The art of treating others: Kantian Ethics and The Office Style
How should we treat others? And what we can learn from Immanuel Kant and the great Michael Scott!
Before we begin, Ordinary Analysis is absolutely free. You can subscribe by clicking on this nifty button below:
Immanuel Kant, one of the most influential philosophers, has said this about treating other human beings:
Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, at all times also as an end, and not only as a means.
If I have to elaborate on this through an example: say you need to go to the supermarket but your car is malfunctioning. So you go and talk with the neighbour, engage in chit-chat, ask her how she is doing and within 10 mins you ask her to drive you to the supermarket. Here you are treating her as a means. Not an end. If you had asked her how she was doing and been genuinely interested in that without any other end goal, then you would have treated her as an end itself.
In the sitcom The Office, the manager Michael Scott goes to Chilli’s to finalise a deal with a client. He was there with his manager Jan. Jan was eager to start talking about business right away. But Michael was talking about the town, himself, and asking personal questions to the client. Throughout the meeting, he never treated the other person as a means, but rather as an end in itself. And the result? He got the deal.
This is also something that Dale Carnegie has said multiple times in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People. In order to establish even a working relationship, specifically if you’re from sales, taking a genuine interest in another’s life goes a long way. He has repeatedly told us to be genuine in the pursuit. I don’t know if the Office writers have kept that in mind while writing the show but they followed that particularly well. There were many other instances when this had happened in the show.
I have always tried to treat friends and family members as an end. Not a means to an end. It has helped a lot in establishing a genuine relationship. But when it comes to work, I think we need to be somewhere in the middle.
When you treat someone as a means to an end, you’re only concerned about the output the other person is providing. As long as that is there, you shouldn’t be concerned about what they might be doing outside the office. I know a few managers in my organization who do that. As long as you’re giving the output, they’re happy. They’ll never ask why are you taking a leave, why haven’t you logged in at 9 AM etc. The problem with them is they lack empathy. So sometimes, talking to them about personal stuff (that is necessary if that person is your direct manager) becomes difficult.
Now comes the other kind. On average, they’ll show more empathy for sure. And they will know about your personal life too. And so there will be the trade-off. Sometimes they’ll tend to micro-manage you or get involved too much in your personal life. If you ask for a leave, they might ask you the reason, even though you are not entitled to tell them that. Even this was the problem with Michael Scott in the show. He would get involved with the employees too much. And would “treat” them as a “family” which more often than not you would not want your boss to do.
Ideally, I am fine with being treated as a means when it comes to the workplace. But some degree of empathy helps a lot!
So, how do you treat others in your personal and professional life? Do you see them as ends or means? Do you think there is a balance between empathy and efficiency? I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Please share your comments below or on social media.
And if you enjoyed this post, don’t forget to share and subscribe to my newsletter. Thank you for reading!
I think the missing element to bridge the two would be boundaries. Specifically "healthy boundaries". One can be empathetic and genuine while understanding professional boundaries in a corporate setting.