The Human Debt of Scaling Up

Growth in Empathy, Ethics, and Neuro-Inclusive Onboarding

Let’s be clear: I’m not here to criticise operational frameworks. A large part of what we do at LMNS and Yiist is based on using systems, methodologies, and frameworks to gather insights and optimise processes. The structured methodologies that have emerged over the past decades bring clarity to chaos, create accountability, and provide measurable ways to track progress. KPI’s, SWOT analyses, business intelligence systems; these tools are invaluable for scaling organisations.

But there’s a shadow side that rarely makes it into the case studies: these systems, by their very design, tend to objectify human interaction. They excel at measuring outcomes like customer satisfaction scores, sales figures, and productivity metrics, but they consistently fail to capture the core of human connection, the subtle building of team trust, or the ethical considerations woven into daily interactions.

This creates “human debt”; a form of technical debt, but for people. Just as technical debt accumulates when we take shortcuts in programming code that seems efficient in the moment but creates larger problems down the line, human debt builds up when we optimise for systematic efficiency while neglecting the human elements that actually sustain growth. This debt surfaces later as turnover, burnout, dysfunction, and disengagement.

The Blind Spot of Systemic Growth

Consider the broader context. Nearly a century ago, John Maynard Keynes predicted that technological advancement would lead to a 15-hour work week. We’d have conquered scarcity, he argued, and could focus on “the art of life itself.” Instead, we’re working longer hours than ever, burning out at unprecedented rates, and watching work-life balance become an increasingly hollow corporate buzzword.

Why hasn’t Keynes’ vision materialised?

Because our systems incentivise relentless pursuit of profit through the “unequal monetisation of human resources”: squeezing maximum output from people while minimising investment in their wellbeing, growth, and ethical treatment. We’ve created frameworks that talk about so-called “human capital” while systematically devaluing the actual humans who create that capital.

This isn’t accidental. It’s the natural result of systems that optimise for metrics while ignoring the Moral ROI, the return on investment in treating people as whole human beings rather than productive units.

An example is a recent announcement from a well-known Dutch building company that highlights this dynamic. They proudly declared they had created a fully automated system capable of building a house in a single day. All prefab, made to measure, environmentally friendly. The promise was compelling: solve the housing crisis through innovative systems that deliver faster, greener products with much higher profit margins.

On the surface, it seems like a win-win-win scenario: addressing political issues (housing shortage), production challenges (speed of delivery), and environmental concerns (reduced CO2 impact). But the first question that should arise — and rarely does in these announcements — is: what happens to those higher margins and the jobs that are no longer needed in traditional building? Does that extra profit flow back to the people whose livelihoods have been automated away, or is it solely accumulated by shareholders?

This is human debt at a societal scale. The efficiency gains are real, the technological achievement impressive, but the human costs are externalised; treated as someone else’s problem rather than factored into the true cost-benefit analysis of the “innovation.”

An example on a smaller scale. After two years of turning around a failing department, Sarah found herself in a peculiar position. The metrics were excellent. Profits up 40%, team engagement scores at an all-time high, and customer satisfaction consistently exceeding targets. Her neuro-divergent approach to problem-solving, characterised by methodical, detail-oriented leadership, had breathed new life into what was once considered a corporate dead end. The department that her former boss had struggled to manage now flourished under her unique style.

So why was she increasingly being told that her communication style was “a real problem” in the daily corporate dealings, and she should behave like all the other ‘serious’ managers if she’d ever wanted a promotion? Despite outperforming her predecessor by every measure, Sarah was being reshaped to fit a mould she had just proven outdated.

Her story isn’t unique. It’s a symptom of what we can call “human debt,” the accumulated cost of prioritising systematic efficiency and corporate compliance over human connection, ethical integrity, and individual uniqueness in fostering growth.

Onboarding as the Ethical Crucible of Growth

If you want to see a company’s true values, ignore the mission statement on their website. Watch their onboarding and promotion process instead.

Take the story of David, a supply chain expert who was recruited to lead sales at a software company that developed supply chain solutions. It seemed like a perfect match. Who better to sell supply chain software than someone who had actually lived the problems it solved? The company promised to train and support him, positioning the role as “sales advisory” rather than traditional sales, emphasising his unique ability to speak the customer’s language.

The onboarding process reinforced this narrative. Training materials focused on consultative selling. Role-playing exercises emphasised problem-solving over closing techniques. Everything suggested that David’s expertise and advisory approach were exactly what the company valued.

Six months later, when the sales funnel wasn’t growing fast enough, the company director pulled David aside and told him to “take cues from The Wolf of Wall Street.”

This isn’t just poor management; it’s an ethical failure that reveals the true nature of their growth strategy. The company had performed what I call “values theatre” during onboarding, presenting an idealised version of their culture while harbouring entirely different expectations. They had created human debt by misrepresenting not just the role, but the fundamental character of their organisation.

Traditional onboarding processes, even well-intentioned ones, often function as elaborate checklists: sign this, read that, attend these sessions, complete these modules. They’re designed to transfer information and ensure compliance, but they systematically fail to integrate new hires into the company’s actual culture and human network.

This approach creates several forms of human debt:

• Psychological debt: Employees feel like numbers rather than individuals, leading to early disengagement and a sense that they don’t truly belong.
• Social debt: Without intentional integration into team dynamics, hires remain isolated, reducing collaboration and trust-building.
• Ethical debt: When there’s a gap between stated values and actual practices, employees either become cynical or leave, taking their investment in training with them.
• Neuro-diversity debt: Standard onboarding processes often assume a one-size-fits-all approach to communication, processing speed, and sensory needs. This inadvertently disadvantages individuals who learn differently, think differently, or need different types of support to thrive.

Sarah’s story illustrates this last point perfectly. Her methodical, detail-oriented, neuro-divergent approach to leadership had actually driven exceptional results. But when the focus shifted from outcomes to compliance with conventional communication norms, her differences became liabilities rather than assets. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what inclusion means. True inclusion isn’t about making everyone conform to existing patterns. It’s about creating space for different approaches to contribute their unique value.

The Dynamic Flux: How New Hires Reshape Team Ecosystems

Here’s something that most scaling frameworks miss: every new person isn’t just an addition to your team. Instead, they’re a tweak to an entire ecosystem. They bring new perspectives, different communication styles, alternative approaches to problem-solving, and their own network of relationships and experiences.

“Scaling Up” methodologies often focus obsessively on adding roles, defining new positions, creating org charts, and establishing reporting structures, but they spend far less time on the recalibration required within existing teams when new members arrive. This oversight creates massive human debt because it ignores the fundamental reality of team dynamics.

Consider the 20-year veteran at a technical company who helped build the business from its inception. He and his like-minded colleagues had created something special: an international business driven by genuine passion for their product and a culture of innovative exploration. They took calculated risks, pursued exciting new technologies, and maintained the entrepreneurial spirit that had made them successful.

Then came the M&A’s, the internationalisation, the systematic “professionalisation” of their fundamentally organic operation. Suddenly, everything needed approval. Innovation required business cases. Exploration became “unfocused.” Risk-taking transformed into “lack of strategic alignment.”

The frameworks and KPI’s that were supposed to support growth instead strangled the very creativity and agility that had driven their success. The joy disappeared. The veteran found himself in meeting after meeting, drowning in administrative work, watching the company optimise itself into mediocrity.

This isn’t just about process; it’s about how new people and new systems interact with existing team culture. When you add framework-oriented managers to innovation-driven teams without thoughtful integration, you create cultural debt that can destroy the very capabilities you’re trying to scale.

It gets even more harmful when incentives are misaligned. I personally do not have much faith in commission or bonus schemes, particularly for sales. These tend to introduce an unhealthy competitive nature that takes away from team and customer satisfaction, and often feed the perverse incentives of chasing monetary gains regardless of the negative impact it may have on colleagues and customers.

Sarah’s former boss, for example, despite his department’s poor performance, maintained close personal relationships with upper management. When Sarah turned the department around, those relationships proved more valuable than her results. The incentive structure rewarded networking and political manoeuvring over actual performance.

This “implicit perversity” in incentive design directly impacts team dynamics during growth phases. When people are fighting for resources, recognition, or advancement based on individual metrics, they’re less likely to:

• Share information that might help colleagues succeed
• Collaborate on solutions that benefit the whole team
• Focus on long-term customer relationships over short-term individual gains
• Support new hires who might eventually compete for the same rewards
• Maintain psychological safety when their own security depends on outperforming teammates

These dynamics don’t just create human debt. They actively sabotage the collaborative culture that sustainable growth requires.

Beyond Metrics: Designing the Human KPI

If we’re serious about addressing human debt, we need to measure what we value and value what we measure. Most organisations track operational metrics obsessively while flying blind on human dynamics. They can tell you the customer acquisition cost to the cent, but have no idea whether their teams actually trust each other.

This needs to change. We need metrics that reflect human health within organisations. Let’s call that “Human KPI’s.” These aren’t soft, nice-to-have measurements. They’re strategic indicators that predict organisational resilience, innovation capacity, and staff loyalty.

Here are some possibilities:

Relationship Health Metrics:

• Net Positivity Score for Internal Collaboration: Would team members recommend working with their colleagues to others?
• Trust Index: Regular, anonymous surveys measuring psychological safety and interpersonal confidence
• Integration Velocity: How quickly new hires become productive contributors (and not just task-completers)
• Reverse Mentoring Frequency: How often senior staff learn new approaches from junior colleagues

Ethical Climate Indicators:

• Moral ROI: Assessment of decisions that prioritise long-term human impact over short-term financial gains
• Ethical Dilemma Resolution Frequency: How often teams discuss moral considerations in their work
• Whistleblowing Climate: Anonymous measurement of willingness to raise concerns without fear
• Value-Action Alignment Score: Regular assessment of gaps between stated values and actual practices

Inclusion and Diversity Metrics:

• Neurodiversity Accommodation Success: How well different thinking styles are supported and leveraged
• Onboarding Belonging Score: New hire assessment of feeling valued for who they are, not just what they do
• Communication Style Diversity: Measurement of how many different approaches to interaction are represented and respected
• Flexible Integration Pathways: Tracking customisation of onboarding and development based on individual needs

But data alone won’t solve human debt. We need concrete interventions that address the root causes:

Redefining Incentive Structures:

This is perhaps the most critical change. Instead of individual-focused bonuses and commissions that create internal competition, organisations need reward systems that promote collective success.

This might include:

• Team-based bonuses tied to collective outcomes
• Profit-sharing that aligns individual success with organisational health
• Performance reviews that heavily weight collaboration and ethical conduct
• Recognition systems that celebrate information sharing and mutual support
• Long-term customer relationship metrics that matter more than short-term sales figures

Other vital interventions include:

• Mentorship and Buddy Systems: Formalising human connection during integration periods.
• Reverse Onboarding: Where existing staff actively learn from new hires’ fresh perspectives.
• Ethical Check-ins: Regular, dedicated discussions about moral dilemmas and values in daily work.
• Psychological Safety Workshops: Proactive trust-building exercises as teams expand.
• Flexible Integration Pathways: Tailoring onboarding and ongoing development to individual needs, with neurodiversity explicitly in mind.

This is where the human debt gets paid down; it might go slowly, but it’s highly meaningful.

Re-anchoring Growth in Human Systems

True scaling isn’t just about expanding operations; it’s about expanding human capacity, connection, and ethical integrity. The companies that will thrive in the coming decades won’t be those that optimise people to fit systems, but those that design systems to unleash human potential.

This isn’t idealistic thinking. It’s a strategic necessity. The current approach to scaling creates organisational fragility masked as efficiency. When you build growth on a foundation of human debt, you create systems that appear strong but are actually prone to failure. They work fine when everything goes according to plan, but they shatter when faced with unexpected challenges, market changes, or the simple reality that humans are complex beings with individual needs and perspectives.

Sarah’s story could have ended differently. Imagine if her organisation had recognised that her neuro-divergent leadership style wasn’t a communication problem to be fixed, but a competitive advantage to be leveraged. What if they had studied her methods, understood what made her approach successful, and found ways to support similar diversity of thought throughout the organisation?

David’s experience could have been transformative for his company. Instead of bait-and-switching him into traditional sales tactics, they could have developed an entirely new approach to customer engagement based on his deep domain expertise. They could have created a model that other B2B companies would study and emulate.

The veteran innovator’s company could have found ways to maintain entrepreneurial agility while adding necessary structure. Instead of choosing between chaos and bureaucracy, they could have developed hybrid approaches that preserved innovation capacity while providing the coordination needed for larger-scale operations.

These aren’t just nice stories; they represent missed opportunities for sustainable competitive advantage. The companies that learn to accumulate human assets instead of human debt will outperform those that optimise for short-term efficiency at the expense of long-term resilience.

This requires a fundamental shift in how we think about growth. Instead of asking “How can we make people fit our systems?” we need to ask “How can we design systems that help people do their best work?” Instead of optimising for compliance, we need to optimise for contribution. Instead of standardising approaches, we need to create frameworks flexible enough to accommodate different ways of thinking, working, and leading.

The path forward isn’t about rejecting systematic approaches to growth. It’s about humanising them. It’s about building “moral ROI” directly into our scaling strategies, recognising that treating people as whole human beings isn’t just ethically right, it’s strategically smart.

This means asking tougher questions about our innovations and efficiency gains. When a company automates away jobs while dramatically increasing profit margins, the Moral ROI calculation should include: How are those benefits distributed? What happens to the displaced workers? How do we ensure that technological progress actually improves human welfare rather than simply concentrating wealth?

Keynes’ vision of a more balanced relationship between work and life remains unrealised not because it’s impossible, but because we’ve built systems that actively resist it. We’ve created frameworks that can scale operations while scaling down human dignity, that can grow revenue while shrinking the joy people find in their work. We’ve designed “solutions” that solve immediate operational problems while creating larger human problems we choose not to measure.

But this isn’t an inevitable doom scenario. We can choose to build organisations that scale up human flourishing alongside operational capacity. We can create growth strategies that accumulate human assets instead of human debt. We can design systems that make people more fully themselves rather than less.

The question isn’t whether this is possible; it’s whether we have the courage to prioritise it. The frameworks, tools, and metrics exist. The business case is clear. What we need now is the collective will to re-anchor our growth strategies in empathy, ethics, and an appreciation for the full spectrum of human potential.

The future of scaling isn’t about getting better at managing people like resources (why call it “human resources” in the first place?). It’s about getting better at creating conditions where people can contribute their unique gifts to shared success. That’s not just better humanity, it’s better business.

And in the end, isn’t that what we all want?

---

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/human-debt-scaling-up-roland-biemans-12iae

---