Recently had to end a long-term professional relationship because of this.

Client felt pushback was disrespect, even framed as "We can only do X with the resources available." Which made us feel like we were not people, but cogs. https://twitter.com/BathysphereHat/status/1254076845433278465

Dehumanization in work-settings happens most often when we under focus on mutually beneficial, enthusiastically consensual relationships. Many times the way to bring back mutual benefit and enthusiastic consent is to take ownership of the _impact_ of our behavior by adjusting it.

Mutual benefit can come from adjusting wages, improving work conditions, or adjusting long-term and short-term non-wage benefits.

Enthusiastic consent is built by working on the social dynamics in the workplace and building psychological safety.

In every case, this work _must_ be initiated by and executed on by the people who have more power in the particular context.

We can ask those with less contextual socioeconomic capital what would be helpful, but we have to be the ones doing the work.

Unfortunately, because we exist in a context where most of our business management techniques are directly descended from plantation owners and the military; we've reinforced and normalized the toxic expectations that it's "normal" for people to suffer in silence at work.

And while folks like @estherderby, @DianaOfPortland, @testobsessed and @DocOnDev have done incredible work popularizing and normalizing retrospectives as a mechanism to make a safe place to share and work towards resolving suffering, most organizations are extractively designed.

For the last decade I've been obsessed with how to _structure_ workplaces such that they _cultivate_ mutually beneficial, enthusiastic consent.

And while there is no silver bullet, codifying the Rochdale principles into an organization's contracts is key: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_Principles

And while it's _possible_ to make a mutually beneficial, enthusiastically consensual workplace without the Rochdale principles they're a damn fine guiding light.

The other key is anti-racism and anti-sexism. Restorative economics is about giving wealth _back_ to socioeconomically disenfranchised groups.

When we do the work to rectify broad socioeconomic equity disparities within an organization we create more wealth.

And the act of creating more wealth for a broader set of people is what creates a regenerative cycle of mutual benefit.

It is not a radical act to simply choose to give up a bit more of what we want so those who have unmet needs can meet them.

But we have chosen to structure our society to act as if such actions are "irrational."

Imagine if instead of protecting return on capital, our day-to-day socioeconomic structures were designed to _encourage_ people to let go of their wants so others can meet their needs!

I feel like this has some way to tie into the thread that @karlitaliliana wrote a few weeks back about in-system change vs out-system change.

I'm not quite sure _how_ yet; but it's there...

In conclusion:

1. We are told that we deserve everything our heart desires.
2. But, none are free until all are free.
3. To be truly free, we must work to determine whether our desires are a want or a need; and let go of the wants until every person's needs are met.