Human Replacement Theory Explained
Introduction: Why Another Organizational Framework?
In an era where people are digitally displaced and organizations are guided by algorithmic systems; Human Replacement Theory offers a radically different lens through which to see and direct your organization. Coined by executive-turned-author Brian L. Nygaard, the theory is not a rejection of digital innovation, financial engineering, artificial intelligence, or systems thinking. It is rather an unsubtle rebuttal to the technocratic elite mindset that obsoletes human beings, while incorporating that same humanity into the machine; with the people serving as simple inputs into the overall productive enterprise. And it is the technocratic lens that creates a “mechanical mindset” that becomes thoroughly dehumanizing – and ultimately debilitating.
The alternative framework, based on what Nygaard refers to as the “Anthropic Profile,” creates an expanded picture of an organization as seen through a human lens and capturing the institution’s systems of belief. All organizations have a discreet Anthropic Profile – they just fail to understand that it contains those baseline beliefs that are essentially guiding in the organization’s future. Without an effective alignment of an organization’s beliefs, with its resultant very human “nature,” the results are always the same – disenchantment and failure. It is only in belief-centered institutions where human dignity is truly embraced, where an organization’s soul is preserved, and where the future can be seen clearly discerned.
The Tale of Two Cities: Mechanicsville vs. Anthropolis
Nygaard anchors the theory in a very old metaphor; a tale of two cities. The more modern of the cities is Mechanicsville, a place where systems and processes dominate and where success is predicated on a platform of order and analysis. The older city is Anthropolis, and it is a place where beliefs and natures are guiding, and where human agency, beliefs, and relational connections guide and direct organizational life.
- Mechanicsville is the product of a “technocratic society” that favors finely tuned systems of production, data-infused decision-making, integrated functional expertise, and measurable performance metrics. It exists for the express purposes of delivering a market-valuable product, manufactured at high levels of scale, and with a strategic course-adjustment mechanism. It is focused on productive outputs that are market-based and designed to satisfy consumptive interests. The result is “order without soul.”
- Anthropolis, by contrast, is the product of a “religious community” that exists for the purpose of working towards a commonly established set of humanly described ends. It is a product of collaboration, team dynamics, and organizational effectiveness as seen through the lens of shared identity and belief. It is focused on the establishment of beliefs around the relative valuation of “things and people,” the creation of common “context,” and an agreement on “ultimates.” The result is “soul with order.”
It is important to recognize that the residents of Anthropolis are fully in favor of the systems and processes that populate Mechanicsville. They just see those systems and processes as downstream from their core beliefs. On the other hand, the people in Mechanicsville have little interest in the importance of beliefs and natures in the life of their organizations. They would rather just “follow the process.”
In short, Mechanicsville perfects the machine, while Anthropolis protects the human. But in so doing, the residents of Anthropolis get the best of both worlds. The residents of Mechanicsville, alternatively, shrivel under the effects of their mechanical orientations and distortions. As all organizations inevitably create their own “religions,” it is important to know what they believe.
The Core Problem: Human Obsolescence – Digital Moral Authority
The real threat created by life in Mechanicsville is that they inevitably end in what Nygaard refers to as “pluralistic collectives operating outside in.” This is the situation where everyone within the organization has a conflicting set of beliefs, where dictates flow from “on high,” and where the organization is situated to be successful based on the perceived happiness of those outside the organization. This is the picture of much of organizational life as experienced in the 21st century. Relational cohesion is sacrificed on the alter of an array of performance metrics, as the collective imagination is subrogated to execution of the strategic plan. Life within these organizations becomes “a game with rules and scores” and personality and understanding are reduced to math and physics.
The alternative, and as practiced within Anthropolis, is to see that organizations rather operate as “creedal communities operating inside out.” This is a world where the beliefs of the organization are synthesized into statements of beliefs and where they see themselves are members of a common and covenantal community – with a group of accepted rights and responsibilities attached. And they seek to fulfill their internal interests as the key to providing benefits to those outside their walls. This institutional can rather be observed as “a quest with purposes and destinations” where the journey is always an adventure with designed endings.
- Games – “Follow the rules provided by the game – score as many points as possible.”
- Quests – “Follow the opportunities provided in the quest – and go their together.”
The Solution: Rediscovering the Anthropic Profile
Nygaard proposes that human institutions cannot survive over the long term without a common context rooted in belief and saturated with meaning. In order to create an inventory of beliefs, Human Replacement Theory establishes a framework for defining and cataloguing those beliefs in an organized and thorough fashion. This framework is referred to as the “Anthropic Profile” and is designed to capture and synthesize the belief elements that are fundamental to the alignment of all the essential “human parts” of the organization:
- Valuation
The Valuation Element simply asks two simple questions: 1) “How do we value things around here? and 2) How do value people around here? The beliefs established within the Valuation Element establish, almost literally, all the organizations priorities with respect to everything from product development to ethical considerations. An organization’s valuation priorities create the philosophical benchmarks against which all the messy trade-offs that must be made are given form and substance.
- Context
The Context Element demands that an organization establish a set of answers to the most basic questions of an organization’s existence as well as a set of perspectives as to what the answers to those questions actually means in the current situation. The beliefs within the Context Element essentially tell us what stories we operate within – and how we should understand the events of our lives as they unfold. Organizational context determines whether an organization is bathed in clarity and understanding or choked with confusion and misdirection.
- Authority
The Authority Element again addresses two fundamentally important question: 1) Who or what is god around here? and 2) Who or what makes the rules around here? The beliefs contained in the Authority Element of the Anthropic Profile are certainly the most formative as they define the “objects of worship” and the “authority structures” of the organization. Whether the gods are profit margins or market share, or an eternal deity or a rockstar CEO, the questions of authority are ever-present and all-important.
Why It Matters – Embracing Rehumanization
We live in an age of the hyper-mechanicalization of our human institutions. In an age of posthumanism and transhumanism, the trajectory for humanity is called into serious question. If our institutions do not put the brakes on the expansion of Mechanicsville, the only outstanding question is one of timing, and not of ends. This will end poorly for our species. When our digital identities replace our human identities, the question looms “What’s left?”
Human Replacement Theory is a response to the rapid and unrelenting in-migration to Mechanicsville. We may feel like it is the cool place to live, but we are not prepared for the inevitable costs that come along with life divorced from human beliefs and aspirations. And the good news, is that we don’t have to move to Mechanicsville. We can just use the equipment. Let’s leave our institutions in Anthropolis. The benefits are enormous. And it costs nothing.
- Rational Freedom – not controlled by algorithm, hierarchy, or machine-mandate.
- Relational Integrity – not dictated by function, placement, or “political” prescription.
- Aspirational Flexibility – not mandated by performance, scores, or “winning.”
Human Replacement Theory is not a return to outdated practices or traditions, nor is it the sentimental attachment to some version of the “good old days.” And it is certainly not the suggestion that a trade-off must be made between human productivity and human dignity. It is rather quite the opposite. The message of the book is that as organizations are forged in solid beliefs, the combination of the sense of belonging (along with the creativity and adaptability that comes with belief-based cohesion) pay dividends well beyond those attainable in Mechanicsville. The choice is about that simple. Actually, there really is no choice.
“Organizations that are fully-aligned in terms of what they believe are both exhilarating and inspiring. Organizations that that are fully-aligned in terms of their systems are boring and suffocating.” – Brian Nygaard