinted on our mind the rectangles on a sheet, with the lines connecting, and everybody’s in a slot, and everybody kind of feeds up the chain. How does the organizational structure change in this new model?
Michele: There’s a lot of talk about, and hype about, flat organizations or boss-less organizations.
To be sure, the organizations we talk about in the book are definitely flatter. One of the companies we talk about is Haier. They’re an appliance maker in China. They have about 80,000 people around the world, 60,000 in China. They have two layers of management between the CEO and the frontline teams, and they’re super disaggregated, where basically, they’ve established 4,000 little microenterprises that operate as little startups instead of a big company.
We also have a nonprofit— in the book… we talk about it in the preface, and we’re now doing a revision of the book. There’ll be a deeper treatment of them — called Buurtzorg. They’re the largest home care providers in the Netherlands. It’s basically 16,000 nurses and nursing assistants that are organized in teams. Again, small teams with about 10 people, 12 people per team, and there’s basically no hierarchy between these teams. They are self-managing, and the head is the founder of this organization. They are incredibly disciplined and efficient and have amazing patient outcomes, certainly better than their competitors, their peers in the Netherlands, and beyond.
So you have organizations that are very flat; they don’t have many people in middle management. They also don’t have many people in support functions. Yes, of course, you have HR, you have IT, and all of those, but there are far fewer. The managerial administrative footprint is much smaller, but that doesn’t mean that the work of managing goes away. What these companies have done is that they’ve basically syndicated the work of managing to everyone. So, everyone is like a manager. It’s not like, “Oh, there’s no management.” No, there is plenty of management, it’s just done differently.
With flatter structures, you have a much smaller kind of delta between sense and respond because the people who are in these entrepreneurial units at the periphery, at the edge of the organization, they are much more empowered. They can take decisions; they can do what’s best for the customer in the immediate moment and the like. And the work of those people at the top, there’s still a structure, but as I said, it’s flatter and thinner. But their work is less about telling people what to do and more being like the social architect. Their work is on shaping a system that is dynamic and self-evolving. So, they’re constantly preoccupied with, “Is the organizational model we have, is the structure that we have, is it maximizing this human contribution from everyone inside of the firm or not? And if not, how do we change that?”
So, it’s less about telling people what to do and more about creating this kind of environment.
Denver: Yeah, it just seems to move from static in the old way to something that is quite dynamic, that is continually changing, and it will continue to change.
For those organizations that have sought to implement humanocracy, what are some of the common challenges that they’ve run into, and what have they done to overcome them?
Michele: One of the challenges is, I think, cutting and pasting other people’s practices. The reason why, Denver, we were very focused on the principles rather than the practices is that you might be excited about what Buurtzorg does or Haier does, but what you need to learn from these organization is not so much what they do… although that’s kind of interesting, and it shows that it’s possible to be radically different and highly efficient and so on… but rather how they think: “What were those deep beliefs and principles that drove this management model?”
And so, for us, what organizations need to do is not so much look at best practice and take that, but rather have this kind of conversation that I mentioned earlier, which is to say, “If we really wanted to be open, or we really wanted to be meritocratic, what would need to change?” And come up with an answer that is customized in a way too and inspired maybe by others, but really specific to your context.
After all, we all are very aware of the fact that we need to have differentiated business models to be competitive. Why should you just settle to have someone else’s manager model? You should have something that is unique to you. So, that will be one thing, like really being focused on these principles, and come up with practices that are not only faithful to the principles, but in sync with your culture, with your context, your aspirations, and the like.
The second thing I think you need to do is, as I said, work both on the individual and the institutional. So this idea, you need to, in a way, make the change be parallel. So you need to have people make a personal transformation journey, but you also need to kind of back that up with real changes to the structure and the processes. If you do one, but not the other, you’re going to stumble.
And by the way, the change to the personal mindsets and behaviors aren’t just confined to those in positions of power, but also the people who you are trying to empower… because there’s a ton of learned helplessness often where people say like they’ve been told what to do for 20 years, and now you’re telling them, “Hey, we want you to be empowered; we want you to take charge.” And often they’re like, “Oh, what do I do?” And they might have quite a bit of fear.
So, Michelin, which we talk about in the book… they’re one of the largest tire makers in the world, and they went through a process of what they called the “responsibilization” and kind of a way of saying “empowerment,” but it’s not just about giving power, but also giving accountability and responsibility.
And they were very careful to make sure the training and the support for people to change the way they thought and the way they behaved was not just geared towards the leaders, but also towards the frontline employees, giving them often the tools like, “How do you give feedback to your boss in a constructive way, but in a way that really pushes back?” or “How do you get the tools if you’re asked to be more innovative?” Like maybe you need more technical skills; maybe you need business skills.”
So, supporting people in that personal and professional journey to empowerment, so that’s on the individual side.
On the institutional side, as I mentioned before, making those kinds of big changes, but then being very experimental in how you get there. You don’t blow up your strategy process; you might run a variant of it, or you run a new strategy process in parallel with the old, and then you compare notes.
So, that’d be number two or three, and then the last one, as I said, is just making it a social process. Just coming down from Mount Sinai with the tablets and saying, “Here’s how we’re going to change,” is a recipe for, I think, failure because first of all, you at the top may not, by yourself, have enough bandwidth or imagination to know what the right answer is. And second of all, change that is imposed, even if it’s imposed with all the best intentions, is often resisted, and then you have to sell it to people as opposed to having people be part of that process from the beginning.
So, those would be some of the pitfalls and kind of ways to counter them.
“…the number of times I heard people talk about the fact that they think of their colleagues as part of their family was really striking to me and touching.“
Denver: For those who have implemented these principles, how do they measure success? Are there any metrics they can use to see whether this change model is actually working?
Michele: In the book, we talk about the fact that companies that move to this kind of model are seeing pretty significant increases in productivity.
I think there’s quite a bit of evidence that when you free up people’s ingenuity, you just get a ton more imagination and insight and innovation. So it’s pretty clear, and it manifests itself in being able to grow faster than your competitors, and having more customer satisfaction, greater loyalty. It means, also, me being able to move faster than the competition.
And then the other thing that you see very clearly is the human impact. People are much more engaged. They treat their work as a calling, and they have amazing social relationships.
I’ve visited several companies. One of them is Nucor. They’re a steel maker in the U.S. They have mills all over, particularly in the southeast of the U.S., and the number of times I heard people talk about the fact that they think of their colleagues as part of their family was really striking to me and touching.
So, it’s the human impact on the people that work in the organization, and then the business impact in terms of its sheer performance.
Denver: It sounds wonderful about the workplace culture that is so hard to move very often, but it is so important, and to be able to recruit and retain the top talent.
Does this work pretty much across the board, in every industry, or is it better for some industries and maybe not quite as good for some others?
And I’m really also looking at this through the prism of nonprofits, in terms of how this would work there, and maybe also how nonprofits– because they do have sort of a human-centered way in their work– could help be a leader in this movement.
Michele: As long as we have human beings, and not ChatGPT run, working in organizations, then I think the model is universal because it is based on some deep human values and principles that are really behind the flourishing and accomplishment.
The solutions might differ depending on the industry, depending on the firm, and that’s why we really encourage people to think about the principles in imagining how they apply in their particular context.
I’ve had many conversations with people who say, “Well, Michele, you don’t understand,” like, “Our industry is super-regulated, so we have to be super top-down and rule-driven,” and I’m like, “Yeah, I mean, there are some things you just have to deal with. If it’s external regulation, that’s fine, but often, when you peel the onion a little bit, you realize a lot of that control is self-inflicted.”
And so I think if you’re ambitious enough and creative enough, you’ll find ways to square the circle to basically, and what we talk about is like, you want to separate the “what” from the “how.” And again, you want control? The question is: How do you get control? You can get it through supervision and policies at top direction, or you can get it through values and the mission and peer regulation, incentives, and information, and skills. And so, anyways, that’s a long way to say: this can happen anywhere.
In the nonprofit world, I think it’s incredibly fertile ground. Buurtzorg, that example that I mentioned, they’re not a nonprofit organization. The person that founded it, Jos de Blok, was actually a nurse in the Dutch healthcare system, and he was so sick of all the bureaucracy, all the metrics, all the ways they were getting in the way of him being able to deliver a great experience to patients. So he said, “I’m done with this. I’m gonna create my own organization outside of the government, and then I’ll contract with the government, and I’m gonna create it with this idea of humanity over bureaucracy.”
That’s like their ethos, and then you’re driving people into the organization who share that mission, and the mission is unbelievably important as a way to coalesce people and empower people around a common goal; and nonprofits have that in spades, more so than for-profit institutions.
So, the question, though, is: How do you make sure that you are then really freeing people up to pursue that mission in a responsible way, but also in a way that is very entrepreneurial and very dynamic? And that’s where, at least I’m no expert in the sector, but what I see and I see this in government as well, is that there’s almost a sense that nonprofits to look credible or to appear well-managed, they just import that bureaucratic way of managing that they see in the private sector.
And so it’s almost like they have a bit of, “Oh, we need to show that we are well-managed, and therefore we’ll do what General Motors does.” And it’s totally the wrong way to do it. I think you could just challenge yourself to think about, “How do we manage ourselves in a way that is consistent with our mission and maybe completely different from how GM does it?” And that’s totally fine, and so that would be my challenge like, “How do you remove all those bureaucratic barriers to really delivering on your mission?” and “How do you remove that insecurity that you need to look like a corporation to do that?”
Denver: Yeah, they end up Frankensteining themselves and doing something from the corporate sector that does not really fit with what the nonprofit sector should be doing, and we have a tendency to do that. I sometimes even look at remote and hybrid work and the efforts that companies and organizations are making to try to really capture what we had in the workplace, but then I stop and think, Michele, and I said, “Everybody hated that workplace back in 2019, so why are we twisting ourselves into a pretzel to try to re-create something that we wanted to leave?”
You know, you’ve done an awful lot of work in this area for many years, so let me close with this: Did you have an “Aha moment” in writing this book and researching this book, an “Eureka moment” that got you to look at this endeavor differently, that maybe would be a pearl of wisdom that you could pass on to our listeners?
Michele: Well, I guess, I’ve had a lot of “Aha moments” when going deep into these organizations that managed so radically, and it was almost moving to me. Seeing these people at the frontline with an amazing responsibility; they were in charge of making million-dollar decisions; they weren’t asking for permission; they didn’t have to sign 50 forms. They basically were unbelievably creative, full of ingenuity, full of dynamism, and they were working for organizations that were able to kind of capture that magic at scale and kind of harnessing this everyday genius. And to me, it just became so clear that organizations use a very small minority of the human kind of the cognitive capacity that they can tap.
And so that is both a tragedy which kind of moves me in a way. It’s almost like not just economically wrong, but it’s also morally wrong that people can’t flourish at work, but it’s also an amazing opportunity. We could be so much more productive, so much more vibrant, both as a set of institutions and as a society, if we could just figure out, and if we committed ourselves to this idea of building organizations that are fit for the people inside them, and are as capable, are as innovative, are as passionate, and are as resilient as the people inside them. And I think there’s a way to do that, and that to me is the challenge of the 21st century and the one that really drives me, and I hope that many of our listeners will kind of be interested enough to think about this and explore this path for themselves and for their organization.
“So, again, trust is a very powerful concept, but it’s not something you can just kind of talk your way into. It’s the product of a set of decisions you make about the organization and how it works. That’s really an important thing. It takes work and it takes time, but it can be done; and once you have it, it creates an amazing workplace.”
Denver: Yeah, and thinking about that person on the frontline making those million-dollar decisions, I guess, really at the heart of all this is trust, correct?
Michele: Yeah. Trust, but it’s trust that isn’t just the soft and fuzzy and warm word, but that is the product of a set of decisions you make around how you select people, how you train people, how you hold people accountable, what information you give them to make the right decisions.
Just saying, “Hey, let’s trust our people,” that’s fine, but it may not necessarily end up well, and it actually may end up backfiring if you’re not creating a system that, in a way, fosters trust and requires trust at the same time.
The reason why the people were, at Nucor for instance, entrusted with big decisions is that they’re kind of on the hook for the economic consequences of those decisions. They’re on the hook to their peers because a lot of their gate-sharing is at the team level, and they all know what those decisions mean in terms of the business impact.
So, they have the tools and the context and the skills to exercise their autonomy judiciously, and they know, by the way, what are the things, again, maybe a bit of an aside, but automation is a big worry now that basically people will be automated out of their job by intelligent machines. Like Nucor for instance, the steel maker, they are the largest adopter of automation technology, and most of the ideas on what to automate come from the frontline, and the reason for that is a) the frontline teams get paid on productivity, so if they can automate a process and make it more productive, they share in the benefits of that.
And the other thing is that, Nucor, even though they’re in a very cyclical industry— steel is very, very cyclical; if there’s a recession, there’s less steel demand, and so their business goes down quite a bit— but despite that, they’ve never done mass layoffs. They don’t lay people off. I mean, if you’re incompetent, you get fired, for sure, but they don’t lay people off. So basically, if you do your job well, you know it’s there for you even in a bad year. So, there is this trust that is long term because you can automate a process and not fear that you’re going to automate yourself out of a job.
So, again, trust is a very powerful concept, but it’s not something you can just kind of talk your way into. It’s the product of a set of decisions you make about the organization and how it works. That’s really an important thing. It takes work and it takes time, but it can be done; and once you have it, it creates an amazing workplace.
Denver: Sounds that way. The title of the book is Humanocracy: Creating Organizations as Amazing as the People Inside Them. It’s a priceless guide to help you build an organization that’s fit for the future and fit for human beings.
Thanks, Michele, for being here today. It was a real pleasure to have you on the program.
Michele: Thank you. Thank you so much, Denver.
Denver Frederick, Host of The Business of Giving serves as a Trusted Advisor and Executive Coach to Nonprofit Leaders. His Book, The Business of Giving: New Best Practices for Nonprofit and Philanthropic Leaders in an Uncertain World, is available now on Amazon and Barnes & Noble.