Respecting The Nature of Humans

Respecting the Nature of People: The Leadership Skill Construction Needs Most

Here’s a quote that might make you uncomfortable. Dale Carnegie wrote: “When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.” The first time I sent that quote out to a project team, the project manager immediately pushed back. He didn’t like it. He didn’t agree with it. And I get why it ruffled feathers.

But it’s true. And understanding that truth is one of the most respectful things you can do as a leader in construction.

We talk a lot about respecting people in this industry. We talk about respecting their time, their safety, their bodies, their wisdom. We talk about creating environments where people feel valued. And all of that is good and necessary. But there’s a deeper level of respect that we almost never talk about, and it’s costing us talented people every single day.

When We Ignore What People Actually Are

The real construction pain here is role misalignment that we mistake for incompetence. Someone shows up late to meetings repeatedly. They don’t follow up on commitments. Their phone is always dead. They miss deadlines. They seem disorganized or distracted or unreliable. And we make a judgment. We decide this person doesn’t care, or isn’t professional, or can’t cut it in construction. And we let them go. Or worse, we keep them and just resent them.

But what if the problem isn’t the person? What if the problem is that we put them in a role that doesn’t match their nature? What if we’re asking someone to do something their brain literally isn’t wired to do well, and then blaming them when they struggle?

The Failure Pattern We Repeat

The failure pattern is treating people like interchangeable parts and then throwing them away when they don’t fit. We design a role based on what we need, and then we expect any human being to conform to that role regardless of how their brain works, how their body works, or what they’re actually capable of doing consistently. And when they can’t, we call them a bad employee instead of asking whether we created a bad fit.

We fight human nature instead of working with it. We demand that people override their genetic wiring, their learned behaviors, their mental capabilities, and their emotional patterns. We expect them to just “be more professional” or “work harder” or “get it together.” And when that doesn’t work, we dispose of them and hire someone else to repeat the same pattern.

A Story I’m Not Proud Of

Let me tell you a story from my own leadership failures. I was working with someone I genuinely liked. Smart guy. Hard worker. Good heart. But as time went on, clients started getting frustrated. He wasn’t showing up on time for meetings. He wasn’t following through on commitments. His phone was constantly dead. Critical events would pass and he’d miss them entirely because his car broke down and he didn’t think to call, or his phone died and he didn’t charge it.

I put a lot of trust in this person because I needed to focus on other parts of the business. But the frustration kept building. Tasks I asked him to complete weren’t getting done. He was never available when we needed him. Eventually, we parted ways. And I was angry. I felt let down. I felt like he wasted my time and the company’s time.

Years later, I learned he had undiagnosed ADHD. Time blindness. Interest based attention instead of reward based motivation. Difficulty with executive function and organization. His brain literally worked differently than mine, and I had been asking him to do things his brain wasn’t wired to do consistently. I didn’t respect the nature of this person. I didn’t understand that there was genetic wiring and learned behavior causing these patterns. And because I didn’t understand, I judged instead of adapted.

Here’s what I should have done. I should have asked: what is this person actually good at? What can they do consistently and well? How can we structure a role that matches their capabilities instead of fighting against them? This person was a hard worker with valuable skills. But I put him in a seat that required things his brain couldn’t deliver reliably. That wasn’t his failure. That was mine.

Why This Matters for Every Team

Why does this matter? Because construction burns through talented people at an alarming rate, and a huge portion of that turnover is preventable. We lose good people not because they’re lazy or incompetent, but because we put them in roles that don’t match their nature. We demand public speaking from people with crippling social anxiety. We demand emergency response decisions from people who freeze under pressure. We demand detailed organization from people whose brains don’t process information that way. And then we act surprised when they struggle.

The cost isn’t just financial, though turnover is expensive. The cost is human. People leave construction thinking they failed, when the reality is we failed them. We didn’t respect their nature. We didn’t design roles around what humans actually are. We designed roles around idealized versions of humans that don’t exist, and then we blamed real humans for not being ideal.

And beyond the individual pain, there’s a team cost. When someone is in the wrong role for their nature, everyone around them suffers. The superintendent who has to cover for missed commitments. The foreman who has to redo work that wasn’t done right. The crew who loses trust in leadership because they watch good people get set up to fail.

Understanding What Humans Actually Are

Here’s the framework. Humans are not creatures of pure logic. We are emotional, physical, genetically wired beings with limitations, triggers, egos, and needs. Our brains and bodies are designed primarily for survival, not optimal productivity. We have prejudices. We have pride. We have vanity. We get tired and irritable. We have mental capabilities that vary wildly from person to person. We have learned behaviors from childhood that shape how we show up at work. And we have neurological wiring that determines what we can do easily and what we’ll always struggle with.

You can fight all of that and keep hiring and firing until you find someone who happens to match the role. Or you can respect the nature of what people are and design your roles, your systems, and your expectations around reality instead of fantasy.

Kate always asks me: what would they do in Japan? In Japan, they look at a person and say: this individual is at this level of mental capability and this level of physical capability. Let’s find them a role where they can succeed. Let’s match the work to the person instead of forcing the person to match idealized work. Let’s respect the nature of this individual and create a win-win situation.

That’s not lowering standards. That’s engineering the system for humans instead of robots.

Practical Role Matching Based on Nature

Here’s how you start applying this. First, understand that respecting the nature of people means understanding what they’re actually wired to do well and what they’ll always struggle with. Someone who doesn’t do well with public speaking shouldn’t be your company spokesperson, but they could be incredible in one-on-one coaching or mentoring. Someone who freezes in tense emergency situations shouldn’t be your field emergency responder, but they might be excellent at coordinating response from the office.

Second, stop asking people to override their fundamental nature and start designing roles that work with it. If someone has time blindness or executive function challenges, don’t put them in a role that requires strict scheduling and follow through without support systems. Build reminders. Add accountability partners. Structure their day for success. If someone is highly detail oriented but struggles with big picture thinking, put them in quality control or document management, not strategic planning.

Third, before you fire someone or label them incompetent, ask whether they’re in the right seat. The question isn’t “is this person valuable?” The question is “are we using this person’s value in the right way?” Most of the time, the answer is no. And that’s a system failure, not a people failure.

Watch for these signs that someone’s nature doesn’t match their role:

• Consistently missing deadlines or commitments despite genuine effort
• High stress or anxiety around specific tasks that should be routine
• Frequent miscommunication or misunderstanding of expectations
• Strong performance in some areas and complete breakdown in others
• Patterns of avoidance or procrastination on particular types of work
• Visible relief or energy when doing tasks outside their official role

Creating Roles That Fit Humans

Here’s where this gets powerful. When you start designing roles around the nature of people instead of fighting it, several things happen. First, performance improves immediately because people are doing what they’re actually wired to do. Second, retention improves because people feel successful instead of constantly failing. Third, team morale improves because everyone stops covering for people in the wrong roles. Fourth, you stop losing talented people who just needed a different seat on the bus.

This doesn’t mean you accept poor performance. It means you distinguish between poor performance caused by lack of effort and poor performance caused by fundamental mismatch between the person’s nature and the role’s demands. One is a discipline issue. The other is a design issue.

And it doesn’t mean you stop developing people. You should still train, coach, and push people to grow. But you respect the boundaries of what growth can realistically achieve. You can train someone to be better at public speaking, but you probably can’t turn someone with severe social anxiety into a confident keynote speaker. You can coach someone on organization, but you probably can’t turn someone with ADHD into a detail obsessed administrator without significant support systems.

Respect for People Is Matching Them to Success

This connects directly to what we believe at Elevate Construction. Respect for people isn’t just about safety equipment and fair pay. Respect for people is about understanding what humans actually are and designing systems that help them thrive instead of forcing them to conform to unrealistic expectations. It’s about seeing someone’s nature clearly and asking how we can use their strengths instead of punishing their limitations. If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

We’re building people who build things. And that means accepting people as they actually are, not as we wish they were. It means creating remarkable experiences by matching people to roles where they can succeed. It means respecting not just their value or their wisdom, but their fundamental nature as human beings.

A Challenge for Leaders

Here’s the challenge. The next time you’re frustrated with someone’s performance, before you fire them or write them off, ask yourself one question: am I respecting the nature of this person? Are they in a role that matches what they’re actually capable of doing consistently? Or am I fighting their nature and then blaming them when they can’t override their own wiring?

Look at your team. Are you throwing people away who could thrive in a different role? Are you demanding things that some people’s brains simply can’t deliver reliably? Are you designing roles for ideal humans instead of real ones?

As Dale Carnegie understood: we are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion. Respect that reality. Design around it. Build systems that work with human nature instead of against it. As the Japanese approach shows us, when you match people to work that fits their capabilities, everyone wins.

Frequently Asked Questions

What’s the difference between respecting someone’s nature and making excuses for poor performance? Respecting nature means matching people to roles they can succeed in and providing support systems where needed. Making excuses means accepting poor effort or refusing to address fixable problems. If someone isn’t trying, that’s a discipline issue. If someone is trying hard but failing because they’re in the wrong role, that’s a design issue you can solve.

How do I know if someone is in the wrong role or just needs more training? Look for patterns. If someone struggles consistently in one area but excels in others despite training and coaching, they’re probably in the wrong role. If performance is inconsistent or improving slowly with support, more training might work. The key is distinguishing between skill gaps and fundamental mismatch.

Isn’t this just coddling people instead of expecting professional behavior? No. This is engineering your system for the humans you actually have, not the idealized humans you wish you had. Professional behavior means showing up and doing your best. But “doing your best” looks different depending on someone’s wiring. Expecting someone with severe ADHD to maintain perfect organization without systems is like expecting someone with a broken leg to run a marathon. That’s not professional standards that’s ignoring reality.

What if my company doesn’t have multiple roles available to match different people’s natures? Start by understanding your current team’s nature and adjusting their responsibilities within existing roles. Even small changes like having someone handle written communication instead of phone calls, or doing detail work instead of emergency response can make a huge difference. As you grow, design new roles with specific people’s strengths in mind.

How does this connect to Lean and respect for people? Lean’s respect for people principle includes respecting their capabilities and limitations. In Lean, you design the work environment to fit the worker, not force the worker to adapt to a poorly designed environment. This is the same principle applied to role design match the role to the person’s nature instead of forcing the person to match an ill-fitting role.