People-Centered Model of Business

By: Ramla Akhtar, CC BY-NC-ND 2.5

I have mentioned the work of Dr. Fernando Flores many times before in this blog. I also keep an eye out for other authors that speak on similar topics to gauge how Fernando’s work is influencing the broader conversation.  Recently I thought I had stumbled on something that was evidence of this influence. A paper entitled Why Do We Do Business? Introducing PC MOB – The People-Centered Model of Business, by Ramla Akhtar.

Unfortunately I was disappointed. The paper was posted in her blog on 6 May 2006. What disappoints me is there seems to be no further development of this model. Ms. Akhtar calls it a first draft, and invites comments and suggestions. I wish there was more, because this has potential. As it stands, there is a lot missing.

Firsts she calls herself a “philosopher, entrepreneur, and teacher.”  But, in the paper, she offers no background or bona fides to establish experience, training or authority in these areas.  A general search of her name gave me her LinkedIn profile, which lead to another blog and website, none of which indicate furtherance of the topic. I see no training in philosophy, so I do not value that claim. She is on sabbatical until the end of this month, so I hope there will be more on this model.

But my chief issue is with her model not really addressing her premise. This is my assessment, not a fact. Let me explain. She starts with a story about teaching classes in business, and the observation that her students did not learn that money is not the primary reason we do business.

My heart sank. Didn’t they know where the chasers of money end up? Weren’t they listening closely to the secrets of the most successful men and women? Was that all about money?

So her premise is that humans engage in business for some primary reason other than money. She also explains later that money is “…a common denominator, some medium of exchange that is understandable by all.” Further that a “…money-based transaction, when not done for service of the humanitarian kind, is called “business.” That contradicts her main premise by defining business as something excluding service to humanity. I patently disagree with that point of view; to me it is hopeless as it presumes that anyone who requires pay for their service is not serving humanity. I know a few nurses & military personnel who might object.

The model she offers is a diagram dividing human life four zones: Spiritual, Personal-Familial, Socio-Economic, and Eco-Political. Within each zone people act in various roles.  She explains that the key element missing from the model is how the roles are expressed. In other words the model itself does nothing to provide guidance for action that will reduce the thrown-ness to money as the purpose for business. But the paper explains to a degree why expression of roles is critical for entrepreneurs, and that the mode of expression will vary from culture to culture. Recognizing these two factors is important, but more development and grounding are needed.

However this division of life into domains and roles within the domains is not new. Steven Covey did it in The 7 Habits and First Things First. What is more he grounded these two in values and real human concerns.

My other objection is that she also reduces non-money transactions as barter arrangements. It seems she is saying that all human interaction is a quid-pro-quo arrangement. “Within a family, barter of services and sacrifices can be arranged…” In other-words, even exchange is the sole motivator for action. That is, to me, a money transaction without money, based on what she says about working outside the family. That proposition scares me.

Next she claims that these zones relate to each other and create the “circle of life.” Spiritual leads to Personal-Familial leads to Socio-Economic leads to Eco-Political, and back to the start. I say that is too linear and temporal (never mind that it is diagrammed as a circle) to engender the complexity of human endeavors.

The remainder of the work has many terms that are not well explained, and declarations that are not well grounded (e.g. “The PC MOB elicits empathy as a reader takes a realistic stock of the people being studied.”). I say the diagram can also be used to leverage an approach to make more money. It is a tool, just as a hammer is a tool that can be wielded for building or destroying.

Yes it is easy to criticize. I think my assessment that the work needs much more development before it can be useful is fairly well grounded. I wrote this in hope of spurring the author and her followers to further develop the model to answer the original question: why humans do business. Dr Flores’ work address the issue from a different vantage point: why we need to view humans as central to all business activity: not why humans do business, but why business is human, and what new skills are needed to make it work better for us all.