There is growing literature that supports the view of an intrinsic motivation to help, share and cooperate with others, and that thesa motivations are depply satifying and meaningful. But these motivations , "the better angeles of our nature" can only flourish were ther is a sense of safety and trust, and were fear is not used to impose compliance. When we feel endangered we revert to a every man for themselves psycology. Creating these conditions is what good and enlightened leadership is all about
29
There is much to admire in this article. But there is a missing element: customers are the real object of service, not employers. The hospital can pay the custodians for doing a good job and commend them for helping to improve care for the patients but it is the nurse being assisted and the patient getting the service whose applause and commendations that make a difference.
I now live in a place that doesn't allow tipping and what seems to matter to those who serve us (who are clients/patients/etc.) seem to like best is the recognition for good service, that we know their names and address them cordially when only in passing. Surely this all matters a lot. And there is little that direct pay or tips would do to negate this aspect of the work experience.
I now live in a place that doesn't allow tipping and what seems to matter to those who serve us (who are clients/patients/etc.) seem to like best is the recognition for good service, that we know their names and address them cordially when only in passing. Surely this all matters a lot. And there is little that direct pay or tips would do to negate this aspect of the work experience.
3
In my personal experience -- public relations rhetoric notwithstanding -- not only are most workplaces indifferent to worker morale, to an increasing extent the workers are not even employees. Rather, they're hourly contractors who can and will be eliminated at any time with no warning or explanation. Workers know that they're disposable trash and, rationally, they react by doing only what they're told in order to delay the day when they're fired.
Such has been the case for certuries. It was a little better for a few post-1945 decades, but when Saint Reagan took office the dismantling of unionized labor began and it continues to this day.
The answer, if there is one, is political. But the political landscape of the past 35 years does not inspire confidence.
Such has been the case for certuries. It was a little better for a few post-1945 decades, but when Saint Reagan took office the dismantling of unionized labor began and it continues to this day.
The answer, if there is one, is political. But the political landscape of the past 35 years does not inspire confidence.
26
I think this is basically correct.
However, there is a large potential for abuse by employers in knowing these things -- that is that they are likely to use this information to purposely replace the pay people deserve with other things, reaping higher profits as a benefit.
So a solution to this problem cannot be reasonably created out of the motivations of the employers, rather it has to come from a democratic decision and a resulting change to the investor/worker relationship.
What exact changes are required? That is for everyone to decide, but they shouldn't be afraid this makes them a socialist. It just makes them smart.
However, there is a large potential for abuse by employers in knowing these things -- that is that they are likely to use this information to purposely replace the pay people deserve with other things, reaping higher profits as a benefit.
So a solution to this problem cannot be reasonably created out of the motivations of the employers, rather it has to come from a democratic decision and a resulting change to the investor/worker relationship.
What exact changes are required? That is for everyone to decide, but they shouldn't be afraid this makes them a socialist. It just makes them smart.
5
Employed people always comment to the unemployed on how wonderful it must be to have so much freedom and free time. But talk to an unemployed person and you quickly learn that is not their experience. They suffer from loss of identity, loss of purpose, general anxiety, and social isolation. Loss of income is generally far down the list.
26
A very long article, which can be reduced to a two-sentence experiment.
Employer to Employees: "Research indicates that having more say on how you do your jobs is more important than how much you get paid, therefore we have a voluntary program that will reduce your pay by 10% but give you 20% more involvement and say on how you do your job. All those interest say Aye"
Employees to Employer: Silence
Case closed. Most people work for pay and care about making the most they can with the skills they have. "Involvement" maybe nice, but it is not replacement for pay.
Employer to Employees: "Research indicates that having more say on how you do your jobs is more important than how much you get paid, therefore we have a voluntary program that will reduce your pay by 10% but give you 20% more involvement and say on how you do your job. All those interest say Aye"
Employees to Employer: Silence
Case closed. Most people work for pay and care about making the most they can with the skills they have. "Involvement" maybe nice, but it is not replacement for pay.
14
Many years ago I read an article by Richard ("What Color is Your Parachute??") Bolles about "The Perfect Job." When he and his staff interviewed individuals who claimed their jobs to be perfect, they found that many of the jobs seemed ordinary or even unappealing. What made the perfection was the worker's attitude-- the grocery checker who did a little dance at her register. The hospital workers in Mr. Schwartz's article, who didn't see themselves as broompushers but as patient-cheerers. The various mucker-outers who cheerfully inhabit the television series "Dirty Jobs."
I spent thirty years inside government bureaucracies. Some of my coworkers might have described themselves as "paper-pushers." I was a people-helper. And my goal was to be as happy in that role as it was possible for me to be. It wasn't always easy and it wasn't always pretty for me personally-- but it was helpful, and I still look back on that-- and not on the pushed paper-- with satisfaction.
It takes a certain attentiveness, determination, and largeness-of-character to find a certain joy in one's daily grind, but it's up to us as workers to define that joy for ourselves.
I spent thirty years inside government bureaucracies. Some of my coworkers might have described themselves as "paper-pushers." I was a people-helper. And my goal was to be as happy in that role as it was possible for me to be. It wasn't always easy and it wasn't always pretty for me personally-- but it was helpful, and I still look back on that-- and not on the pushed paper-- with satisfaction.
It takes a certain attentiveness, determination, and largeness-of-character to find a certain joy in one's daily grind, but it's up to us as workers to define that joy for ourselves.
27
A few years ago 60 Minutes did a segment on the unemployed textile workers in South Carolina, if memory serves. An unforgettable interview was with an older women who had lost her job to China. She was in tears describing how proud she was of the quality of washcloths she made at her factory.
We have be stripped of respect and opportunity of meaningful work in this country.
We have be stripped of respect and opportunity of meaningful work in this country.
11
If you truly want to experience the joys of totalitarianism, just go to work. The entire structure is built on subservience and authoritarianism. The 1% have no intention of changing this system. Be a change agent... flood your bosses with ideas, suggestions, etc. Interact with your fellow workers with suggestions for change. The water will not move until the first pebble is thrown into the water.
11
In Adam Smith's time, one had to work in order to eat. Now we have a safety net for the chronically unemployed, disabled, elderly, and inadequately paid. As long as people are paid enough to live on, the major job talent is how to make work meaningful, and people who have this talent are the best and most satisfied employees.
2
No further study is needed about teacher shortages; this article explains it. People enter education with a desire to be of use--to employ their individual talents for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, educators are leaving in droves having found that there is almost nothing in their profession "over which they had some discretion."
15
The number one complaint from workers is about their managers. Most are incompetent, cowardly toadies who got their jobs from stroking the egos of their own incompetent, cowardly bosses, both of whom think nothing of throwing their employees under the bus.
What is astounding is that these bosses expect loyalty from their employees, while offering none themselves. These bizarre expectations have gotten worse with every generation, as people no longer work their way up from the proverbial mailroom, but arrive with no experience in the field they are expected to manage, as the mistaken notion in management theory is that all widgets are the same.
Add that employees are lucky to get a raise of 2%, while management gives themselves 10-25% for a 'job well done', based on their performance reviews given by their bosses, who always want those high raises.
Newsflash: Most workers despise their bosses and, no, morale will not be boosted by yet another expensive party taking place on worker's time, as if what we all really want is not decent raises, but to spend even more time in the company of our managers.
What is astounding is that these bosses expect loyalty from their employees, while offering none themselves. These bizarre expectations have gotten worse with every generation, as people no longer work their way up from the proverbial mailroom, but arrive with no experience in the field they are expected to manage, as the mistaken notion in management theory is that all widgets are the same.
Add that employees are lucky to get a raise of 2%, while management gives themselves 10-25% for a 'job well done', based on their performance reviews given by their bosses, who always want those high raises.
Newsflash: Most workers despise their bosses and, no, morale will not be boosted by yet another expensive party taking place on worker's time, as if what we all really want is not decent raises, but to spend even more time in the company of our managers.
32
For most people, the primary relationship with their employer is economic - if money doesn't change hands, people stop showing up.
For most people, their job is first about earning a living so they can support their family.
All of this speculation about motivation etc. seems a little bit naive when it ignores those basic facts.
For most people, their job is first about earning a living so they can support their family.
All of this speculation about motivation etc. seems a little bit naive when it ignores those basic facts.
9
Twisting Smith's "every man [wants] “to live as much at his ease as he can" into "people are lazy" is a travesty.
Lazy--sloth--after all is a deadly sin, along with (excess) pride, anger, envy and the rest. It is deficient ambition to achieve--and achieving means work.
True Kant's "To will the end is to will the means" is nonsense because some people ARE lazy--and others suffer from disabilities--physical, economic, psychological--depression, procrastination etc. (vices, "sins" and disorders).
Often people like their jobs--even identify with them. "What do you do?" is part of "Who are you?" meaning "What is your work?"
Dewey realized Aristotle erred in claiming ends outrank means. Often ends/goals/destinations are mere add ons to make exercise, journeys, production, creation a little more meaningful.
Marx criticized factory work as alienating--workers sell half or more of their waking lives to employers dictating its use (8, 10, 12 hours a day) so they may enjoy free time for 8, 6, 4 hours.
Sitting on the beach drinking limed beer maybe much need rest and recreation for alienated workers. For others it is hell on earth--excruciating boredom, hardly re-creation. It is marketed as a well deserved workers holiday--Heaven on earth.
See Freuerbach on Christianity's alienating all earthly life--a mere means to Heaven--more accessible to employees and slaves than the rich--unable to pass through eyes of needles. Who benefits from this ideology--slaves or owners?
Lazy--sloth--after all is a deadly sin, along with (excess) pride, anger, envy and the rest. It is deficient ambition to achieve--and achieving means work.
True Kant's "To will the end is to will the means" is nonsense because some people ARE lazy--and others suffer from disabilities--physical, economic, psychological--depression, procrastination etc. (vices, "sins" and disorders).
Often people like their jobs--even identify with them. "What do you do?" is part of "Who are you?" meaning "What is your work?"
Dewey realized Aristotle erred in claiming ends outrank means. Often ends/goals/destinations are mere add ons to make exercise, journeys, production, creation a little more meaningful.
Marx criticized factory work as alienating--workers sell half or more of their waking lives to employers dictating its use (8, 10, 12 hours a day) so they may enjoy free time for 8, 6, 4 hours.
Sitting on the beach drinking limed beer maybe much need rest and recreation for alienated workers. For others it is hell on earth--excruciating boredom, hardly re-creation. It is marketed as a well deserved workers holiday--Heaven on earth.
See Freuerbach on Christianity's alienating all earthly life--a mere means to Heaven--more accessible to employees and slaves than the rich--unable to pass through eyes of needles. Who benefits from this ideology--slaves or owners?
1
I have to comment on the Gallup engagement surveys., which I have been involved in. They are appallingly limited and cannot possibly measure true engagement. It is a big business scam on their part - telling companies that their worker engagement is extremely low and selling services, including annual engagement testing, for a lot of money. That 10% figure is meaningless.
4
I think is worth to read again what Dr. W. Edwards Deming told in his "Chain reaction" from his "Out of the Crisis" book, essentially, make the people feel proud of his job.
1
Fifty years ago when I was hired on at Ma Bell, the dominant management philosophy to which the company subscribed was "money is not the top motivator for good work." I remember thinking to myself "Well how convenient for the company." The company believed showing appreciation for a job well done was more important, se we received pen and pencil sets for service anniversaries and coffee mugs for good performance. Somehow I never figured out how to get my creditors and the electric company to accept my pen and pencils or my coffee mugs in lieu of the filthy lucre.
15
Thank you for knocking Adam Smith down a notch! His assumptions that people (and markets - perhaps what he is most known for) operate like predictable machines is outdated, not relevant to our world today, and downright dangerous. The guy has to go!
4
I loved my last job. It was very rewarding and we made a difference in the lives of the people we helped. What I didn't like was the management change that happened a few years later. They got their jobs through nepotism and had no management skills. My workplace became a hostile environment. I was overworked and stressed much of the time. I was targeted for bad treatment. I got sick. My work life became a nightmare. I ended up having to take early retirement due to health issues. I lost half of my income as a result. It was a terrible existence for a number of years. My health slowly got worse but at least I didn't have to go to work. I've survived.
7
I am a college graduate with even some post-graduate schooling who spent about twenty years before finally finding a job that was challenging, engaging, enabled me to exercise some discretion, and was meaningful to other people. So of course I never gave it up. That is why for the past two decades I have been a transit bus driver. Underemployed? Perhaps. But I can pay my bills, take vacations, and am much happier than I ever was in any office. It's not for everyone, but it worked for me.
13
Some weeks I need 50 hours to get my work done. Other weeks I need only 20 hours or less.
Yet, I must show up 8 to 5 every day. This is the heart of my unhappiness with work. The time structure is from the 19th century.
Employer, can't you just trust me as an adult and base my performance on productivity? For most employers, this is just too much trouble and actually requires creative thinking.
Yet, I must show up 8 to 5 every day. This is the heart of my unhappiness with work. The time structure is from the 19th century.
Employer, can't you just trust me as an adult and base my performance on productivity? For most employers, this is just too much trouble and actually requires creative thinking.
11
Whether a corporate lawyer making six figures or a non-paid intern, workers today live in perpetual fear of being replaced by the long line of new graduates, lateral hires, and unemployed who would love to take your spot. This creates an existential stress that permeates the work force and has made work unbearable. Coupled with bosses who dangle this sword of Damocles over their workers' heads, workers have become miserable. I don't think any amount of change in responsibility can change the new workplace culture of fear.
15
There are things I've observed while working in teams and while managing teams....
1. Organizations are excited to convey the message that, each employee has an unique role to produce exemplary results for the organization. But, over time the organization fails to understand that the organization too, has an unique role in fulfilling the employees aspirations through his work.
2. 90% of the organizations forget that, they hire excellent recruits initially, but gradually, over a period of time, organizations undermine the very same recruits, either directly or through their managers. Managers become an intermediary tool of the organization in the conversion of an excellent recruit to a mere efficiency delivering insipid worker, gradually losing the original luster.
3. Also, often, our education system has evolved to convey to students that, one's passion is invariably limited by the ability to afford it. Our society has ended up with many rich kids getting an education that they either don't deserve, or aren't inspired for. And, inspired students waste precious years in an education that, isn't really in the area that they're really passionate about. So, we have huge populations, who are getting educated and employed in areas where truly their heart isn't.
1. Organizations are excited to convey the message that, each employee has an unique role to produce exemplary results for the organization. But, over time the organization fails to understand that the organization too, has an unique role in fulfilling the employees aspirations through his work.
2. 90% of the organizations forget that, they hire excellent recruits initially, but gradually, over a period of time, organizations undermine the very same recruits, either directly or through their managers. Managers become an intermediary tool of the organization in the conversion of an excellent recruit to a mere efficiency delivering insipid worker, gradually losing the original luster.
3. Also, often, our education system has evolved to convey to students that, one's passion is invariably limited by the ability to afford it. Our society has ended up with many rich kids getting an education that they either don't deserve, or aren't inspired for. And, inspired students waste precious years in an education that, isn't really in the area that they're really passionate about. So, we have huge populations, who are getting educated and employed in areas where truly their heart isn't.
7
At this very moment, I am taking a short break from a volunteer job at a local farmer's and artist's market, one that I helped to create and now help run. My first observation there was that people working at the market, including people who were higher paid professionals during the week, worked harder at volunteer jobs than they did their daily, paid ones. Most would certainly not do manual labor; on the weekends we have people with advanced degrees gathering trash and other grunt tasks. They work like common laborers. Why? For the good of the community and because it brings them satisfaction.
Other people are a mystery to us. We see them walking around, doing stuff, but we really don't know what goes on inside their heads. So, if someone tells us they are lazy, unmotivated and need discipline from management to accomplish anything, most people believe it. People appear to be lazy when they are not given something to do in a constructive way. They resist doing work they don't like or work that appears to be disorganized or pointless. They want better.
We should not have to rely on "scientific studies" to understand these facts. Instead of projecting negativity onto others, we should start with the assumption that other people are equally interested and motivated as we ourselves are.
Many people see their managers as the ones holding back true accomplishment. Just ask. There are too many managers, all trying to prove that they are the vital component of success at work.
Other people are a mystery to us. We see them walking around, doing stuff, but we really don't know what goes on inside their heads. So, if someone tells us they are lazy, unmotivated and need discipline from management to accomplish anything, most people believe it. People appear to be lazy when they are not given something to do in a constructive way. They resist doing work they don't like or work that appears to be disorganized or pointless. They want better.
We should not have to rely on "scientific studies" to understand these facts. Instead of projecting negativity onto others, we should start with the assumption that other people are equally interested and motivated as we ourselves are.
Many people see their managers as the ones holding back true accomplishment. Just ask. There are too many managers, all trying to prove that they are the vital component of success at work.
12
Writing as one who has been working (sometimes at 2 and 3 jobs) for 45 years, I can say that the single most influential factor in work satisfaction for me has been the style of the boss. I have seen bad management ruin successful operations, with clueless boards of directors not engaged enough to be asking responsible questions. I have seen managers driven by personal enmity make workers' lives hell (nicely labelled "constructive discharge" by labor lawyers but really a miserable experience). I don't know what B-schools are teaching nowadays (or what the heck they have been teaching for quite a while for that matter). But a lot of their products are destructive rather than productive.
8
It really shouldn't be news that people work for a whole host of reasons other than just the monetary compensation; compensation comes in many forms. I remember well the hospital custodian worker who came in and cleaned my son's room as he was going through his second bone marrow transplant. There was much more to her than just sweeping floors and taking out garbage, which has to be why I remember her and have forgotten so many others with whom we came into contact then.
And when my wife went back to work after a two-year hiatus to care for the son it wasn't because we needed the money. She needed the feeling of belonging and of being productive, and enjoyed the adult company. And, to be painfully honest, she liked buying and wearing fashionable clothes and working part-time at a bank gave her the opportunity to show them off to someone besides just me.
I think work is what you make of it. It can either be fulfilling or dreadful. But the type of work matters less than is often assumed. Work that is routine and monotonous can also be fulfilling, if it serves the purpose for meeting some greater need in one's life, like seeing a child to college.
Managers shouldn't try to engineer jobs so that people will find them rewarding. Managers should try to understand what their employees seek from their jobs outside of just compensation, which requires taking a personal interest in the individual, and then make pathways for the employee to satisfy those desires.
And when my wife went back to work after a two-year hiatus to care for the son it wasn't because we needed the money. She needed the feeling of belonging and of being productive, and enjoyed the adult company. And, to be painfully honest, she liked buying and wearing fashionable clothes and working part-time at a bank gave her the opportunity to show them off to someone besides just me.
I think work is what you make of it. It can either be fulfilling or dreadful. But the type of work matters less than is often assumed. Work that is routine and monotonous can also be fulfilling, if it serves the purpose for meeting some greater need in one's life, like seeing a child to college.
Managers shouldn't try to engineer jobs so that people will find them rewarding. Managers should try to understand what their employees seek from their jobs outside of just compensation, which requires taking a personal interest in the individual, and then make pathways for the employee to satisfy those desires.
4
'...It really shouldn't be news that people work for a whole host of reasons other than just the monetary compensation; compensation comes in many forms...Managers should try to understand what their employees seek from their jobs outside of just compensation...'
Only a well paid manager could possibly believe this.
Without 'just compensation', nothing else matters.
Great that your wife have the luxury to work for pin money, but most people are not so lucky and since our wages have been frozen for decades, inflation adjusted, the lack of decent pay is the most important issue.
Only a well paid manager could possibly believe this.
Without 'just compensation', nothing else matters.
Great that your wife have the luxury to work for pin money, but most people are not so lucky and since our wages have been frozen for decades, inflation adjusted, the lack of decent pay is the most important issue.
This article quite carelessly simplifies Adam Smith's position.
Smith's value theory was highly focused on the avoidance of unnecessary toil, yes. However, he recognised many aspects of work that can make it more or less desirable.
He also pointed out the mind-dulling dangers of a "too strict" division of labor.
- "first, the agreeableness or disagreeableness of the employments themselves;" ...
- "secondly, the easiness and cheapness or the difficulty and expense of learning them;" ...
- "thirdly, the constancy or inconstancy of employment in them;" ...
- "fourthly, the small or great trust which must be reposed in those who exercise them; and" ...
- "fifthly, the probability of improbability of success in them."
....
…(under the first factor) ”cleanliness or dirtiness, the honourableness or dishonourableness…” (Smith 1776, p. 87)
“The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind... It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.” (Smith 1776, p. 637-638)
Smith's value theory was highly focused on the avoidance of unnecessary toil, yes. However, he recognised many aspects of work that can make it more or less desirable.
He also pointed out the mind-dulling dangers of a "too strict" division of labor.
- "first, the agreeableness or disagreeableness of the employments themselves;" ...
- "secondly, the easiness and cheapness or the difficulty and expense of learning them;" ...
- "thirdly, the constancy or inconstancy of employment in them;" ...
- "fourthly, the small or great trust which must be reposed in those who exercise them; and" ...
- "fifthly, the probability of improbability of success in them."
....
…(under the first factor) ”cleanliness or dirtiness, the honourableness or dishonourableness…” (Smith 1776, p. 87)
“The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind... It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expense of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society, this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.” (Smith 1776, p. 637-638)
1
I began my corporate career when Theory X vs. Theory Y work theory was in vogue. Theory X was the Adam Smith way; Theory Y said people were motivated by meaningful work.
Over my 30+ years I worked for companies (and divisions of these companies) that managed by X or Y. It was so obvious that Y had a beneficial effect on morale, and therefore productivity, that I couldn't understand why anyone practiced X.
And yet in my later years and past my retirement the movement back toward X is well underway. Rewarding executives and shareholders on the backs of employees has led to where we are today with huge compensation inequality, job losses, and middle class unrest pitting the takers vs. the job creators.
Over my 30+ years I worked for companies (and divisions of these companies) that managed by X or Y. It was so obvious that Y had a beneficial effect on morale, and therefore productivity, that I couldn't understand why anyone practiced X.
And yet in my later years and past my retirement the movement back toward X is well underway. Rewarding executives and shareholders on the backs of employees has led to where we are today with huge compensation inequality, job losses, and middle class unrest pitting the takers vs. the job creators.
10
Has the author ever heard of Henry Ford? He made cars affordable by transforming the assembly process from an artisanal, engaging craft into mind-numbing repetition.
3
Have you ever heard that Henry Ford paid his workers good wages, so they could afford to buy his cars?
1
A few years ago (and reviewed in the NYT), Matt Crawford explored the significance of knowledge, satisfaction, and achievement inherent in work, and the issues that arise when we try to remove these, leaving mindless, rote tasks (and thus soul-killing work roles). Driven in part by desires for efficiency, and in part by attempts by higher levels in organizations to "own" knowledge, Crawford provides valuable lessons for both blue and white color workers.
1
Though I agree with the article, I want to make one distinction. Though volunteering labor is very rewarding, "Free" is not always valued more. The reporter said: "Studies show that people are less likely to help load a couch into a van when you offer a small payment than when you don’t, because the offer of pay makes their task a commercial transaction rather than a favor to another human being." For the consumer, though, a free item is not valued more than a very expensive one, and the same sometimes goes for the receiver of free labor. The value of something is in the eye of the beholder. Low pay work is not perceived as being important like high paid work. So there are two dynamics here. I certainly am a worker that needs more than a paycheck to feel fulfilled, but the higher the paycheck the more value I place on my efforts. It is more complex than this article makes it seem.
2
Beautiful. Loved this article but believe we need to examine this issue in even much greater depth. Look at how we humans have innovated with nearly every detail of our lives including technology, consumer products, housing, agriculture, food, financial models....and how little we have innovated in the workplace. We still expect people, for the most part, to show up at a place and put in their 8+ hours. There is little thought of what works for humans or what really would be most effective in getting the work done.
The list of potential workplace innovations is endless. Think, for example, of a flex career that would overtly recognize the "seasons" of a human life and offer adjustments for family issues (children, aging parents..), age, infirmity or just a change of pace... My wife once worked long 12 hour shifts as a floor nurse. Like most, she eventually moved on due to the hours and odd shifts. There was a nursing shortage. I asked if the hospital had thought of attracting nurses back to the field with with shorter shifts, shared jobs or any kind of workplace innovation. Apparently, the 12 hour shift was just kind of baked in. So we train more nurses and send them into the same grind. We can do better.
-
The list of potential workplace innovations is endless. Think, for example, of a flex career that would overtly recognize the "seasons" of a human life and offer adjustments for family issues (children, aging parents..), age, infirmity or just a change of pace... My wife once worked long 12 hour shifts as a floor nurse. Like most, she eventually moved on due to the hours and odd shifts. There was a nursing shortage. I asked if the hospital had thought of attracting nurses back to the field with with shorter shifts, shared jobs or any kind of workplace innovation. Apparently, the 12 hour shift was just kind of baked in. So we train more nurses and send them into the same grind. We can do better.
-
6
I spent more than 20 years working as an engineer for a large corporation. I always felt a degree of alienation from the corporation, it's goals and methods. My satisfaction depended on positive collaboration with colleagues, which achieved a concrete objective. I remember my teenaged daughter visiting my office & saying "you've been here so long, how do you stand it?" I laughed & responded "Well, I used to have my hands up shaking the bars of the cage, but after a while, If they did open the door, I would probably stay curled up inside." After jokingly responding that way, my dissatisfaction became more overt. Now I am happily engaged teaching high school physics. Less money, more meaning.
4
Excellent piece. I would challenge even this statement however:
"Of course, we care about our wages, and we wouldn't work without them".
There are countless examples of people working extremely hard for no pay at all. This includes people married to a spouse who works which frees the person to devote energies to charities or other organizations, sometimes devoting at least as much effort as one would to a full time salaried job.
Yes this is a selective group but the point is just that "we wouldn't work without our wages" is not necessarily true. If the cost of living is taken care of in some other way other than working, people often still want to, and do, work.
This is the big question approaching, what will people do when technology and automation have made the need to work just to survive an obsolete concept, at least for a majority of people? There is always work to be done of course, in neighborhood organizing or politics, environmental issues, and people who already saw work as something to be passionate about and engaged with will have an easier time of this transition.
"Of course, we care about our wages, and we wouldn't work without them".
There are countless examples of people working extremely hard for no pay at all. This includes people married to a spouse who works which frees the person to devote energies to charities or other organizations, sometimes devoting at least as much effort as one would to a full time salaried job.
Yes this is a selective group but the point is just that "we wouldn't work without our wages" is not necessarily true. If the cost of living is taken care of in some other way other than working, people often still want to, and do, work.
This is the big question approaching, what will people do when technology and automation have made the need to work just to survive an obsolete concept, at least for a majority of people? There is always work to be done of course, in neighborhood organizing or politics, environmental issues, and people who already saw work as something to be passionate about and engaged with will have an easier time of this transition.
'...There are countless examples of people working extremely hard for no pay at all...'
Yes. Rich bored people.
Yes. Rich bored people.
2
What I don't like, what people don't like is to work as robots. Fortunately for humanity, human beings still hold out against alienation.
The overriding issue on employee performance and satisfaction is not even mentioned in this article: it is the lack of job security that pervades every major U.S. Corporation.
We are deemed 'employees at will' and yes our continued employment is performance based but is overridden by the company's need to increase the bottom line and placate the shareholders. Mass layoffs unrelated to individual performance occur to achieve this goal.
Millennials who once thought themselves immune to such onslaughts now increasingly hold mortgages and raise children. The constant threat of layoffs makes us all crazy and very conservative. It stifles creativity in favor of adhering to established process. HR departments never deal with this because they have no power to change it. And the psychological damage to those left behind is profound (am I next?). It also leads to other bizarre behaviors eg, the 'laid off' are never spoken about about..name plates and all evidence of their existence are expunged from the record. The economic and societal impact of the layoff threat is never considered.
We are deemed 'employees at will' and yes our continued employment is performance based but is overridden by the company's need to increase the bottom line and placate the shareholders. Mass layoffs unrelated to individual performance occur to achieve this goal.
Millennials who once thought themselves immune to such onslaughts now increasingly hold mortgages and raise children. The constant threat of layoffs makes us all crazy and very conservative. It stifles creativity in favor of adhering to established process. HR departments never deal with this because they have no power to change it. And the psychological damage to those left behind is profound (am I next?). It also leads to other bizarre behaviors eg, the 'laid off' are never spoken about about..name plates and all evidence of their existence are expunged from the record. The economic and societal impact of the layoff threat is never considered.
6
Adam Smith used the word "easy" frequently in The Wealth of Nations to mean simple and straight-forward, uncomplicated. Nowhere did he use the term to mean "lazy." Nor did Smith think that ordinary workers were lazy. If anything, he thought that the rich and powerful were lazy and inclined to overwork and dupe laborers, hence the needs for judicious labor policies and public education.
1
Worker ownership would end the malaise. The innately human desire for freedom and the ability to guide our own future do not fit into a system in which we are forced to rent ourselves and paid the least amount of money that the market will bear.
Adam Smith didn't say that people were inherently lazy - he said that the free flow of goods across borders and the division of labor would render people stupid and lazy.
"...why have we continued to tolerate and even embrace that approach to work?"
For the same reason that Lenin formed worker armies - control of the workforce must be maximized. For the same reason that FDR railed against labor's demands for workers councils to be established in industrial settings.
Labor is to be regarded as a "resource", requiring no more respect than that given to the oil we pump from the ground. Granting labor dignity and rights is seen as a dangerous path by our corporate masters, and they have declared and executed a class war in order to maintain control of our lives.
Adam Smith didn't say that people were inherently lazy - he said that the free flow of goods across borders and the division of labor would render people stupid and lazy.
"...why have we continued to tolerate and even embrace that approach to work?"
For the same reason that Lenin formed worker armies - control of the workforce must be maximized. For the same reason that FDR railed against labor's demands for workers councils to be established in industrial settings.
Labor is to be regarded as a "resource", requiring no more respect than that given to the oil we pump from the ground. Granting labor dignity and rights is seen as a dangerous path by our corporate masters, and they have declared and executed a class war in order to maintain control of our lives.
2
The combination of meaningful work in a supportive, pleasant environment is, I think, the key to loving your job. Unfortunately, too few people in charge of others knows how to create the environment for the magic to happen. Why do we give the manager slot to the megalomaniac who wants to be president rather than the team builder who understands and nurtures people?
2
I seem to recall a hirsute German philosopher discussing the alienation of labor a few years after Adam Smith. It's nothing new.
2
When your CEO is taking home pay that is hundreds of times more than yours, you have every right to be unhappy at work. Two percent salary increases are an insult. But then American workers have no one to blame but themselves. They gave into this sort of abuse when they decided they didn't need unions. They created their unhappiness at work.
81
It was not 'American workers' who 'decided they didn't need unions', it was the GOP, although any worker who voted for Reagan, ironically, many of them blue collar, is responsible for the economy we have now.
1
I agree wholeheartedly with this Op-Ed. I retired three and a half years ago as a financial advisor. During The Great Recession--from October 2008 to March 2009--it was frustrating, exhausting and sometimes downright heartbreaking to go to work everyday during that period.
Swings in the Dow of 1,000 to 1,200points were a frequent occurrence. Dealing with panicky clients, who feared losing their retirement nest eggs, were almost daily. And others were expecting their FA to know what to do. Just remember that there are no training manuals about such times. All the while, watching my own retirement funds drop, knowing that I would be retiring soon too, sure didn't help one bit.
But, I can honestly say that feeling like I was really, really needed each day, not by my company--but, for doing what was truly needed by my clients. Along with many of my colleagues, I felt appreciated in those days--needed--and "put my cape" on everyday. Made myself available! Took and returned calls!
I surely can understand those hospital custodians who took pride in what they did for patients, lawyers who opt to work with the poor, call worker who learn the value of their solicitations, or even assembly lin e workers who finally view, and perhaps use, the finished products that they build.
It's called job satisfaction!
Swings in the Dow of 1,000 to 1,200points were a frequent occurrence. Dealing with panicky clients, who feared losing their retirement nest eggs, were almost daily. And others were expecting their FA to know what to do. Just remember that there are no training manuals about such times. All the while, watching my own retirement funds drop, knowing that I would be retiring soon too, sure didn't help one bit.
But, I can honestly say that feeling like I was really, really needed each day, not by my company--but, for doing what was truly needed by my clients. Along with many of my colleagues, I felt appreciated in those days--needed--and "put my cape" on everyday. Made myself available! Took and returned calls!
I surely can understand those hospital custodians who took pride in what they did for patients, lawyers who opt to work with the poor, call worker who learn the value of their solicitations, or even assembly lin e workers who finally view, and perhaps use, the finished products that they build.
It's called job satisfaction!
23
"Recent efforts across the country to achieve a significant increase in the minimum wage represent real social progress."
Let's hope so. Let's hope it doesn't just mean that fast-food operators will design ingenious new ways to make their product mechanically, cutting out more and more employees. The best outcome would be that FF1 mechanizes to safe money and FF2 continues to make even buying a burger and fries an interaction with humans -- and FF2 thrives where FF1 doesn't. But people shop price, so I'm not holding my breath.
Let's hope so. Let's hope it doesn't just mean that fast-food operators will design ingenious new ways to make their product mechanically, cutting out more and more employees. The best outcome would be that FF1 mechanizes to safe money and FF2 continues to make even buying a burger and fries an interaction with humans -- and FF2 thrives where FF1 doesn't. But people shop price, so I'm not holding my breath.
"In the face of longstanding evidence that routinization and an overemphasis on pay lead to worse performance in the workplace, why have we continued to tolerate and even embrace that approach to work?"
Because we all know deep down that long-term goals are for suckers. What matters is meeting Wall Street analysts' growth projections for this quarter and nothing else. We'll think about next quarter when we get there.
Because we all know deep down that long-term goals are for suckers. What matters is meeting Wall Street analysts' growth projections for this quarter and nothing else. We'll think about next quarter when we get there.
1
Nowhere is this more true than in modern-day 'scientific' research. The way that grant programmes and subsidies are structured quickly kills the inquisitive spirit of all but the most maniacally-driven investigators. It's now little but writing grants to please reviewers in order to head into three more years of on-time deliverables whose quality is ultimately of little relevance.
1
Corporate work isn't structured for the benefit of workers. It's not even structured for the best benefit of customers. It's structured for the best benefit of managers and owners. Which is why so many workers adhere to the adage:
"If something is not worth doing, it's not worth doing well."
"If something is not worth doing, it's not worth doing well."
1
The problem with work is not so much in the actual work performed as much as it is in repetitiveness and length of time. I don't mind cleaning the bathrooms in my house, but I wouldn't want to clean bathrooms all day for eight hours, five days a week. I made my living as an English prof. and after many years came to loathe reading student papers. Reading a student paper can be an interesting experience. Reading hundreds of them a semester, semester after semester is nothing more than a dreadful chore. Thank the gods I'm retired.
31
Don't worry.
Tenured professor collect their big paychecks and pass that work along to adjuncts who are paid so little they qualify for food stamps.
Tenured professor collect their big paychecks and pass that work along to adjuncts who are paid so little they qualify for food stamps.
Love this article - but I think a lot of the disengagement also comes from the fact that people take what jobs they are offered, rather than what fits with them. Think of dating - we don't marry the first person we date, but we often take the first job we get offered. And we look at people with multiple job offers as impressive, when it should be how we look upon people with multiple simultaneous offers of marriage. Job Interviews shouldn't be the employer asking all the questions, and the prospect desperately trying to get hired, it should be mutual conversation to see if there is a fit, with skills, personalities, and behaviors that match on both sides. This is a blog post that expands on that theory: http://pete.photos/1MVNvOA
2
I think people gravitate towards kinds of work that are a combination of personally and financially satisfying, as defined by each individual. The author chooses a very poor example when he cites the lawyers/doctors /bankers who leave for positions that pay relatively poorly. First of all, it is a small fraction of workers in those sectors who choose that route. And second, it is not uncommon for them to take advisory roles in government for the connections and other benefits that could help their careers/financial renumeration in the future.
Seemingly, we've forgetten that the only reason to pay people for doing anything is to encourage them to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do (enough) - instead of spending their time on other things (: The function of prices is to balance supplied and demanded amounts.
If there were sufficient competition over employees (i.e., all employees always had alternatives), this competition would encourage companies to make work as worthwhile and rewarding as possible for employees - because then they need to pay them less to keep them (and they might also be a more productive and creative, depending on the type of work).
The trouble is that there isn't sufficient competition over employees due to (1) artificial labor market rigidities, (2) lack of education opportunities, and (3) a chronic aggregate oversupply of labor (relative to demand):
rootbug.org/Ns5
rootbug.org/Ns3
The objective should be to minimise the kind of work that people still need to get paid to do. In that sense I kind of disagree with this: "Work that is adequately compensated is an important social good."
If there were sufficient competition over employees (i.e., all employees always had alternatives), this competition would encourage companies to make work as worthwhile and rewarding as possible for employees - because then they need to pay them less to keep them (and they might also be a more productive and creative, depending on the type of work).
The trouble is that there isn't sufficient competition over employees due to (1) artificial labor market rigidities, (2) lack of education opportunities, and (3) a chronic aggregate oversupply of labor (relative to demand):
rootbug.org/Ns5
rootbug.org/Ns3
The objective should be to minimise the kind of work that people still need to get paid to do. In that sense I kind of disagree with this: "Work that is adequately compensated is an important social good."
2
In response to Tuure Parkkinen:
Illegal immigration, to the United States, contributes to a chronic aggregate oversupply of labor (relative to demand) in this country. Our less-educated citizens and our legal immigrants have to compete with a flood of illegal aliens for even part-time employment. If Congress allows the illegal aliens to remain here, then even more will come.
Illegal immigration, to the United States, contributes to a chronic aggregate oversupply of labor (relative to demand) in this country. Our less-educated citizens and our legal immigrants have to compete with a flood of illegal aliens for even part-time employment. If Congress allows the illegal aliens to remain here, then even more will come.
If only our economists and politicians would accept the fact that you cannot fix a chronic oversupply of labor by importing more labor.
Insightful as ever Barry! When managers believe in efficiency through routinization, they extract meaning out of the work and employees' intrinsic needs go unmet. In a recent study of more than 5,000 US employees, Temkin Group found that people are almost 4 times as likely to do something good for their company that is not expected of them IF they believe they are contributing to the success of the company: https://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/employees-need-to-fee...
Management philosophies need to change from viewing employee as a cost that you minimize to an "asset" that you maximize!
Management philosophies need to change from viewing employee as a cost that you minimize to an "asset" that you maximize!
3
The fact that so many people are not engaged in or with their work - like the fact that the vast majority of students are not engaged in or with their schools - does not mean that people don't innately like to work, need to work, love to work. Or that people don't intuitively and naturally engage in study and learning as though it were as important an urge as eating or breathing. It just means that we have built institutions that require most of us to engage in work or studying that we are not naturally drawn to.
Providing someone the opportunity to work is a wonderful gift. Forcing them to do work they are not themselves drawn to engage in is merely one more form of public coercion.
Providing someone the opportunity to work is a wonderful gift. Forcing them to do work they are not themselves drawn to engage in is merely one more form of public coercion.
My companies annual engagement survey starts tomorrow, the article underscores the concepts perfectly. Most of us feel that the survey has good intentions, rarely do we see any measureable change for the better.
I B M the engagement survey provider , had a pop up ad when I first saw the article, Hey maybe its a conspiracy , or just an coincidence .
I B M the engagement survey provider , had a pop up ad when I first saw the article, Hey maybe its a conspiracy , or just an coincidence .
I worked at a company that went through a major cultural shift after an ownership change, from the entrepreneurial founder to an investment group (who then sold the company again about three years later to another group). Each was strong, but with very different goals and approaches to work. The former wanted to fill an industry need and create an environment in which people wanted to serve and grow. The latter drove process efficiency and bottom-line outcomes at every turn. Both approaches are important and require balance. However, the aggressive approach of the new owners did irreparable damage to employee morale. The downward change in the level of commitment, service, teamwork, personal development and general joy in work was amazing...and disturbing. The result was a significant increase in employee stress, general dissatisfaction and turnover. In my experience, people absolutely want a sense of value in their work that extends well beyond an hourly rate for widgets completed. Making a positive difference in the community they serve, developing useful skills, being appreciated for innovative ideas and a sense of personal accountability are just as important to some - and moreso to many - than the actual wage, assuming a basic level of economic comfort is achieved. This is a terrific piece and I will be sharing it with my clients (and I will buy the book!).
4
I have heard all of these theories before. They are all bogus.
The problem is that all of these economic case studies are all performed in a microcosm of the real world. Things that seem to work in a small group or small company do not scale. And, things that work in large organizations can be constraining for a small firm.
I have worked in small, medium and big companies. I can tell you that structure is absolutely necessary in a large company; without it, the place would be chaos. In smaller companies, you have more control and freedom BUT it comes at the cost of less pay, benefits and access to resources.
The presumption that what makes one person happy applies to everyone is the fundamental flaw of this economic theories. My experience is that some people could not organize themselves out of a paper bag; these people do not do well in larger organizations. But, there are also people who are about as creative as a wet rag and have the humor to match. They do not do well absent structure and would fail in a startup or small company. Most people are somewhere in the middle.
But, as companies get ever larger due to the empire building of the executive class, the result is that it creates ever more of the latter types of situations and ever fewer of the latter. The American corporate makeup is out of balance with the demands and natural skill set of its population. This explains the growing discontent.
The problem is that all of these economic case studies are all performed in a microcosm of the real world. Things that seem to work in a small group or small company do not scale. And, things that work in large organizations can be constraining for a small firm.
I have worked in small, medium and big companies. I can tell you that structure is absolutely necessary in a large company; without it, the place would be chaos. In smaller companies, you have more control and freedom BUT it comes at the cost of less pay, benefits and access to resources.
The presumption that what makes one person happy applies to everyone is the fundamental flaw of this economic theories. My experience is that some people could not organize themselves out of a paper bag; these people do not do well in larger organizations. But, there are also people who are about as creative as a wet rag and have the humor to match. They do not do well absent structure and would fail in a startup or small company. Most people are somewhere in the middle.
But, as companies get ever larger due to the empire building of the executive class, the result is that it creates ever more of the latter types of situations and ever fewer of the latter. The American corporate makeup is out of balance with the demands and natural skill set of its population. This explains the growing discontent.
3
Without explicitly saying so, what Mr. Schwartz seems to be criticizing here is industrial, profit-driven capitalism, to which I offer a hearty "hear, hear." It is largely the hierarchical structure of most companies and absurdly steep compensation pyramids in which CEOs now make hundreds and even thousands of times what their employees make that create the the conditions which then lead to the sense of futility among workers. I agree with all of Mr. Schwartz's recommendations but would add several more. 1)It should be illegal for any CEO or upper management to receive more than ten times the annual compensation of the lowest paid employee in that company. 2)Employees should be given the power to hire and fire executives. And 3)Can we please do away with the demeaning phrase "Human Resources"? Human beings are not a "resource," like coal, or copper. They are sentient beings, unlike any other part of an enterprise's overhead. By relegating humans to the level of widgets or raw materials in the manufacturing process, workers, from the moment they set foot in the door, are demeaned and reduced to the level of a "thing" by being referred to as a "resource."
1
Job design makes it all but impossible for most workers to have goals greater than earning their daily bread. In fact, trying to have greater goals will get most workers fired for insubordination, how dare they know more than management?!!! or for wasting time not doing whatever it was they were paid to do. How dare they steal from the company?!!!
Most of the "new jobs" are about being as compliant as a cow walking the chute to an abattoir. Any resistance to being slaughtered in the name of profit will get you killed more quickly.
Most of the "new jobs" are about being as compliant as a cow walking the chute to an abattoir. Any resistance to being slaughtered in the name of profit will get you killed more quickly.
1
Barry Schwartz works Social Theory and Social Action, teaches psychology and economics... and he is spot on.
There are many windows through which his rethinking can be done... sadly, the typical manager in the typical management does not understand this.
Adam Smith was brilliant, as was Gilbert Steuart who came first.
Freund was no slouch, and Bettelheim was as good as any of them.
Barry Schwartz teaches, writes and thinks. These functions play a role in his ability to observe.
In farming, it is not about the money. In teaching, it is not about the money, In The White House, sadly, it has become about the money... and that seems to have started with Reagan and now works its way with Clinton stuff.
We can do better, and Professor Schwartz has the bead.
There are many windows through which his rethinking can be done... sadly, the typical manager in the typical management does not understand this.
Adam Smith was brilliant, as was Gilbert Steuart who came first.
Freund was no slouch, and Bettelheim was as good as any of them.
Barry Schwartz teaches, writes and thinks. These functions play a role in his ability to observe.
In farming, it is not about the money. In teaching, it is not about the money, In The White House, sadly, it has become about the money... and that seems to have started with Reagan and now works its way with Clinton stuff.
We can do better, and Professor Schwartz has the bead.
If it's your job, you hate it. That's human nature.
1
Who really understands what goes on in the workplace? The manager with an MBA and a serious personality flaw, narcissistic or psychopath? The company can be too big to fail and what really matters is friends and family. Go ahead and initiate a lawsuit but make sure you have the right lawyer and court venue. The media spins these things to give people the illusions they want about justice.
Yes - I would not work at this job if I was not paid but I frequently say, I like money as much as the next person but it's not why I get out of bed in the morning and come to work. I have liked almost every job I have done over the past 40+ years including the one I have now. After many jobs and many more managers, it has been my opinion than 90% of job satisfaction is the manager you have - but unfortunately it is the aspect of employment over which you have the least amount of control.
2
Work is natural. All living things, unless they are plants that soak up the sun and rain, need to exert themselves in order to find sustenance in whatever environment they are in. I think we can all agree on that. But as has been said elsewhere in this comment thread, many employers have perverted the nature of work, and have violated the social contract between employer and employed, and many employees feel forced to accept conditions that veer ever closer to outright slavery.
I just left an employer after 24 years (having held various positions within the company) because I recognized that the company was just spinning its wheels and that I was doing the same. Now I have a lot of work to do, but no new steady job yet. Sometimes my new routine feels like a drag, and sometimes I feel this entire society is just spinning its wheels.
Work in the U.S. is very much tied to social status. You can be living well and productively as an "unemployed" person (off savings or odd jobs etc or even as a mendicant), but you will be looked down upon, make no mistake.
I just left an employer after 24 years (having held various positions within the company) because I recognized that the company was just spinning its wheels and that I was doing the same. Now I have a lot of work to do, but no new steady job yet. Sometimes my new routine feels like a drag, and sometimes I feel this entire society is just spinning its wheels.
Work in the U.S. is very much tied to social status. You can be living well and productively as an "unemployed" person (off savings or odd jobs etc or even as a mendicant), but you will be looked down upon, make no mistake.
2
Schwartz's ignorance of economics diminishes his point that non wage compensation is valuable. For example, even in neo-classical economics there is no overt claim that wages are the only form of compensation. Undergraduate textbooks do use the word "wages" in this context. but there is no conceptual requirement that these wages have to be in the form of monetary compensation. Second, he cites the parable of the pin to make the claim that specialization makes the economic view of work meaningless. Of course, Smith makes this point to show that specialization increases production and human well being as a result. Would Schwartz want to leave in an artisinal world without specialization? That kind of economy was called the Stone Age.
Under the circumstances, his claim that workers hate work as a matter of a biologically/psychologically incorrect "economics" culture is quite suspect. I imagine economists would not recognize themselves in the mirror as the cause of such deep psychological influence on human behavior. At the risk of adding to the psychobabble illustrated in this article I wonder if Dr, Schwartz's position is a mere expression of some sort of "economics" envy rather than the view of reasoned science.
Under the circumstances, his claim that workers hate work as a matter of a biologically/psychologically incorrect "economics" culture is quite suspect. I imagine economists would not recognize themselves in the mirror as the cause of such deep psychological influence on human behavior. At the risk of adding to the psychobabble illustrated in this article I wonder if Dr, Schwartz's position is a mere expression of some sort of "economics" envy rather than the view of reasoned science.
1
You say that economists don't have the view about human nature that Schwartz says that they do. First, he doesn't criticize all of economics. He criticizes Adam Smith's view that we're naturally lazy. Now, whether or not all economists implicitly or explicitly agree with this claim may be beside the point. It's hard to argue that the Smithian view has not been influential in the development of modern capitalist economies. Schwartz even tries to give an example (I wonder if it's accurate) of this influence in 20th century management theories. Second, the idea that wages may be non-monetary--that sometimes workers are "paid" in gratitude or a sense of fulfilment--seems a lot like an ad hoc move to save a theory by shoehorning a problematic phenomenon into its terminology. It's much like the doctrine of revealed preferences, which are supposed to be the answer to cases in which people appear to act contrary to their explicit preferences.It's one thing to say modern economic theory has a place to put the idea of fulfilment at work; it's another to say that it gives it gives the phenomenon the explanatory power it may actually have under a better theory.
Also, nowhere does Schwartz argue that we shouldn't have specialization of labor.
Also, nowhere does Schwartz argue that we shouldn't have specialization of labor.
Adam Smith was not writing about wage-driven idlers in the context of living as much at ease. He used teachers and specifically Oxford professors as examples where: "In the university of Oxford, the greater part of the public professors have, for these many years, given up altogether even the pretense of teaching." Since they had formed a arrangement of every man to consent that his neighbour may neglect his duty, provided he himself is allowed to neglect his own.
1
The idea that work can be designed in ways that will be rewarding, hence motivating to people, is not new. It is an established notion in Management & Organizational Behavior, following Frederick Herzberg's Motivation & Hygiene Theory, 1968, as also the studies of the "human relations school" (Elton Mayo, Chester Barnard) dating back to 1940's and 50's.
1
I think the real reason for dissatisfaction, drinking, drugs, and suicides over work have more to do with choosing professions for their prestige and/or monetary compensation, rather than for "personality fit." There is an adage that states, "If you work at your hobby, you will never work a day in your life." This translates to "Work at something you truly would do without coaxing from an outside manager, and you will always find pleasure in your work."
We have been destroyed by meaningless, rote, repetitive tasks that have dulled our minds and stifled natural creativity and innovation. We are, for the most part, robots, not humans.
Our priorities for the enjoyment of life have been shuffled by many to cause anxieties unheard of 200 years ago; have been organized to hide our human needs, rather that enhance our quality of life.
We have been destroyed by meaningless, rote, repetitive tasks that have dulled our minds and stifled natural creativity and innovation. We are, for the most part, robots, not humans.
Our priorities for the enjoyment of life have been shuffled by many to cause anxieties unheard of 200 years ago; have been organized to hide our human needs, rather that enhance our quality of life.
Please, let's not be too hard on Adam Smith. He was a much more decent fellow than many in the twenty-first century who claim to be his disciples. For example, he recognized AND deplored the mind-numbing nature of many jobs created in the industrial revolution, and he sought ways to mitigate that evil. His devotion to the "division of labor" was not nearly as fanatical as we currently find among modern Capitalists. He also favored such radical ideas as publicly financed education for the laboring classes and their families, and he urged employers to pay workers "liberally." He was, after all, "a Moral Philosopher." If we wish to imbibe the wisdom of "AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS," it is important to read and reflect upon THE WHOLE BOOK very carefully.
2
Most larger or vey large corporations develop the old standby called job description, then work teams are developed withing those guidelines. From years and years of interfacing with so called office enviroments I found most employees don't have 8 hours of work to do while a small percentage have mor to do than they can ever get done. From my sales background all my career 80& of the sales are produced by 20% of the sales force. My example is all employees are simply not that productive. Enter management designed schemes to increas or maximize productivity.
1
Dr. Schwartz's essay compels us to ask the question: if studies and experience clearly demonstrate that treating employees with respect and allowing them autonomy directly improves the bottom line, why are there so many terrible bosses and lousy jobs?
Sadly I think that the answer is that many of the people who create companies and seek management positions care more about exercising their authority than they do about running their business. When increasing profits conflicts with demonstrating power over other human beings, an awful lot would just rather have the power.
In support of this fairly radical hypothesis I cite the history of "new" labor activism in the 1970s. When Baby Boomers entered the workforce, they quickly began demanding not higher wages and benefits but more autonomy at work. The UAW local in Lordstown, Ohio - headed up by a 29-year-old president - famously went on strike in 1972 purely over working conditions. Pay didn't even come into it. Big Business reacted to these new demands that workers have a say in plant and even corporate management by doing everything in its power to break the unions, and by the end of Reagan's tenure the bosses had largely succeeded.
In 1975 labor unions were the strongest interest group in the country. By 1985 they were terminally wounded - for having the audacity to demand that bosses listen to employees. Management will surrender more money if it has to, but its prerogatives? Never.
Sadly I think that the answer is that many of the people who create companies and seek management positions care more about exercising their authority than they do about running their business. When increasing profits conflicts with demonstrating power over other human beings, an awful lot would just rather have the power.
In support of this fairly radical hypothesis I cite the history of "new" labor activism in the 1970s. When Baby Boomers entered the workforce, they quickly began demanding not higher wages and benefits but more autonomy at work. The UAW local in Lordstown, Ohio - headed up by a 29-year-old president - famously went on strike in 1972 purely over working conditions. Pay didn't even come into it. Big Business reacted to these new demands that workers have a say in plant and even corporate management by doing everything in its power to break the unions, and by the end of Reagan's tenure the bosses had largely succeeded.
In 1975 labor unions were the strongest interest group in the country. By 1985 they were terminally wounded - for having the audacity to demand that bosses listen to employees. Management will surrender more money if it has to, but its prerogatives? Never.
1
GMB, your information on the Lordstown UAW chapter is interesting. What I remember about the strong unions is that they wouldn't let their workers cross-train between jobs. The unions worried that companies would be able to hire fewer people if their employees were able to work in different areas of the factory.
The goal of most unions was to increase the number of factory workers rather than to let their members learn each others' skills, and thus have more interesting work lives.
Unions are important, but they may have held too much power in the 1960's and 70's.
The goal of most unions was to increase the number of factory workers rather than to let their members learn each others' skills, and thus have more interesting work lives.
Unions are important, but they may have held too much power in the 1960's and 70's.
Your example of the custodian and phone solicitors were way off the mark.
1) A custodian working a shift where patients are awake and he is part of a team with nurses and doctors in an academic institution is a far cry from cleaning offices at night in a deserted office building. Plus you seem to assume that custodians aren’t very bright and you were surprised to see their interacting with others even making others laugh or more comfortable. These are human traits which I have seen MUCH more often with housekeeping in hospitals than with administrators. How many current CEOs or top politicians mention that their parents were custodians...it may be that the custodian didn’t have the chance for higher education or was a recent immigrant...not much to do with overall IQ or people skills!
2) A phone solicitor for academia sure beats the heck out of being a phone solicitor for aluminum siding! Academic donations isn’t close to a “typical” call center job.
Perhaps the author isn’t familiar with recent articles on why American workers don’t take vacation time (IF they even have vacations) as they have been brow-beaten into believing they might lose their job if not connected to their jobs 24 hrs/day including weekends. Read last Sunday’s Amazon.com business environment.
We have no year maternity/paternity leave..usually NO health care benefits/no pension plans/wage stagnation with a CEO wage gap that just seems to keep increasing no matter.
Are we not entertained?
1) A custodian working a shift where patients are awake and he is part of a team with nurses and doctors in an academic institution is a far cry from cleaning offices at night in a deserted office building. Plus you seem to assume that custodians aren’t very bright and you were surprised to see their interacting with others even making others laugh or more comfortable. These are human traits which I have seen MUCH more often with housekeeping in hospitals than with administrators. How many current CEOs or top politicians mention that their parents were custodians...it may be that the custodian didn’t have the chance for higher education or was a recent immigrant...not much to do with overall IQ or people skills!
2) A phone solicitor for academia sure beats the heck out of being a phone solicitor for aluminum siding! Academic donations isn’t close to a “typical” call center job.
Perhaps the author isn’t familiar with recent articles on why American workers don’t take vacation time (IF they even have vacations) as they have been brow-beaten into believing they might lose their job if not connected to their jobs 24 hrs/day including weekends. Read last Sunday’s Amazon.com business environment.
We have no year maternity/paternity leave..usually NO health care benefits/no pension plans/wage stagnation with a CEO wage gap that just seems to keep increasing no matter.
Are we not entertained?
2
This serious, counterproductive disengagement of capable people from their work is the direct result of allowing too many managers with MBAs to inflict their Adam Smith beliefs on everyone else. They are trained -- drilled -- in practices that measure the cost of everything but the value of very little. Employees are reduced to numbers on spreadsheets. Management decisions that go to the heart of an organization's mission are made based only on numbers. Relationships are assessed based solely on yearly revenue and other short-term, limited measures. To a CFO, if a given function can be filled by an untrained, inexperienced, cheap-as-possible placeholder, that's a win -- regardless of the quality of work or service delivered to clients, customers, etc.
When will this madness stop? When will so-called "leaders" take back the reins from the bean-counters? Well, given that so many CEOs are bean-counting, spreadsheet-driven MBAs themselves, and that this system works very nicely for them to generate the outsize rewards, pay disparities and income inequality they enjoy, I'm not holding my breath. In fact, this approach is spreading and has long infected the non-profit sector too, including education.
When will this madness stop? When will so-called "leaders" take back the reins from the bean-counters? Well, given that so many CEOs are bean-counting, spreadsheet-driven MBAs themselves, and that this system works very nicely for them to generate the outsize rewards, pay disparities and income inequality they enjoy, I'm not holding my breath. In fact, this approach is spreading and has long infected the non-profit sector too, including education.
5
The late Mortimer Adler differentiated between work and toil. Some of us -- attorneys, inventors, physicians, scientists, software developers, tenured university professors, etc. -- have the luxury of 'playing' at our work. Often, we don't want to quit until someone else suggests it or we reach a mandatory retirement age in our company or academic institution.
However, the experience of work takes on a different character for those who move furniture, load trucks, or labor in various construction trades, which can tax and tear down the body until it's doubtful the worker will reach an age to qualify for full social security retirement benefits.
Not all "work," then, is created equal. And even for those of us fortunate enough to have found interesting and manifoldly rewarding jobs, the nature of work is changing. Autonomy plays a huge role in knowledge workers' job satisfaction, while management, which rarely fully understands what knowledge workers do, attempts to "get a handle" by imposing ISO standards, SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), or some equally tedious documentation methodology to capture elusive -- but valuable -- knowledge, skill, and work product.
Maybe Nikola Tesla could have told us if, in the end, writing ten to a hundred lines of documentation per executable line of code is more gratifying than digging ditches.
However, the experience of work takes on a different character for those who move furniture, load trucks, or labor in various construction trades, which can tax and tear down the body until it's doubtful the worker will reach an age to qualify for full social security retirement benefits.
Not all "work," then, is created equal. And even for those of us fortunate enough to have found interesting and manifoldly rewarding jobs, the nature of work is changing. Autonomy plays a huge role in knowledge workers' job satisfaction, while management, which rarely fully understands what knowledge workers do, attempts to "get a handle" by imposing ISO standards, SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle), or some equally tedious documentation methodology to capture elusive -- but valuable -- knowledge, skill, and work product.
Maybe Nikola Tesla could have told us if, in the end, writing ten to a hundred lines of documentation per executable line of code is more gratifying than digging ditches.
People want to matter; Religions and militaries thrive on this truth. Costco and Wegman's to mention two got that. Walmart and McDonalds did not.
6
We all work for ourselves as individuals. Whether our current obligation is to a company's mission (because we get a paycheck every month) or to ourselves because we are independent is secondary. There is no lifetime employment obligation in most jobs, and there cannot be, given the pace of change of technology.
This is good. It is our highest purpose to grow in our work and reshape the world creatively. In the future this will mean even fewer traditional jobs, as we all become entrepreneurs...whether we like it or not.
This is good. It is our highest purpose to grow in our work and reshape the world creatively. In the future this will mean even fewer traditional jobs, as we all become entrepreneurs...whether we like it or not.
I'm particularly intrigued by what this reality -- that people like and want to do work that makes a contribution -- with society's very real potential of automating most jobs. What if we let what could be automated, be automated and with those productivity gains, offer a universal Basic Income. Suddenly, we would all work mostly for passion and purpose, and companies who wanted to attract workers would need to organize the work in such a way that attracted people because of their unique valuable commitment.
1
Its all about the dollar and it's not going to change. Look at the bush era and tax cuts for the rich. The huge bank bailouts and people footing the bill for the bankers, while the top 1% continued lining their pocket books. The rich own the politics and the corps and nothing is going to change unless government does something. You see families disown each other over the buck even...
2
Each workplace is different. Some are low key & offer individual discretion on how to approach a task & with latitude in expected completion time. Others are presided over by Scrooges or Simon Legrees, hovering overhead directly or implicitly after leveling various threats, urging greater speed, attention to detail & retreating to their cloisters.
In a capitalistic society, the only hope is great diversity & choice of employment. The rub is that frequent changes of job in search of compatible environment reduces "employability" & just prolongs life in the shark tank.
The public sector can be an improvement, but of course, is under assault from the plutocratic lackeys in govt & a public resentful of their own inability to control their workaday lives & eager to persecute those who don't tow the line.
Sometimes a highly paid but unsatisfactory job in the short term & a departure to the country & a perceived life of rusticity is what the doctor ordered.
In a capitalistic society, the only hope is great diversity & choice of employment. The rub is that frequent changes of job in search of compatible environment reduces "employability" & just prolongs life in the shark tank.
The public sector can be an improvement, but of course, is under assault from the plutocratic lackeys in govt & a public resentful of their own inability to control their workaday lives & eager to persecute those who don't tow the line.
Sometimes a highly paid but unsatisfactory job in the short term & a departure to the country & a perceived life of rusticity is what the doctor ordered.
1
Why have I never found a job that gives personal satisfaction--indeed why do I feel all my talents have been wasted in life?
Roughly it appears to me what we mean by job in life is not something really serving of the individual--rather a job is something which is supposed to be of collective use to society. The idea of a job is quite conservative--it is designed to serve many and the many define the available jobs. The concept of job is also closely allied to what is of necessity to society--what must be done to have a better life (garbage pickup, home construction, food service, maintenance of various types of technology). To increase job satisfaction there must be a way of increasing individual satisfaction without tampering with what of necessity must be done. And we all are familiar with so many people trying avoid what of necessity must be done and striving for individual satisfaction. It gets still trickier: Even when things can be done better--when better solutions to "necessity" exist--there is still resistance to change (for example those in power might seek to preserve the way things are done even though they can be done better and differently and give better lives to workers). What it comes down to are questions devilishly difficult to even bring up let alone solve: What must we do? What should we do? To question in such a way brings one quickly to notice of power, employers, and certainly not in a necessarily positive light. Few jobs exist for thinkers...
Roughly it appears to me what we mean by job in life is not something really serving of the individual--rather a job is something which is supposed to be of collective use to society. The idea of a job is quite conservative--it is designed to serve many and the many define the available jobs. The concept of job is also closely allied to what is of necessity to society--what must be done to have a better life (garbage pickup, home construction, food service, maintenance of various types of technology). To increase job satisfaction there must be a way of increasing individual satisfaction without tampering with what of necessity must be done. And we all are familiar with so many people trying avoid what of necessity must be done and striving for individual satisfaction. It gets still trickier: Even when things can be done better--when better solutions to "necessity" exist--there is still resistance to change (for example those in power might seek to preserve the way things are done even though they can be done better and differently and give better lives to workers). What it comes down to are questions devilishly difficult to even bring up let alone solve: What must we do? What should we do? To question in such a way brings one quickly to notice of power, employers, and certainly not in a necessarily positive light. Few jobs exist for thinkers...
1
There are glaring and fatal FLAWS built into Professor Schwartz' thesis.First of all he divorces work in making his case from the human desire to have an inviting life style and to take care of one's family well. In Professor Schartz world if you fully appreciated all the "good" you were doing in your low paid job without any significant potential for advancement you be happy and satisfied. Really Professor Schwartz ???
To make matter worse Professor Schwartz ignores the incredible GAP between both the pay and the quality of work between most employees and top tier executives with their lavish life styles and perks. It seems Professor Schwartz considers that irrelevant to how those below the executive elite at their company. In fact it seems Professor Schwartz believes all the employees should be HAPPY that everyone is playing a useful role and leave it at that.
Here is what i think the REAL problem is that Professor Schwartz does NOT live in the real world as high paid tenured professor in a bucolic low stress university setting with all summer off and I imagine he supplements his income nicely with lots of business consulting and lucrative speaking engagements. I will NOT be buying his new book. I don't read fiction.
To make matter worse Professor Schwartz ignores the incredible GAP between both the pay and the quality of work between most employees and top tier executives with their lavish life styles and perks. It seems Professor Schwartz considers that irrelevant to how those below the executive elite at their company. In fact it seems Professor Schwartz believes all the employees should be HAPPY that everyone is playing a useful role and leave it at that.
Here is what i think the REAL problem is that Professor Schwartz does NOT live in the real world as high paid tenured professor in a bucolic low stress university setting with all summer off and I imagine he supplements his income nicely with lots of business consulting and lucrative speaking engagements. I will NOT be buying his new book. I don't read fiction.
1
ATTACHMENT is endemic to all successful human endeavor, be it at home with family, in the community, in school or the workplace. One of the biggest challenges we have in the US is the cultural beliefs that stem from the pioneer days, when people had to be self-reliant and make do with whatever resources they could eke out in new territories. That and the American emphasis on individualism. Our legal system is designed to favor individual versus group rights. So major societal forces operate against forming strong positive attachments to fellow workers. I learned from a US citizen living and working in France that at his job, workers were expected to greet verbally and shake hands with other workers daily. In French movies I've seen, women embrace and kiss each other on both cheeks when they arrive at their places of work. Working together in the context of strong positive attachment results in a better work environment and productivity. The leveraged takeovers and throwing workers out, depriving them of livelihoods and pensions was destructive of attachments in the workplace. That and the mistaken idea that we've got to succeed without help from anyone else. As Obama pointed out, the very rich who claim they did everything by themselves used roads, water, electricity and natural gas as well as other utilities built with taxpayer funds to acquire their wealth. It is an essential error in thinking that we do better if we grab as much for ourselves without others.
1
I am glad you are addressing this. There are so many things to learn. Some of the most rewarding aspects of a job is the ability to help others to learn to do things better and to better enjoy their lives. My former company had community service days where we worked with those who were looking to develop skills. In the hoped for move to shorter work weeks, maybe all companies should have give back days which not only enhance enjoyment of work but bring in new skilled people who are very enthusiastic. In the same line, internal coaches can help workers do better at what they do and therefore enjoy their jobs more. Again, my former company put this into play in various call centers and almost tripled the retention rate (and greatly lowered costs). So many people are thrown into jobs without training or skills that they are bound to feel uncomfortable and probably hate being there. I think this is a solvable problem which may also allow more people to enjoy more leisure/family time in the long run.
In spite of the research, I would disagree. While people claim they hate their jobs, most don't want to give them up even when they're financially able to. Many people who retire regret it.
People like the interaction with other people and the feeling of accomplishment. Some just like the feeling of getting out of the house. Some like to work because even if they don't particularly love their jobs, they like the mundaneness of what's at home even less.
That's not to say that employers couldn't make the workplace happier, more efficient, more productive and increase employee morale. Most employees just want a few simple things: they want to be respected, recognized for their work and they don't want to look stupid. And they want to be fairly compensated.
People like the interaction with other people and the feeling of accomplishment. Some just like the feeling of getting out of the house. Some like to work because even if they don't particularly love their jobs, they like the mundaneness of what's at home even less.
That's not to say that employers couldn't make the workplace happier, more efficient, more productive and increase employee morale. Most employees just want a few simple things: they want to be respected, recognized for their work and they don't want to look stupid. And they want to be fairly compensated.
When workplace leaders share their vision, not just about the "what" and "how" of work, but about the "why," workplace engagement grows. When workplace leaders invite workers into the vision-building process, engagement skyrockets!
An interesting topic. I think Robert Pirsig got it fundamentally right in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The pleasure one derives from an activity is closely related to the extent that one dedicates oneself to pursuing excellence. And so, I have derived great pleasure from jobs as simple as working in copy shops.
I think too that we have come to overemphasize credentials at the expense of subject mastery or craft, thereby teaching our kids that attaining a piece of paper is more important that comprehensively understanding and valuing the underlying work. Just look at high school seniors who collect extracurricular credentials like baseball cards. Are they truly devoted to all these activities, or were they told they are needed to "sell" themselves to an "elite" college.
I guess one thing I've discovered in my working life is that if you find yourself being micromanaged, it's time to get the hell out. And fast - before you allow yourself to become acclimated.
I think too that we have come to overemphasize credentials at the expense of subject mastery or craft, thereby teaching our kids that attaining a piece of paper is more important that comprehensively understanding and valuing the underlying work. Just look at high school seniors who collect extracurricular credentials like baseball cards. Are they truly devoted to all these activities, or were they told they are needed to "sell" themselves to an "elite" college.
I guess one thing I've discovered in my working life is that if you find yourself being micromanaged, it's time to get the hell out. And fast - before you allow yourself to become acclimated.
4
Have to disagree that looking at the "best places to work" lists is a good idea for making investments. In 2001, Enron was number 22 on Fortune's best places to work list. By the end of the year they had declared bankruptcy.
Even if there were zero unemployment, there would be vastly more people than there are rewarding jobs, which is why compensation IS important. If things HAVE to get done, then you must be willing to pay people accordingly, even if they seem to you to be a pack of ungrateful wretches.
The most engaging and satisfying work was that which challenged my analytical skills. My work experience ran the gamut, from repetitive assembly line work to overhauling, testing and re-certifying hydraulic flight control actuators in the Navy. After college and law school on the G.I. Bill, I practiced in a Public Defender Office, in which those skills in analyzing the facts and parsing statutory language produced successful outcomes for my clients.
The second major factor is supportive co-workers and management. In the Navy, my shop chief socialized with the guys and gave a fair amount of leeway in scheduling the work to be done. This was in contrast with the norm in which most senior Petty Officers, obsessed with micro-managing dress, hair length and other "Chicken" practices, alienated their work forces.
But my best supervisor in law practice was a deputy chief who not only looked after us, but challenged us to innovate and solve complex problems. He assisted me in selecting jury instructions in my first solo jury trial, which although against office policy, but resulted in an acquittal for my client.
I had seen the best work environments, in which management and co-workers worked as a highly productive team, and the worst in which the management consisted of martinets only concerned with their own advancement and sowing discontent and suspicion among the work force. Now that I'm retired, I enjoy applying those same analytical skills to commentary on Times articles.
The second major factor is supportive co-workers and management. In the Navy, my shop chief socialized with the guys and gave a fair amount of leeway in scheduling the work to be done. This was in contrast with the norm in which most senior Petty Officers, obsessed with micro-managing dress, hair length and other "Chicken" practices, alienated their work forces.
But my best supervisor in law practice was a deputy chief who not only looked after us, but challenged us to innovate and solve complex problems. He assisted me in selecting jury instructions in my first solo jury trial, which although against office policy, but resulted in an acquittal for my client.
I had seen the best work environments, in which management and co-workers worked as a highly productive team, and the worst in which the management consisted of martinets only concerned with their own advancement and sowing discontent and suspicion among the work force. Now that I'm retired, I enjoy applying those same analytical skills to commentary on Times articles.
2
I am in my early 60s and have a life time of knowledge that I bring to the workplace. I have found it better to say nothing and do my job the way I have been told. Its hard to watch management make the same mistakes I've made and sad to see them learn the lessons I've learned at the company's and worker's expense. How many studies have to be made before management of American companies realize that if you truly care about your employees they will care and be more productive in they're jobs. Pay is not everything.
5
Many people stay in jobs they hate because they have no choice. They have financial obligations, perhaps children and responsibilities, and they need the benefits the job provides. Americans are consumers and there are also a lot of "wants". If a pension is involved such as a government position, people will think twice about leaving. Luckily I do not fit the above description.
1
The US never recovered from Ronald Reagan's destruction of the air traffic controllers union.
2
American workers are unhappy because the American Dream has turned into a nightmare, thanks to largely-unrestrained capitalism that's resulted (as someone once predicted) in virtual monopolies, the creation of an oligarchy, and a loss of access to meaningful labor. So our jobs become ever more quantifiable and regulated, we become ever more disposable, and we work harder for less and less dependable income. Then when we find time to go out and buy what we need and want, we find fewer options from bigger corporations who are driving THEIR workers harder and for less compensation (no worries, we'll make up the diff). It's not a sustainable situation for anyone but the relative few at the top and their bought-and-paid for puppet politicians. I really hate to say that Marx was right about anything, but he was right about some things. I think there's still time to turn it around, to have a sensible capitalistic system that doesn't allow free rein to greed and exploitation.
5
Depends on the job.
Depends how creative and social it is.
If you work minimum wage alone at night cleaning a warehouse, a factory or a restaurant then maybe your job is not so satisfying.
Depends how creative and social it is.
If you work minimum wage alone at night cleaning a warehouse, a factory or a restaurant then maybe your job is not so satisfying.
There is a short animated video on youtube entitled 'The surprising truth about what motivates us' adapted from Dan Pink's talk on RSA highlighting some of this research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
I don't hate my job
Speaking personally, I usually liked doing and learning my jobs. Problems started when I got good at my job and began to consider my supervision. I was usually disappointed (familiarity breeds contempt?). The last few years of my work life were spent at a non-profit low paying job that offered me much freedom from intrusive supervision - it was my favorite job.
A couple of years ago my pcp asked me how was I doing and, without any forethought, I said, "You know doctor Kaitz, in the morning I can't wait to get out of bed and face the day." Try and beat that. I am a retired professional of modest means and I work, without pay, at least 70 hours a week as a self employed journalist (everyone wants "free content"). I am not in it for the money, I am in it to be intellectually engaged and to make a contribution to society no matter how modest that might be. I have always gravitated toward fulfilling jobs and often sacraficed money to stay in those jobs. Perhaps it was my schooling. I took my B.A. from the New School and we always looked down on Harvard. Harvard prepares you to be successful and the New School prepares you to be fulfilled. and that means you can't wait to get out of bed in the morning and face the day -- 15 years and counting.
1
The industry one is working in is also a factor towards job satisfaction. I used to work in advertising, and although the agency I worked for was not a bad place to work, I wasn't exactly motivated or happy there because I was helping to make ads for products people didn't really need and for companies whose values didn't align with my own (for example, an oil company).
Idealistic? Yes. Naive? Yes.
But I eventually quit, retrained, and started working for another company where I'm much happier (and productive).
Idealistic? Yes. Naive? Yes.
But I eventually quit, retrained, and started working for another company where I'm much happier (and productive).
I don’t think people work only for their bread. Many workers including me have great zeal for our duties. If you are reluctant to work, for what you are living? Perhaps you spend quite a few hours at work place. If you are not enthusiastic for duties, you waste precious time for your life. It is important for us to always find something interesting in our work. That will lead to a feeling of satisfaction in our life.
Six o'clock one Sunday morning I sent an email to a botany professor at a local university involving some esoteric problem we were working on. I expected an answer by Monday morning. I got it instantly. And that was more typical than you might expect. College professors (especially in the sciences) work long hours for very little pay and love every minute of it. That everyone could enjoy such a fulfilling and fruitful work life.
1
Companies pay for talent. Hospitals pay for talent. Motion picture studios pay for talent. The NY Yankees pay for talent. The most talented get what they can demand. Get over the fairness and redistribution fantasy. Winners want to compete and get paid for merit. It used to be the American way.
1
I wonder if the pay gap between women and men, then, is due in part that women traditionally have entered fields (health care, education) that overtly allow for a greater sense of purpose other than simply the paycheck. Perhaps in these fields women value that sense of purpose more than men do and are less likely to pursue extra pay.
1
People would be infinitely happier in their current (information-based) jobs if they:
1. Could work from home as much as possible.
2. Could set their own hours, so they could reduce their commute times and take care of doctor's appointments, car repair, etc., without using vacation time.
3. Had fewer worthless meetings to participate in.
4. Had less work bureaucracy and inefficiency to deal with, saving them precious time.
Simply having more control over how one works and being able to use one's precious hours wisely would make the vast majority of information-based jobs pleasant.
1. Could work from home as much as possible.
2. Could set their own hours, so they could reduce their commute times and take care of doctor's appointments, car repair, etc., without using vacation time.
3. Had fewer worthless meetings to participate in.
4. Had less work bureaucracy and inefficiency to deal with, saving them precious time.
Simply having more control over how one works and being able to use one's precious hours wisely would make the vast majority of information-based jobs pleasant.
1
In 1983, the economist Robert Reich published a book called The Next American Frontier. He cited a broad study of income inequality that contained a subgroup of college educated white men working full time for large companies. The ratio of the highest salary to the lowest salary was five-to-one. Reich argued that if a market-driven five-to-one disparity was sufficient to keep these men on their toes (competitively speaking), what would be the right disparity for achieving optimum performance in the economy overall?
The overall disparity for all races, genders and educational levels in the study was about 23:1. Women and non-whites were paid less, part-time work was not well compensated, and so on. Reich's main point was that too much inequality was self-defeating, although ultimately it's a question of values and politics, not just economics.
I suspect that the basic 5:1 ratio is what most people feel comfortable with, and as inequality grows, we see a changing of people's reference groups. The fifty-dollar-an-hour finance industry worker probably feels something in common with the ten-dollar-an-hour sandwich maker in the company cafeteria. The hundred-dollar-an-hour employee eats somewhere else. The owners are somewhere else again.
In a world of rising inequality, it will not be enough to simply tell the sandwich maker to be happy with his sandwiches. The rethinking of work will have to be much, much broader in scope.
The overall disparity for all races, genders and educational levels in the study was about 23:1. Women and non-whites were paid less, part-time work was not well compensated, and so on. Reich's main point was that too much inequality was self-defeating, although ultimately it's a question of values and politics, not just economics.
I suspect that the basic 5:1 ratio is what most people feel comfortable with, and as inequality grows, we see a changing of people's reference groups. The fifty-dollar-an-hour finance industry worker probably feels something in common with the ten-dollar-an-hour sandwich maker in the company cafeteria. The hundred-dollar-an-hour employee eats somewhere else. The owners are somewhere else again.
In a world of rising inequality, it will not be enough to simply tell the sandwich maker to be happy with his sandwiches. The rethinking of work will have to be much, much broader in scope.
Superficial Tripe: Work is just one more example of Political Power Struggle, and the sadistic, narcissistic, & financial exploitation of the weaker by the more powerful -- admit it.
The mythical rather than the historical Adam Smith!
In certain industries, government regulation prevents the employer from organizing the work to give maximum satisfaction to the employees. Fear of litigation or enforcement action is a major factor in many of the convoluted work practices we see today.
To work is as normal to human nature as other mundane activities performed in daily life. In fact, work is a powerful means of self expression through which hidden creative instincts of human nature assume concrete shape through the product or activity produced by human labour, menial or intellectual. However, this is possible only when work is performed under pleasant conditions and according to conscious choice of the worker.
6
Every human being I have met can rationalize the need to work.
Not one human being I have met can rationalize the extreme economic parasitism that is America's 350:1 CEO:worker pay ratio.
People try to explain with empty clichés and slogans, but there is no rational explanation for 350:1, except for one explanation that's a little uncomfortable to admit in public, sociopathic and unfettered, unregulated greed.
The ratio is much lower all other industrialized countries is much lower because such type of executive economic violence is simply unacceptable, whereas America and Americans have been hypnotized and Stockholm-Syndromed into being systematically abused by 'free-market' propaganda and nonsense for over three decades.
It's not about work; its about the sustained American economic violence of executives and the 0.1% in pay, pension, vacation, healthcare, taxation, restraint of trade and the common good against the overwhelming majority of American citizens.
Rethink American vulture capitalism, not work.
Not one human being I have met can rationalize the extreme economic parasitism that is America's 350:1 CEO:worker pay ratio.
People try to explain with empty clichés and slogans, but there is no rational explanation for 350:1, except for one explanation that's a little uncomfortable to admit in public, sociopathic and unfettered, unregulated greed.
The ratio is much lower all other industrialized countries is much lower because such type of executive economic violence is simply unacceptable, whereas America and Americans have been hypnotized and Stockholm-Syndromed into being systematically abused by 'free-market' propaganda and nonsense for over three decades.
It's not about work; its about the sustained American economic violence of executives and the 0.1% in pay, pension, vacation, healthcare, taxation, restraint of trade and the common good against the overwhelming majority of American citizens.
Rethink American vulture capitalism, not work.
196
Why can't we rethink both? Yes, we'd all be better off with much lower levels of income and wealth inequality, but we still wouldn't be very happy at work if we're still forced to perform mindless, routinized tasks all day.
CEOs are heavily solicitated to donate to shadowy political operatives who keep the debate of public policy at the kindergarten level.
1
I have two questions:
1) For all those who take issue with this enormous ratio of CEO to worker pay, are you equally upset with similar or even larger ratios in pro sports, music, TV and film, etc.?
2) Besides making you feel better, what do you think that capping CEO pay would achieve?
1) For all those who take issue with this enormous ratio of CEO to worker pay, are you equally upset with similar or even larger ratios in pro sports, music, TV and film, etc.?
2) Besides making you feel better, what do you think that capping CEO pay would achieve?
This article boils down to Mihaly Csikzzentmihalyi's book, 'Flow'. This book encapsulates what we all need to be fully satisfied and content in our lives.
Read it.
Read it.
4
"What Smith and his descendants failed to realize is that rather than exploiting a fact about human nature, they were creating a fact about human nature." To me, this is the crux of the workplace assumption, a "deficit mode" in which all suspicion, distrust, demoralizing...are fostered. And we assume that is it, the core of humanity. We totally ignore the other parts of humanity that are rooted in "appreciative inquiry" in which we are curious, and want to create and build. When we are in deficit mode, even when we are "building" something, we start from negative. When we are in appreciate mode, we start from positive.
One comment I read insists that organizational structure alone cannot erase some of our base nature. I don't think Professor Schwartz mentioned anything about changes in organizational structure alone would correct all the ills. But given how much of our lives are spent in organizations, a positive change in that environment goes a long way, not just in organizations but in society as well.
One comment I read insists that organizational structure alone cannot erase some of our base nature. I don't think Professor Schwartz mentioned anything about changes in organizational structure alone would correct all the ills. But given how much of our lives are spent in organizations, a positive change in that environment goes a long way, not just in organizations but in society as well.
5
I just recently became self-employed and put myself on a rigorous schedule that brought in more money and less fulfillment. Within a few months I worked out the balance between satisfaction and profits. The problem is most employers don't really care about employee's satisfaction, and sadly my profits and quality of work did not improve just because I was more satisfied. I guess the question is how do we provide incentives to employers to be kinder to their employees. Oh, wait, that's why we had unions once upon a time.
27
Maybe part of the answer can be found in Joseph Campbell's suggestion to "follow your bliss". Stop telling our kids that a Philosophy Major won't pay the bills. Or they will make more if they go to college instead of being a plumber. If we remain true to ourselves whatever comes is better than being misplaced.
12
Yes, but there's a major downside to this approach. (See Evelyn from Calgary's comment above.) I followed my bliss into teaching and then discovered that my dedication to my students was being held against me. The thinking goes like this: If you're meant to be a teacher, then you should be passionate about it. If you're truly passionate, you should do it for free. You shouldn't care about your salary or being respected as a professional.
Ten years later, I'm nowhere close to being able to afford a house and I'm under a constant barrage of demeaning attacks by politicians who have never stepped foot in a classroom.
If I could do it over, I would go to med school. "Bliss" is a trap. (My dad was right. I should have listened.)
Ten years later, I'm nowhere close to being able to afford a house and I'm under a constant barrage of demeaning attacks by politicians who have never stepped foot in a classroom.
If I could do it over, I would go to med school. "Bliss" is a trap. (My dad was right. I should have listened.)
A Philosophy Major will net you a job at Starbucks.
"Follow your bliss" is only for rich kids.
Always was, always will be.
"Follow your bliss" is only for rich kids.
Always was, always will be.
There are four different philosophies to hiring: 1) Hire selectively and empower, 2) Hire selectively and micromanage, 3) Hire carelessly and micromanage and 4) Hire carelessly and empower. Pretty much all companies will claim they practice #1, and virtually all sensible people, workers and managers alike, would agree with this choice. Sadly, what happens all too often is companies preach philosophy #1 and then waste a lot of time finding great employees they micromanage into misery and mediocrity—effectively implementing philosophy #2--or are unwilling to put in the time to find great candidates and then give them too much responsibility—philosophy#3. Philosophy #4, hiring dumb and empowering, is most often reserved for the selection of elected officials.
14
#3 rules, as incompetent unqualified managers will hire only managers who are the same, as otherwise their own jobs will be threatened.
There is a two tier system of employment here. Executives are encouraged to set their own value and negotiate based in that . Workers are told that the market will set their worth and all they can do is accept it or find employment elsewhere. What is so great about the fast food workers movement is that they are reviving the sense that working people do not have to settle for this and they can change the balance of power if they only awake from the stupor of passivity many seem to be in now. You don't have to accept managements assessment of your worth. If you fight for a higher wage and therefor a higher assessment of your own worth, job satisfaction must necessarily be increased. I feel very greatful to those fast food workers and I think they are doing important work.
25
American individualism rejects labor solidarity.
I am a social worker and have found throughout my career that many employers take advantage of the fact that we care passionately about our clients and the work we do enough to accept chronically low wages, lack of overtime compensation and poor working conditions. The same is true of teachers I think. In fact this was often turned against us in negotiations: that we were somehow not dedicated if we demanded reasonable pay and to be treated as professionals. We should do it for free if we really cared.
70
Yes. I'm a teacher and I agree with you completely.
As s former teacher I can tell you, you are spot on. When they wanted something out of us, new ideas we knew weren't going to achieve what they told us they would, extra time, what ever, we were told we were professionals. When it came time to negotiate salaries, or get something from them, somehow that was forgotten.
Is it such a bad thing to "be at your ease"? I am reminded that Leonardo told us that for the creative mind that period of leisure is the most productive. Tell me that industrial revolution work requirements are the natural and inevitable result of 3million years of hominid evolution and I will ask you to look at the Yanomomo, what do they do most of the time? Do the go to the office or some variation of indentured servitude? I think not. Lets not try to define our natural tendencies with what amounts to a 200 year blip in our history. With any luck at all the 1%'ers will end all our work by eliminating all our jobs and we can hang out again, working only when we have to in our own little micro economies.( if you think this is my personal fantasy read 'rise of the robots) Then we can do meaningful work like VanGough did or Sylvia Plath or Diane Arbus or... ohh that kind of work didn't turn out so well for them sorry....Adam might well have been right, so what ....
2
I was a supervisor in HR and one day on our supervisory conference call our manager said that our employees were fungible. The manager was very process oriented. She didn't do any work, her job was to tell others what to do. Unfortunately many people place no value on what they get for free. It is easy to take what you already have for granted. New measurement technology for upper management created additional work, stress and pressure.
As a supervisor I found it difficult to manage nine HR workers (working in four states). They had different motivations and different needs.
As a supervisor I found it difficult to manage nine HR workers (working in four states). They had different motivations and different needs.
4
Corporations are deliberately structured to make employees fungible.
I've worked in a meatpacking plant -- cutting the skins off pigs' bellies -- which may be among the most mind-numbing jobs out there. Yet I was constantly amazed at how much my co-workers cared about what they were doing and wanted to do their jobs well. Even as management humiliated and minimized them. The workers needed their money, but they also wanted their jobs and themselves to matter. Schwartz is absolutely right. Squashing workers is needless, counterproductive, human sacrifice.
37
You're right. I've been self-employed for some time now, but I worked both white and blue collar jobs during my years as wage or salary slave. The vast majority of the people I worked with, and perhaps especially the blue collar workers, actually cared about the quality of work they performed, just for its own sake. I only ever held one or maybe two jobs that I really liked (showing up on time, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year, felt like a form of slavery to me), but I always strove to do the best job I could, just because I felt better that way -- even if the job didn't pay much, or was monotonous, or my boss was a pill.
Why is this so? I dunno -- our Puritan heritage perhaps?
Why is this so? I dunno -- our Puritan heritage perhaps?
while I agree that the basic tenor of this article rings true, I have found in my lifetime, that a certain percentage of people (maybe half?) will complain about their work no matter how rewarding or well paid. this ABSOLUTELY includes professionals like doctors and lawyers. Perhaps this is because they choose their professions for the wrong reasons. I think it is wise to remember that many employees will give literally everything they have for a job in which they believed they are appreciated by both the clients, and their supervisors. Finally while it is clear that financial incentives may not wok to increase worker happiness, this is NOT a good reason not to correct many of the inequalities present in our economic world. The hardest way to be happy at a job is to know that you aren't paid enough to support your family.
10
The hardest working most poorly compensated American caste class ever were the enslaved black Africans who built America. Black African Americans "working" during the age of Jim Crow were second. See "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism" Edward E. Baptist ; "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" C. Vann Woodward
The best belated advice that I did not follow regarding a choice of work was to find something that you are both good at and enjoy.
The best belated advice that I did not follow regarding a choice of work was to find something that you are both good at and enjoy.
8
I worked for one of America's (and the world's) most successful, profitable companies for over 17 years, before they dumped me, along with many thousands of others, in summer 2013. When I started working there, almost everyone was *Proud* to work there. Nobody said it, but you could feel it all around you.
By the time I left, vast amounts of work had been shifted overseas to places that could do work cheaper. Those cheap places were trained by us, only to lose the business a few years later, because the same work had moved yet again to an even cheaper place. Eventually, the cheapest places all competed with each other to be the cheap of the cheap, thereby completeing the cycle of dehumanization of work and workers both.
By the time I didn't know any happy people anywhere in the US. Current and ex-employees told anyone outside that would listen about the soullessness, years without raises, constant tricks to make the most ruthless criticism stick, the perpetual need to find faults in any performance, so people could be pushed faster, paid less, and still leave them thankful that they were still employed.
We were told they owned our nights, weekends, vacations, and holidays. There was the constant vocabulary of war: every quarter, situation, or release was a desperate battle to survive. Success meant the company lived to fight another battle. Nothing was ever good enough, even if profits were obscene.
Joy? Not when everyone, even managers, worked like slaves...
By the time I left, vast amounts of work had been shifted overseas to places that could do work cheaper. Those cheap places were trained by us, only to lose the business a few years later, because the same work had moved yet again to an even cheaper place. Eventually, the cheapest places all competed with each other to be the cheap of the cheap, thereby completeing the cycle of dehumanization of work and workers both.
By the time I didn't know any happy people anywhere in the US. Current and ex-employees told anyone outside that would listen about the soullessness, years without raises, constant tricks to make the most ruthless criticism stick, the perpetual need to find faults in any performance, so people could be pushed faster, paid less, and still leave them thankful that they were still employed.
We were told they owned our nights, weekends, vacations, and holidays. There was the constant vocabulary of war: every quarter, situation, or release was a desperate battle to survive. Success meant the company lived to fight another battle. Nothing was ever good enough, even if profits were obscene.
Joy? Not when everyone, even managers, worked like slaves...
64
My front desk job in a learning institution department could have been the script source for "The Devil Wears Prada". So amazingly ill-treated its 35 people, including me, clung to their salaries, wages and benefits as the motivation to show up each weekday morning; until, we could leave for something better. I was in my 60s and finding something better finally happened after four and a half years. It was in the same institution in an entirely different department that vibrated with the opposite workplace sensibilities. My job became autonomous, I loved serving the 27 people I worked for, there was real meaning in coordinating that one-person front desk/secretarial spot into tangible service that allowed the creative people I served to work without unnecessary bureaucratic intrusion, a boss who led from behind. Happy? You could tell by the laughter. Did we get a lot done? Huge amounts. Did it further the goals of the learning institution? More than any other department there. What happened to that first department I worked for? It collapsed.
That wonderful second department I worked for was my last best job before retirement. I had stayed extra years because I loved my job and colleagues.
That wonderful second department I worked for was my last best job before retirement. I had stayed extra years because I loved my job and colleagues.
17
Beyond subsistence farming or hunting and gathering, work is something we do that others are willing to exchange value for.
I can enjoy, and even get deep personal satisfaction, from many activities. Some of these might even require great expertise and significant effort. But, except perhaps for my immediate family and friends, the fact that these activities might make me happy is not likely to induce others to share their efforts with me. I have to do something that also might make them happy.
Many discussions about work in a market economy also seem to miss part of the equation. In addition to our roles as workers, most of us are also consumers, and drive the cycle of commerce when we buy products and services. Many comments here promote more human(e) and rewarding job roles, even at the cost of efficiency, and therefore costs. But those ideas cannot succeed when we shop for the lowest possible price or fastest service.
I can enjoy, and even get deep personal satisfaction, from many activities. Some of these might even require great expertise and significant effort. But, except perhaps for my immediate family and friends, the fact that these activities might make me happy is not likely to induce others to share their efforts with me. I have to do something that also might make them happy.
Many discussions about work in a market economy also seem to miss part of the equation. In addition to our roles as workers, most of us are also consumers, and drive the cycle of commerce when we buy products and services. Many comments here promote more human(e) and rewarding job roles, even at the cost of efficiency, and therefore costs. But those ideas cannot succeed when we shop for the lowest possible price or fastest service.
4
Good article.
You forgot THE most important part of all this transformation of work to something that is meaningful and challenging:
It should also include an across-the-board 40% increase in salaries for all involved who make under $200k/yr.
Now THAT would be something. The rest is amusing theory, and often trotted out when companies are looking for good reasons to slash underpaid workers' wages.... again.
You forgot THE most important part of all this transformation of work to something that is meaningful and challenging:
It should also include an across-the-board 40% increase in salaries for all involved who make under $200k/yr.
Now THAT would be something. The rest is amusing theory, and often trotted out when companies are looking for good reasons to slash underpaid workers' wages.... again.
1
The essence of Prof. Schwartz' thesis could be what is termed as "psychological income." I am a lawyer in a two-lawyer firm. 90% of our clients are blue collar workers, first generation immigrants, or their offspring, many of whom work in the restaurant/hospitality or janitorial services industries. Whether we engage in a real estate transaction, personal injury, or immigration case, invariably our clients complain about the stultifying oppressive conditions in their workplace. They do not complain about the nature of their work. They take pride in their work as maids, cooks, drivers, and diswashers. They resent the harrassment (often sexual), discrimination (often ethnic) and pervasive fear of loosing their jobs. I had clients threatened to be suspended or fired by their employers (of a decade or more) for asking leave from work to attend a Court hearing or the closing of a refinancing loan. I had clients report to work while injured, often in excruciating pain, for fear of loosing their jobs. Workers are not innately lazy or malingerers. Ruthless employers believe so. Invariably, most of these complaints come from clients whose workplace is not unionized. Their psychological income is derived from a comment or smile by a satisfied customer. Mine is to redress their grievances while the harassers pay my representation fees. That is priceless.
24
While the article speaks the truth that most of us would agree in the short term (akin to the attraction of a short-term infomercial), the reality is that every person thinks differently about the utility of work at different stages of his/her life.
It would be interesting if we could run a long term study of a group of people - starting when they were aged 22 and ending at age 67 - and ask the same individual the same question every five years - what are the best and the worst parts of your job?
I submit the answers of such a study will be interesting and will potentially lead us away from the temptation of seeking a unified theory for everything, including why people work.
It would be interesting if we could run a long term study of a group of people - starting when they were aged 22 and ending at age 67 - and ask the same individual the same question every five years - what are the best and the worst parts of your job?
I submit the answers of such a study will be interesting and will potentially lead us away from the temptation of seeking a unified theory for everything, including why people work.
2
Well argued, Mr. Schwartz. Your well-supported case not only gives us reason to reflect on what is important, but who we are, and how we ourselves are constructed, both as individuals and aggregately. Human nature is not natural, but made, and from what?
What we believe is what we do. Actions flow from ideas. Mechanistic concepts of humans as various kinds of automatons (complicated ants, hyper-rational advantage seekers, crude and cunning pleasure seekers) are true only to the extent that they are held to be true as ipso facto truisms.
The fact is, as Mr. Schwartz illustrates clearly, change does occur. And it occurs for the better or for the worse WHEN someone (Adam Smith in this case) tells a story of who we are and what is real so persuasively that many alter their fundamental ideas accordingly. Voila, change has happened.
So if we wish to bring about any sort of lasting change, and hopefully for the better, we should start at the well-spring of all action, our mostly invisible basic operational ideas, and bring them out into the light for a long-overdue re-examination. Just as fears shrink in the astringent clear light of day, so do fundamental ideas . . . like that money is the one and only absolute good.
What we believe is what we do. Actions flow from ideas. Mechanistic concepts of humans as various kinds of automatons (complicated ants, hyper-rational advantage seekers, crude and cunning pleasure seekers) are true only to the extent that they are held to be true as ipso facto truisms.
The fact is, as Mr. Schwartz illustrates clearly, change does occur. And it occurs for the better or for the worse WHEN someone (Adam Smith in this case) tells a story of who we are and what is real so persuasively that many alter their fundamental ideas accordingly. Voila, change has happened.
So if we wish to bring about any sort of lasting change, and hopefully for the better, we should start at the well-spring of all action, our mostly invisible basic operational ideas, and bring them out into the light for a long-overdue re-examination. Just as fears shrink in the astringent clear light of day, so do fundamental ideas . . . like that money is the one and only absolute good.
2
I don't like Social Darwinianism. Nothing personal.
I'm not an anarchist.
Well, I love your work. However, I am scared to write much because I have had some serious bad luck. I'm taking French and am having a difficult time focusing on actually learning the language because I think philosophy. I ask myself "Are they [ils and elles] angry that I said I'm not a Cartiasian?" Well, I understand statistics much better (although math isn't my strongest subject), understanding the grammar or structure of the French language. I almost think the language is the more predominant tour de France.
I'm in a fine mood (thinking French here [mood]) but words and voices don't match. Then I get all distracted. I loved what I was [am] learning and doing. The follow-up interview with Frithjof Bergmann on sound cloud initiated in the group discussion " Frithjof Bergmann on the Post-Work Culture for Not School," was alarming. Who want to be constantly diagnosed attempting to learn and participate. It's made my life better and worse; my close family have no idea what I'm talking about.
Do I know Larry Summers personally? Technically I have to say, no. Do I understand his economic thinking better? Yes. But, I'm under the impression "it's all over for the unknown soldier." There for even if I get a degree will I find work? I have my reservations. Basically, I don't think I'm professional enough for today's corporate world. And, what to do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwfxo8tRiPg
Frithjof Bergmann on the Post-Work Culture for Not School
I'm in a fine mood (thinking French here [mood]) but words and voices don't match. Then I get all distracted. I loved what I was [am] learning and doing. The follow-up interview with Frithjof Bergmann on sound cloud initiated in the group discussion " Frithjof Bergmann on the Post-Work Culture for Not School," was alarming. Who want to be constantly diagnosed attempting to learn and participate. It's made my life better and worse; my close family have no idea what I'm talking about.
Do I know Larry Summers personally? Technically I have to say, no. Do I understand his economic thinking better? Yes. But, I'm under the impression "it's all over for the unknown soldier." There for even if I get a degree will I find work? I have my reservations. Basically, I don't think I'm professional enough for today's corporate world. And, what to do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwfxo8tRiPg
Frithjof Bergmann on the Post-Work Culture for Not School
1
Not all work is "challenging and engaging" and not all work encourages us to "learn and grow".
It is the affluent, Liberal conceit that all people will graduate with a liberal arts degree and practice law or enter academic research.
Can the man who manages the gas station convenience store be "challenged" and "engaged"? Is the woman who draws blood at the doctor's office "learning" and "growing"? What about the person who clears dirty dishes from the table after our restaurant meal and scrapes our uneaten food into the trash can?
I would love, for once, to escape the utilitarian belief that we find our fulfillment in our labor and pull back the lens from our "producitive capacity" or our "value add" and look at human life in all its dimensions. The woman with the hairnet might be helping two children pursue their high school educations. The man with calloused hands might be supporting the care of a handicapped child or spouse. The worker who "puts the tops on the bottoms" might see their life from a different perspective than the urban elite who measures all lives against his or her own, expecting the "secret sauce" to be some combination of new incentives to all each of us to complete a PhD in something.
Workers are not to be taken for granted. Neither are they to be scoled for not being "fulfilled". Human life finds its fulfillment in many venues, not all of them aligned with arts, culture, education, and travel.
It is the affluent, Liberal conceit that all people will graduate with a liberal arts degree and practice law or enter academic research.
Can the man who manages the gas station convenience store be "challenged" and "engaged"? Is the woman who draws blood at the doctor's office "learning" and "growing"? What about the person who clears dirty dishes from the table after our restaurant meal and scrapes our uneaten food into the trash can?
I would love, for once, to escape the utilitarian belief that we find our fulfillment in our labor and pull back the lens from our "producitive capacity" or our "value add" and look at human life in all its dimensions. The woman with the hairnet might be helping two children pursue their high school educations. The man with calloused hands might be supporting the care of a handicapped child or spouse. The worker who "puts the tops on the bottoms" might see their life from a different perspective than the urban elite who measures all lives against his or her own, expecting the "secret sauce" to be some combination of new incentives to all each of us to complete a PhD in something.
Workers are not to be taken for granted. Neither are they to be scoled for not being "fulfilled". Human life finds its fulfillment in many venues, not all of them aligned with arts, culture, education, and travel.
8
My personal experience is that it is possible to be challenged and to grow in the process of doing work that most consider meaningless or trivial. It is a middle and upper class conceit that only white-collar work can be satisfying. Not recognizing workers' enjoyment of the actual work is as dismissive and exploitive as not recognizing when the working conditions are exploitive. And yes, even bussing tables can be fun and challenging. Not always, perhaps, but a lot more often than you might think.
An incredibly well written and thought provoking article.
This sentence really struck a chord: "Pretty soon, you lose your lofty aspirations. And over time, later generations don’t even develop the lofty aspirations in the first place. Compensation becomes the measure of all that is possible from work. "
What Mr Schwartz failed to address in the article was the fact that there actually are occupations where the lofty aspirations and fulfillment IS actually how much money you make. Its your only scorecard of success.
For a considerable amount of Wall Street traders for instance, (not so much at the big banks these days, thanks to Dodd-Frank and the elimination of proprietary trading desks) but certainly at Hedge Funds who are not market-makers, and trade purely based on speculation. Try as he or she might, they can never find an altruistic reason for what they do for a living. The sole purpose of their job, and the only measure of all that is possible from their work IS personal compensation. These brilliant people do find great fulfillment in what they do, but I humbly say that for them compensation is the measure of all that is possible from work.
This sentence really struck a chord: "Pretty soon, you lose your lofty aspirations. And over time, later generations don’t even develop the lofty aspirations in the first place. Compensation becomes the measure of all that is possible from work. "
What Mr Schwartz failed to address in the article was the fact that there actually are occupations where the lofty aspirations and fulfillment IS actually how much money you make. Its your only scorecard of success.
For a considerable amount of Wall Street traders for instance, (not so much at the big banks these days, thanks to Dodd-Frank and the elimination of proprietary trading desks) but certainly at Hedge Funds who are not market-makers, and trade purely based on speculation. Try as he or she might, they can never find an altruistic reason for what they do for a living. The sole purpose of their job, and the only measure of all that is possible from their work IS personal compensation. These brilliant people do find great fulfillment in what they do, but I humbly say that for them compensation is the measure of all that is possible from work.
2
In the mythic "old days" work was an intimate dance with rational conditions. Today it's an engagement with a man-made construct based on the subordination of workers to the needs of an elite... and money is the term of engagement.
This swing of the pendulum will reverse, one way or the other. But individuals can hasten their individual improvement by a disciplined adherence to a more enlightened value system, where true fulfillment lies.
This swing of the pendulum will reverse, one way or the other. But individuals can hasten their individual improvement by a disciplined adherence to a more enlightened value system, where true fulfillment lies.
2
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss." -- The Who, 1972
The problem and source of hatred for work is not laziness, but a forced existence to act out other people's wills instead of our own. The hatred comes from needing to subjugate ourselves, from needing to give up control over our personal space, time, interests.
In communism we hated working as much as in capitalist countries. As long as there is a man or woman who tells you what to do and how to do it, a job is hated.
The problem and source of hatred for work is not laziness, but a forced existence to act out other people's wills instead of our own. The hatred comes from needing to subjugate ourselves, from needing to give up control over our personal space, time, interests.
In communism we hated working as much as in capitalist countries. As long as there is a man or woman who tells you what to do and how to do it, a job is hated.
10
JOSEPH CAMBELL SAID "FOLLOW YOUR BLISS" . . .
If your work is your passion it really no longer falls under the pejorative rubric of work.
A securities executive many earn billions but sans fulfillment he would be far better of being a teacher if that area brought him/her joy.''
This nation has replaced true satisfaction with a greedy need for money ... more and more.
A high paid lawyer at age 50 decided to do low paid social service work. It was the best move he made.
If your work is your passion it really no longer falls under the pejorative rubric of work.
A securities executive many earn billions but sans fulfillment he would be far better of being a teacher if that area brought him/her joy.''
This nation has replaced true satisfaction with a greedy need for money ... more and more.
A high paid lawyer at age 50 decided to do low paid social service work. It was the best move he made.
2
This article fleshes out nearly every reason why I left steady union employment with benefits galore to risk self employment with no benefits nor overtime or even steady work. I work harder now than i ever have in my life and make less money but look forward to each work day.
My work is hard, dirty, hazardous and can be tedious and mundane at times but I've never been happier while working during my lifetime. I'm happy because I derive much satisfaction from helping my customers and utilizing my talents to solve difficult problems. I'm happy because they love and appreciate me for doing seemingly insurmountable tasks without complaint. I'm happy because nearly every day is different from the last and each day presents a unique set of challenges from which to learn, grow or simply be proud of my accomplisments.
I am a handyperson who does custom work across multiple trades. Most people would loathe doing what I do but its my lifeblood. I am good at it. I am highly valued and i am challenged.
My work is hard, dirty, hazardous and can be tedious and mundane at times but I've never been happier while working during my lifetime. I'm happy because I derive much satisfaction from helping my customers and utilizing my talents to solve difficult problems. I'm happy because they love and appreciate me for doing seemingly insurmountable tasks without complaint. I'm happy because nearly every day is different from the last and each day presents a unique set of challenges from which to learn, grow or simply be proud of my accomplisments.
I am a handyperson who does custom work across multiple trades. Most people would loathe doing what I do but its my lifeblood. I am good at it. I am highly valued and i am challenged.
7
My wife works for health care and will continue to do so until Medicare kicks in or we win the lottery. Most people work to eat and pay the rent. If they're savers, as we are, the nest egg is for college when they're young or the inevitable long-term care when they're old. Anyone who says otherwise either makes lots of money or is lying.
6
This is a very wise article. Americans are not aware of this, but the emphasis on the importance of money in American culture, and the accompanying belief that money is the primary driver of all career decisions, are really extreme and very noticeable to an immigrant like myself. Much of the rest of the world is not like this. To give a small example, when I was still living in Israel, my country of origin, one time I was offered a job teaching a summer course at a local university. I was very pleased, and accepted immediately. That day I told about the offer to a U.S.-based Israeli mathematician I was visiting at the time, and he asked me how much I would be paid for the gig. To my embarrassment I realized I didn't know since it had not occurred to me to ask.
7
If it had not occurred to you to ask the salary, it must be because someone else was paying your bills.
It's not work that people dislike, it's having no control over their efforts and their time. Prior to the industrial revolution, people may have been required to 100 hour weeks to get the farm work done, but they could set their own schedule. Since you can't run a production line that way, it was determined that you be there in your place when the bell rings and stay there until the other bell rings. That still applies even in white collar jobs, where it is then expected that you go home and do some more work on your own schedule.
Nobody likes losing control over their time.
Nobody likes losing control over their time.
139
zzz05 - I can give a good example of the point you make. I was working in the research and development unit of an industrial company. The director came from academia and we worked flexible hours usually more that contracted so that we could make progress that satisfied us. When he retired a new director came from the industrial side and brought in a regime requiring work start at a fixed time with the assurance that those who failed to comply would not get a wage rise in the annual revue. The result was that people arrived on time but avoided starting any operation which would make them leave late. The loss of development was considerable. I got out to a better environment.
From the first moment I entered my first classroom as "the teacher" I was happy. I loved that space, my classroom and my students. It was all my responsibility. Mine! Each year my task was to teach English to 150 teenage immigrants who did not know any English. I was provided with the room and the time and the supporting materials: a few books, paper, pencils, as much chalk as I wanted and 2 big chalk boards. My "boss" trusted me to accomplish our agreed upon goals and left me alone to do it. I had fun. My students had fun. We met our objectives. Everyone was happy. I felt Professional. I did not need supervision. After 25 years being very happy at work and (I thought) successful, NCLB was implemented and I was informed that I now needed supervision. I was provided with an approved textbook and a bank of computers complete with Rosetta Stone and a bilingual teaching assistant with a high school diploma. I became the disciplinarian and classroom manager. There were lots of discipline and management problems because teenagers have a low tolerance for boredom. So do I. It was clearly time to retire. Goodbye classroom. Goodbye students. I loved you once upon a time. We had fun together and we all learned at lot. I retired. One student wrote to me, "Thank you Mrs. B for teaching me more than you were supposed to."
Adam Smith was hot in 1776 but it is time to move on.
Adam Smith was hot in 1776 but it is time to move on.
Henry Ford paid his employees a good wage so that they could afford to drive the automobiles his company manufactured. In a time of shrinking populations and stagnant/shrinking wages, an economic system where workers are not paid enough to buy discretionary goods seems to be self defeating. This is a global phenomena. Do the top 25% really create enough demand to keep business healthy?
5
Actually, Ford paid a higher wage to retain employees and maintain the productivity gains from the assembly line factory. The new pace of work, and the more robotic roles, induced many who thought of themselves as craftsmen to quit. And high turnover among those willing to work on the assembly lines threatened to limit any efficiency and cost benefits. Higher wages kept newly trained workers from leaving, but the job then became primarily about the paycheck. Ford was far from a generous man, and any enhancement of consumer spending was a side benefit.
1
Henry Ford was paying people before government was taxing away all the income of the top 25%. It's not what you earn it's what you keep.
1
Maybe, I am in the lucky 10%. I love my job, I love my work. But happy and content as I am, I will definitely not work for free ( unless of course, I had a 100million trust fund )And most certainly, I would be very unhappy if I was not paid commensurate with my skills exception being philanthropy. If I am working for a boss - be it an individual or a conglomerate I expect to be paid. That I love my job is my perk to myself. No one should cut me short because of this perk. Now, please don't inform my employers of my happy state or I will be joining the 90% very fast!
4
The first step in engaging employees is to stop firing them. Most of us now work in an environment where we can be terminated on a whim, generally by a consultant’s spreadsheet. An environment that leads people to live in constant fear of losing their livelihood will never cause a person to care about the needs of their employer.
In an era of precarious employment, it is only natural to continually focus on the appearance of being engaged and productive while falsifying whatever means of performance measurement is being employed at the moment and to throw more naive colleagues under the bus. This system ensures that the most ruthless and despicable rise to the top.
If you want to have an environment that encourages innovation and productivity, that must first and foremost afford a measure of employment security and stability. Expecting people who know that they are considered nothing but replaceable cogs in a machine to act any other way is simply ignoring the basics of human behavior.
In an era of precarious employment, it is only natural to continually focus on the appearance of being engaged and productive while falsifying whatever means of performance measurement is being employed at the moment and to throw more naive colleagues under the bus. This system ensures that the most ruthless and despicable rise to the top.
If you want to have an environment that encourages innovation and productivity, that must first and foremost afford a measure of employment security and stability. Expecting people who know that they are considered nothing but replaceable cogs in a machine to act any other way is simply ignoring the basics of human behavior.
34
My sister worked as a mortgage broker and was productive and happy. Then the broker was purchased by a large bank. Conversations with customers became scripted, bathroom breaks timed. They moved to an assembly-line processing system where each step of the mortgage approval process was handled by a different department. Soon customers were waiting on hold to speak to next available automaton-employee, and waiting 3 weeks for a mortgage to be processed instead of 3 days. Customers left, and finally the whole shebang shut down. My sister got a new job as an independent mortgage broker and she's happy and wealthy again, as are her customers.
12
Although I am much in agreement with you about our need for inspired productive work... I have found your chastisement of Adam Smith to be quite a bit of wishful thinking.. and consequently... rather a lot of rubbish. Superimposing your beliefs onto an often quoted out of context writer like Adam Smith proves nothing... except that you have read little of his work.
If you delve more deeply into "The Wealth of Nations"... by reading it carefully... methinks you will find your point of view nestled comfortably in his forthright ideas, and in his moral approach to the mercantilism of his day.
We would do well to consider his wisdom... right here... riight now... from the deluded materialism that so distracts our 'market first' cultural ethos...
If you delve more deeply into "The Wealth of Nations"... by reading it carefully... methinks you will find your point of view nestled comfortably in his forthright ideas, and in his moral approach to the mercantilism of his day.
We would do well to consider his wisdom... right here... riight now... from the deluded materialism that so distracts our 'market first' cultural ethos...
6
One of the reasons I find for doing my job well is that I don't like to waste my own time. It's not really for love of the company, or pleasing my boss. It's because if I'm going to spend 8 hours a day/40 hours a week, or more, doing something, then I'm going to do a job I can be proud of. Anything less than that sells myself short. And how I do my work is often the only control I have over my job.
Currently, I work for a TV News station, but this has always been my approach, from being a chambermaid as summer job, waiting tables through college, and working for smaller production companies.
Currently, I work for a TV News station, but this has always been my approach, from being a chambermaid as summer job, waiting tables through college, and working for smaller production companies.
3
I understand the larger vision of my work.
But between a paranoid, micromanaging boss; limited opportunites; token salary increases; and an environment where we've been understaffed for at least the last seven years, it's no wonder that I'm just so tired. But hey - the company is having a great earnings run and the shareholders are very happy.
But between a paranoid, micromanaging boss; limited opportunites; token salary increases; and an environment where we've been understaffed for at least the last seven years, it's no wonder that I'm just so tired. But hey - the company is having a great earnings run and the shareholders are very happy.
31
At the large university where I work in IT, our esteemed leaders decided to change from a 9-5 environment, with staff rotating on call for 24/7 emergency coverage, to 24/7 fully staffed environment.
There was no more added employees. The existing staff was simply split into three shifts, but since the vast majority of work still needed to be done 9-5, that meant there was two thirds less workers to do the actual work.
All of this was decided with no input and no warning to the employees. We were simply cheerfully told that starting the next month, we would all be shift workers.
Guess how morale is? Wonder if all workers do as little as possible and the bosses do not know this, as none of them has any IT experience?
Insane, absolutely incomprehensibly insane.
There was no more added employees. The existing staff was simply split into three shifts, but since the vast majority of work still needed to be done 9-5, that meant there was two thirds less workers to do the actual work.
All of this was decided with no input and no warning to the employees. We were simply cheerfully told that starting the next month, we would all be shift workers.
Guess how morale is? Wonder if all workers do as little as possible and the bosses do not know this, as none of them has any IT experience?
Insane, absolutely incomprehensibly insane.
Part of the problem isn't the organization, per se, but the personalities of those who tend to rise to management roles. Many people have a need to dominate and control other people in order to fill some void in their own worth. Because these people will make the necessary sacrifices to get into a role where they can do that, they tend to rise in the workplace. Once in those roles, they will feed upon those under them through all kinds of toxic behavior. I refuse to tolerate it when I encounter these types, and push back hard against what I see as a form of bullying. But that also explains why I haven't lasted long in a number of jobs. Still, I teach my kids to do the same, because remaining employed in such an environment is more dangerous to one's sense of purpose in life, maybe even to life itself, than are periods of unemployment.
13
If by 'these people will make the necessary sacrifices', you mean they will kowtow to the boss in place of actually doing a good job and earning the promotion, you are correct.
It is useful, although sad in its necessity, to be reminded that human beings wish to be treated like human beings and to do something of use to other human beings.
13
This article makes points about workplace sociology that deserve serious thought. In many workplaces, managers could improve the work experience and increase productivity with little, if any, additional cost, by attending to some of the factors Professor Schwartz mentions (e.g., challenge, autonomy, growth opportunities, meaning, etc.).
I do wish Professor Schwartz had referred to a number of related works that have previously contributed to these ideas, including Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's celebrated "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience," Daniel Pink's "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us," and Aaron Hurst's "The Purpose Economy."
I do wish Professor Schwartz had referred to a number of related works that have previously contributed to these ideas, including Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's celebrated "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience," Daniel Pink's "Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us," and Aaron Hurst's "The Purpose Economy."
3
"Do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate." Even punch cards got more respect.
11
According to the study booklet given to applicants for US citizenship this country is Capitalist or in other words a Market Economy, and there are no options about it.
You can have whatever Religious beliefs or beliefs about Art, or Entertainment, or even Sexual Orientation and Marriage, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE IF YOU WANT TO BE A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY you cannot practice any other economic model other than Capitalism.
You can have whatever Religious beliefs or beliefs about Art, or Entertainment, or even Sexual Orientation and Marriage, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE IF YOU WANT TO BE A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY you cannot practice any other economic model other than Capitalism.
3
The professor speaks of the personal rewards of social responsibility when our increasingly corporate America has twisted or abandoned the concept.
When I was little, my brother took Dad and I on a tour of his electronics plant. It helped instill in me the concept of enjoying and taking pride in what you do for a living. Management valued Mr. Fix-it's extra hours and his analytical and troubleshooting skills. His boss sent him to TQM training, then granted his family a cross-country vacation during a lull -- do it now while you've got the chance, he said.
A year later that boss was killed in an auto accident. The replacements claimed they had to get more competitive with Japan, of all things, so their fresh TQM grad with 18 years' company experience, 38 with only an associate degree, was shown the door.
That was '89. Never again did 'Bro put family pictures on his desk. His son has a good job, but has also authored a joke book about corporate culture. His daughter went into academia. Without a week off in over 12 years, 'Bro just retired, the last guy out the door at his division because he knew the billing and pay system better than anyone who'd been promoted past him.
Put pensions and health care aside. When employers don't even value the experience you've gained with them, that alone is going to have an effect that transcends jobs and generations.
When I was little, my brother took Dad and I on a tour of his electronics plant. It helped instill in me the concept of enjoying and taking pride in what you do for a living. Management valued Mr. Fix-it's extra hours and his analytical and troubleshooting skills. His boss sent him to TQM training, then granted his family a cross-country vacation during a lull -- do it now while you've got the chance, he said.
A year later that boss was killed in an auto accident. The replacements claimed they had to get more competitive with Japan, of all things, so their fresh TQM grad with 18 years' company experience, 38 with only an associate degree, was shown the door.
That was '89. Never again did 'Bro put family pictures on his desk. His son has a good job, but has also authored a joke book about corporate culture. His daughter went into academia. Without a week off in over 12 years, 'Bro just retired, the last guy out the door at his division because he knew the billing and pay system better than anyone who'd been promoted past him.
Put pensions and health care aside. When employers don't even value the experience you've gained with them, that alone is going to have an effect that transcends jobs and generations.
21
The article presumes to imply that the psychological and physically contorted form of en devour that today we call "work" is even really work at all, rather than some self-imposed form of sensory torture. Naturally the body mind and body hate the process that is imposed on us because it's so alien to that natural movement and mental functions that our bodies originally evolved from. The reason we have legs are not so as to sit them in a chair all day. The reason we have hands was not so as to have their function reduced to clicking a mouse or swiping a touchscreen.
If evolution and adaptation really does occur, then it shouldn't be too much longer before our bodies atrophy into paralysis and of appendages revert to useless stumps of flesh. God only knows what our brains will revert to or deform into.
If evolution and adaptation really does occur, then it shouldn't be too much longer before our bodies atrophy into paralysis and of appendages revert to useless stumps of flesh. God only knows what our brains will revert to or deform into.
2
The problem imho has to do with the indispensable value of measurement. Data for defining problems, evaluating solutions, measuring effectiveness, strategizing. In other words, we want every problem boiled down to a number. If too much trouble, we prefer to make one up or let it go. It's not just business that's hooked on numbers, government is too. The Federal Reserve's obsession is interest rates. Others concern theselves with wage rates, budgets, deficits, exchange rates, prices, inflation etc. How much, how high, how little. Ask a legislator what needs fixing in Amtrak without referring to money, chances are he/she will be stumped.
Number-obsession is all the more prevalent at work. Targets, profits, market share, net income, productivity. If I know how much, I know how little. Then I know who, when, where. Even news. Why read editorials when there's NYT's Upshot?
With that as context, let's summarize wants at the workplace:
makes people’s lives better
work worth doing
challenging, engaging, meaningful
sense of purpose
find meaning and personal satisfaction
How many employers will take a sustained stab at any of the above? Very few and rightly so. Not just impossible to measure, but means different things to different people.
Which is why we have salary discussions and not happiness discussions. For happiness there's fitness centers, casual Fridays, and a ping pong table. Priceless. For everything else, just name your number, and hope it flies.
Number-obsession is all the more prevalent at work. Targets, profits, market share, net income, productivity. If I know how much, I know how little. Then I know who, when, where. Even news. Why read editorials when there's NYT's Upshot?
With that as context, let's summarize wants at the workplace:
makes people’s lives better
work worth doing
challenging, engaging, meaningful
sense of purpose
find meaning and personal satisfaction
How many employers will take a sustained stab at any of the above? Very few and rightly so. Not just impossible to measure, but means different things to different people.
Which is why we have salary discussions and not happiness discussions. For happiness there's fitness centers, casual Fridays, and a ping pong table. Priceless. For everything else, just name your number, and hope it flies.
4
Maybe human beings just don't like alienating, or alienated, labor!? It is the essence of capitalism and what makes the system work, by creating the value that capitalists steal some of every time in the production-consumption cycle. How about referring to Marx a bit when discussing why so many hate being employees? You mention Smith? Marx got a lot of it right a century and a half ago, long before your thoughts on the subject. He deserves another look, at least, when musing on why we are often fine or even enthusiastic about helping someone out or contributing to our community, but don't much like being turned into a labor commodity to be bought. Plus, Marx's ideas, whether you agree or disagree with them (or in the case of this article are familiar with them at all), are considerably more sophisticated and useful than what this writer has contributed. Perhaps the NY Times, if it wants to broach this subject more, should allow some regular column space for a Marxist perspective on why we hate to work, but enjoy to apply our human skills and labor power to taking care of ourselves and, often enough, our fellows, as well as to maintaining and nourishing all this Earth provides to enrich and improve this human condition we have inherited. Each of us inherently knows that this kind of 'work' is much more satisfying than laboring on someone's assembly line or in their office, performing some kind of crap that essentially only a few really benefit from, as Marx well understood.
16
I've never enjoyed working for someone. I think it goes far deeper than this article talks about. I tend to be a bit of a misanthrope + introvert. I work for myself now and do well with what I do with almost zero interactions with people. Last week, my interactions were outside of work; buying groceries pretty much. I work when I want. I suppose what would make me enjoy a work environment more is less extroversion, less meetings - send an email. Let me work from home (in most cases this is possible.) I really do not like coming into a work place and seeing the bosses or coworkers face. I don't hate them, just..ugh..people. Cheerful talkative people..who keep the thermostat way too warm (I keep my home at 50 degrees.) Add the commute and the first thing to deal with is a meeting. I don't think I'm going back to working for someone. What I do I make enough without making me miserable.
The dream for me I suppose is when all jobs are automated. A basic minimum income is devised in some form that is sustainable budget wise. Use that money to keep going to school, to invest or trade with. Start your own business, do whatever. For me, the ideal would be everyone gets 2 PhDs. No one would really work..but would be rather intelligent. Some say school is not for everyone, but then again work is not for everyone either; we seem to push it despite that. If done well, it'll be glorious the day with automation eliminates most of the jobs out there and a bmi is developed.
The dream for me I suppose is when all jobs are automated. A basic minimum income is devised in some form that is sustainable budget wise. Use that money to keep going to school, to invest or trade with. Start your own business, do whatever. For me, the ideal would be everyone gets 2 PhDs. No one would really work..but would be rather intelligent. Some say school is not for everyone, but then again work is not for everyone either; we seem to push it despite that. If done well, it'll be glorious the day with automation eliminates most of the jobs out there and a bmi is developed.
10
Great that some people can 'work when they want', but not everyone in America is rich enough to do that.
Work is pure, stinking, unadulterated hell on earth. Most jobs can't be improved. The best that can be done is to minimize them--minimize the time workers spend in this hell. Work is daily jail: you get in in the morning as take a deep breath--how long can I hold it? How long can I cope.
And, so sorry, but the 'meaningfulness' of the work, the goal, the help to others, does not in any way compensate for the misery and tedium. It doesn't matter whether you're moving rocks or building a cathedral: work is hell. You are in that carrel inputting data, behind that checkstand scanning groceries, on that assembly line cranking widgets. The only way to deal with this is to go brain-dead for 8 hours a day. You are trapped in a confined space from morning punch-in to evening punch-out: work is daily jail.
And, so sorry, but the 'meaningfulness' of the work, the goal, the help to others, does not in any way compensate for the misery and tedium. It doesn't matter whether you're moving rocks or building a cathedral: work is hell. You are in that carrel inputting data, behind that checkstand scanning groceries, on that assembly line cranking widgets. The only way to deal with this is to go brain-dead for 8 hours a day. You are trapped in a confined space from morning punch-in to evening punch-out: work is daily jail.
46
Good points.
I always equated the last 2 jobs I had as a quicksand pit of misery and degradation that sucked the very essence of my soul out of me.
I always equated the last 2 jobs I had as a quicksand pit of misery and degradation that sucked the very essence of my soul out of me.
In the biblical book of Genesis, God condemned Adam and his descendants to work, as punishment for the disobedience that led to his and Eve's expulsion from Eden.
I have to wonder, then, whether the concept of work as punishment underlies the dissatisfaction so many people feel in a nation where Puritan beliefs still have influence. Perhaps the "hell" described here is one to which workers condemn themselves, out of an inability to overcome an ingrained belief that it's what work is supposed to be, and that it's what we deserve.
Like so many persistent vestiges of Puritanism, the notion that work is deserved punishment is very useful for those who seek to control people. Here it's corporate executives who seek to serve shareholders by depressing the wages of depressed workers.
I have to wonder, then, whether the concept of work as punishment underlies the dissatisfaction so many people feel in a nation where Puritan beliefs still have influence. Perhaps the "hell" described here is one to which workers condemn themselves, out of an inability to overcome an ingrained belief that it's what work is supposed to be, and that it's what we deserve.
Like so many persistent vestiges of Puritanism, the notion that work is deserved punishment is very useful for those who seek to control people. Here it's corporate executives who seek to serve shareholders by depressing the wages of depressed workers.
Don't forget the daily trial of being in traffic. As our cities become ever more crowded, the inevitable result is traffic but employers want to be close to each other (or be where the executives want to live). In a sane world, companies would locate to where people want to live and not the crowded, polluted and potholed cesspools modern cities have become.
The ultimate expression of the lack of control is having to commute every day in that cesspool surrounded by people who could not care less.
The ultimate expression of the lack of control is having to commute every day in that cesspool surrounded by people who could not care less.
I am soon to be laid off and thinking of a new occupation. What is there in Oscar Wilde that it is in fact an occupation? Perhaps if we occupy ourselves with what we love we will love more? I know I do.
In the end, man's demise comes not from nuclear holocaust nor environmental disaster nor man's inhumanity to man-but by boredom, monotony and repetition.
Capitalists especially of the Christian variety won't acknowledge that have 'a' job should not be the only measure of the system. Our occupation must be what we are called to do-who we are or people will suffer for not doing what they need to do to be happy and well. As well, 'family values' requires that work should pay enough for everyone to be able to raise a family.
Although this article is longer than it has to be to make its point, it doesn't go far enough in that it assumes that people even have a job to begin with in order that they might negotiate with employers. Indeed, it assumes that although hating your job should not be considered natural having a boss should be. Also, no explanation is offered as to why jobs exist that are meaningless to begin with. I believe it is because going from a hunter/gatherer society to a specialized society breaks down the necessities of life into smaller and smaller functions until it is actually harmful to those who perform these tasks on a daily basis.
We must do more than improve this hierarchical system, we must abandon it and its assumptions.
Capitalists especially of the Christian variety won't acknowledge that have 'a' job should not be the only measure of the system. Our occupation must be what we are called to do-who we are or people will suffer for not doing what they need to do to be happy and well. As well, 'family values' requires that work should pay enough for everyone to be able to raise a family.
Although this article is longer than it has to be to make its point, it doesn't go far enough in that it assumes that people even have a job to begin with in order that they might negotiate with employers. Indeed, it assumes that although hating your job should not be considered natural having a boss should be. Also, no explanation is offered as to why jobs exist that are meaningless to begin with. I believe it is because going from a hunter/gatherer society to a specialized society breaks down the necessities of life into smaller and smaller functions until it is actually harmful to those who perform these tasks on a daily basis.
We must do more than improve this hierarchical system, we must abandon it and its assumptions.
2
Students seeking career guidance, and adults wishing to make a move, are often asked what they would do if money were not an issue. The subsequent advice is: go do that, under the supposition that if it's something the student/adult would love to do anyway, they'd love to do it and get paid.
Not everyone can put this into play, of course, but on the flip side, hating one's work is also not inevitable. Somewhere, there exists the possibility to do meaningful work and have passion for it - if only we could make a living at it!
This strikes a personal chord for me. My company has completed an acquisition, and has announced that our office is closing. Work consists of cleaning out my office and sending out resumes. Meaningful work (well, a job search is meaningful) is a thing of the past at this company. My next move, I've said to anyone who will listen, will involve meaningful work that could truly benefit others. I hope that is my own self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not everyone can put this into play, of course, but on the flip side, hating one's work is also not inevitable. Somewhere, there exists the possibility to do meaningful work and have passion for it - if only we could make a living at it!
This strikes a personal chord for me. My company has completed an acquisition, and has announced that our office is closing. Work consists of cleaning out my office and sending out resumes. Meaningful work (well, a job search is meaningful) is a thing of the past at this company. My next move, I've said to anyone who will listen, will involve meaningful work that could truly benefit others. I hope that is my own self-fulfilling prophecy.
5
American approaches to labor and employment is structured by extreme economic and social inequality which creates and perpetuates massive social distances between people. High turnover of workers in low-paying jobs and the anxieties and prejudices of employers make it less likely they'll see employees as capable, trustworthy human-beings. High turnover requires managers to train workers quickly, not spend time developing skills or getting to know the people who work for them. Managers run checks to make sure a new hire isn't a pervert or felon and then hand over a manual and say "do what this says, stick to the script." It is degraded and degrading work. People don't want to do it well and have no reason to do well. A person in the call center isn't allowed to help you with your problem and couldn't if they wanted to -- they aren't trained to think through the issue and look for answers. Initiative is not encouraged or rewarded, management doesn't trust them with it. What if they say the wrong thing? Something idiosyncratic and off-message? What then?
We are stuck in a service-world of ridiculous, meaningless rote-learned phrases repeated over and over. A dystopian facsimile of human interaction that rules out real conversation and connection. Which then perpetuates the idea that most people aren't like us, that they're probably dumb, that you can't trust them.
It creates hard walls of resentment and suspicion between people. And it makes America a stressful place to be.
We are stuck in a service-world of ridiculous, meaningless rote-learned phrases repeated over and over. A dystopian facsimile of human interaction that rules out real conversation and connection. Which then perpetuates the idea that most people aren't like us, that they're probably dumb, that you can't trust them.
It creates hard walls of resentment and suspicion between people. And it makes America a stressful place to be.
25
There are jobs and there are careers. I've had both. The mindset between the two is very different.
2
My whole business is based on changing corporate attitude toward employees. That being said, Mr. Schwartz is a bit too hard on Adam Smith. At the time of his writing, subsistence living was the norm. In America today, that is simply not the case. We have the luxury of wanting meaning in our work because we make so much more money than virtually anywhere else in the world (and that includes the janitors). If we lived in sub-Saharan Africa, meaning doesn't matter, money does...we need money to be able to feed our family, so the only meaning we have is that our family lives, and money is the only way to get that.
The janitor in America makes hundreds of times more than the person in Africa I just mentioned. He has moved beyond subsistence living and therefore meaning makes a huge difference.
So, Mr. Schwartz's column is spot on IN AMERICA, but irrelevant in many other places in this world.
The janitor in America makes hundreds of times more than the person in Africa I just mentioned. He has moved beyond subsistence living and therefore meaning makes a huge difference.
So, Mr. Schwartz's column is spot on IN AMERICA, but irrelevant in many other places in this world.
1
Your logic is faulty, similar to a canard promoted by the Koch Brothers and other "Club for Growth" Chicago school economists. What matters not is a comparison of American wages and GDP to Africans, but whether on those incomes an American can have a good, if modest, standard of living compared to the market price of necessary goods and services, primarily housing, food, health care and pensions and financial security.
The statistics that tell us that most of the EMPLOYED 99% don't have this and have less that $30,000 saved for retirement apart from totally inadequate social security and are just one health care or other unplanned crisis from bankruptcy tells me your Africa comparisons are false and that post-Reagan capitalism is as much a failure as Soviet style Communism.
That the Walmart worker is supported by the 53% of the working populace "lucky" enough to see half their income comfiscated by income taxes to pay for the social safety net, corporate welfare and unfunded wars/defense contractors is a further distortion to the fair distribution of our national wealth.
The lack of financial security is not negated by the ability to buy a cheap Chinese made flat screen TV or smartphone which the African might lack.
The statistics that tell us that most of the EMPLOYED 99% don't have this and have less that $30,000 saved for retirement apart from totally inadequate social security and are just one health care or other unplanned crisis from bankruptcy tells me your Africa comparisons are false and that post-Reagan capitalism is as much a failure as Soviet style Communism.
That the Walmart worker is supported by the 53% of the working populace "lucky" enough to see half their income comfiscated by income taxes to pay for the social safety net, corporate welfare and unfunded wars/defense contractors is a further distortion to the fair distribution of our national wealth.
The lack of financial security is not negated by the ability to buy a cheap Chinese made flat screen TV or smartphone which the African might lack.
What we're talking about is alienation. Marx covered this better than Smith. What seems to be the best antidote to disengagement is true engagement. We see this in cooperative ventures where mutual ownership and workplace democracy exist.
As technology replaces much mundane work, the promise of freeing humans from drudgery comes closer to reality but in an archaic system, it also frees us from the wages needed to live in a commodity driven society. Instead of socializing the work and privatizing the gains, we need to consider spreading the produced wealth. A minimum income tied to the poverty level would allow more people to work fewer hours creating increased opportunity as well as leisure and boosting consumption which also creates more jobs.
As technology replaces much mundane work, the promise of freeing humans from drudgery comes closer to reality but in an archaic system, it also frees us from the wages needed to live in a commodity driven society. Instead of socializing the work and privatizing the gains, we need to consider spreading the produced wealth. A minimum income tied to the poverty level would allow more people to work fewer hours creating increased opportunity as well as leisure and boosting consumption which also creates more jobs.
3
What Is Dinner in the Hamptons Like?
“One evening, X and I were listening to this simply heart-rending story on public radio about this absurdly impoverished village in Africa, where the inhabitants die before the age of 25, because of contaminated drinking water from a local mining operation. I turned to X, and I said, ‘Wow! Isn’t there anything we can do about this?’ After a little investigation on the Net, I learned that the women of this village make these absolutely delightful beakers and bowls out of dried animal feces. First I thought, ‘Ew!’ But then you could’ve just seen the light bulb over my head: Why don’t we market their handicrafts to the world? How better to help people than to monetize them? Isn’t creating commercial value what life is all about?
“I talked X into it, and he and his good friends at the hedge fund put together the money, through their own brand of magic, to lend the women of the village $150 to get them started. We made several trips there to oversee production, and they were just wonderful to us—of course, I never expected special treatment just because I was the most important thing ever to happen to them. Slowly but surely, I won them over with my infectious unaffected altruism. One thing lead to another, and it wasn’t long before you could buy fecal crockery in every luxury shopping destination in America and now London and Paris, and hopefully Rome by next year, and I’m sure you’ll all want to pick one up before you leave tonight.→
“One evening, X and I were listening to this simply heart-rending story on public radio about this absurdly impoverished village in Africa, where the inhabitants die before the age of 25, because of contaminated drinking water from a local mining operation. I turned to X, and I said, ‘Wow! Isn’t there anything we can do about this?’ After a little investigation on the Net, I learned that the women of this village make these absolutely delightful beakers and bowls out of dried animal feces. First I thought, ‘Ew!’ But then you could’ve just seen the light bulb over my head: Why don’t we market their handicrafts to the world? How better to help people than to monetize them? Isn’t creating commercial value what life is all about?
“I talked X into it, and he and his good friends at the hedge fund put together the money, through their own brand of magic, to lend the women of the village $150 to get them started. We made several trips there to oversee production, and they were just wonderful to us—of course, I never expected special treatment just because I was the most important thing ever to happen to them. Slowly but surely, I won them over with my infectious unaffected altruism. One thing lead to another, and it wasn’t long before you could buy fecal crockery in every luxury shopping destination in America and now London and Paris, and hopefully Rome by next year, and I’m sure you’ll all want to pick one up before you leave tonight.→
3
→“That was nearly four years ago. I’m pleased to report that the villagers, with the after-tax profits, have since been able to buy a communal amaguchee-baba—is that how you say it, honey?, which is their word for ‘soup ladle,’ but it can be used to serve heartier fare like ours this evening, though sadly they don’t get much of that there. My choice would’ve been water purification, but they don’t recognize the source of their sickness, and we didn’t want to be the colonialists.
“So, no, Ed, I don’t feel I was ‘worthy’ of that lifetime humanitarian award from that very prestigious non-profit to which we donated a very large sum in exchange, but I accepted it on behalf of those magnificent girls and women I met, who will always be in my heart: they are my heroes. Truly inspiring. Maybe later you’d like to see our pictures with them, but I warn you my hair is a tragedy.
“Yes, it was a lot of work, but all worth it. Sometimes, you just have to get outside of yourself and your own problems and help others to know what really matters in your life.”
“So, no, Ed, I don’t feel I was ‘worthy’ of that lifetime humanitarian award from that very prestigious non-profit to which we donated a very large sum in exchange, but I accepted it on behalf of those magnificent girls and women I met, who will always be in my heart: they are my heroes. Truly inspiring. Maybe later you’d like to see our pictures with them, but I warn you my hair is a tragedy.
“Yes, it was a lot of work, but all worth it. Sometimes, you just have to get outside of yourself and your own problems and help others to know what really matters in your life.”
1
Eureka! You've found the solution:
... giving employees more of a say in how they do their jobs. By making sure we offer them opportunities to learn and grow. And by encouraging them to suggest improvements to the work process and listening to what they say.
This is my weekly stressor from being micromanaged. I do better, and feel much better, with autonomy. Some say my supervisor is the best they have seen because he doesn't just ask "are you done yet?" he goes the extra step and asks "why not". I have a different perspective, and feel my client is the best manager, because he asks what obstacles are in my way, and then takes them away on a priority basis, and leaves the work to me. Maybe there are two systems of work, and Theory X and Theory Y Managers and Corporate cultures need to self-identify, and let the clients, individuals, and marketplace choose who they would rather work with.
I do not believe people are fat, stupid, and lazy. I believe micromanagement to be an historical model needed for the large armies of Baby Boomers due to size. But work is different now, we have small teams of 6 or fewer, and each team member is valued. Innovation comes from within, not the org chart.
I believe we can make America great again, but not through micromanagement, and career advancement based on drinking buddies, nepotism and years of service alone. Competency wins out, and if America doesn't embrace meritocracy, the next best country will.
... giving employees more of a say in how they do their jobs. By making sure we offer them opportunities to learn and grow. And by encouraging them to suggest improvements to the work process and listening to what they say.
This is my weekly stressor from being micromanaged. I do better, and feel much better, with autonomy. Some say my supervisor is the best they have seen because he doesn't just ask "are you done yet?" he goes the extra step and asks "why not". I have a different perspective, and feel my client is the best manager, because he asks what obstacles are in my way, and then takes them away on a priority basis, and leaves the work to me. Maybe there are two systems of work, and Theory X and Theory Y Managers and Corporate cultures need to self-identify, and let the clients, individuals, and marketplace choose who they would rather work with.
I do not believe people are fat, stupid, and lazy. I believe micromanagement to be an historical model needed for the large armies of Baby Boomers due to size. But work is different now, we have small teams of 6 or fewer, and each team member is valued. Innovation comes from within, not the org chart.
I believe we can make America great again, but not through micromanagement, and career advancement based on drinking buddies, nepotism and years of service alone. Competency wins out, and if America doesn't embrace meritocracy, the next best country will.
3
I’ve worked (for others, not myself) full time for 35 years now and I used to give 200% to my work. I did that because I was taught by my parents that if I worked hard and well that I would be rewarded. I was idealistic and happy and excited to be part of a team. I did okay but wanted more challenge and money in my younger years. But after lack of merit raises, lack of bonuses, lack of promotions, business sell offs, (obviously I was in the wrong business HAHAHA) I just became bitter and burnt. Now I just give enough to get by. I never want to give the company any more than my 40 hours. It’s a sad statement and I’m sorry I turned out this way, but my own personal after-work life is all I care about now. Sad face.
117
I feel the same way. I work a crummy, high stress job. I never work overtime - never. They're lucky I work 40 hours. Wish I was independently wealthy, but alas, it's not meant to be. Sad face here too.
2
Diane, I've had the exact same experience, and I wonder if much of it's because we're women. In my last corporate job, I was making 1/4 to 1/3 less than my male colleagues, and I only discovered this when I was reimbursed this money in an massive sexual discrimination class-action lawsuit against my company (about 6,000 women were awarded damages).
I have also negotiated hard for salary with every job and have only been successful a few times.
While men are getting squeezed at work, women are getting squeezed even harder.
I have also negotiated hard for salary with every job and have only been successful a few times.
While men are getting squeezed at work, women are getting squeezed even harder.
I can trace the shift in my attitude toward work -- from liking all my jobs to suddenly disliking them. It coincided with the advent of the internet and the expectation that employees should be reachable and ready to respond at all times, even while on vacation. Because no matter how much the boss respects you or how much you otherwise like your work, it ceases to be enjoyable when you are never allowed to completely step away from it. The older people who say, "I worked hard and long hours in my day, blah blah blah" will never understand that feeling of never being able to completely disconnect from the job. I theoretically can take all the vacation days I want. In reality, I now have far fewer true vacation days than at any time in my life. What progress.
36
What will happen if you call their bluff and say "I need my family more than I need this job, and they need me. I don't want to lose my wife/husband and kids (or "significant other" if no spouse or kids). They come first except for rare extremity." And then turn off your phone by 6 p.m. and on again at 9 a.m. And voice mail on home landline if you have one. I realize that some jobs, because of time zones have to stretch this schedule, or if one is a highly paid troubleshooter who is available through the night, or similar professions. But 24 hours a day I something I would put up with only if I were under extreme pressure or way over $100K salary a year with normal working hours most of the time. It 's not worth it. It amounts to slavery. A person is freeer living in the public shelters.
1
"Work that is adequately compensated is an important social good. But so is work that is worth doing. Half of our waking lives is a terrible thing to waste."
One thing not discussed in this otherwise excellent article is something that at least for me, was very, very important throughout my career. And that was this: I wanted to feel pride in my work, that something of myself got left in the task so that I was proud of my accomplishments. It went beyond whether or not my efforts were appreciated by others ,to include my own perception that I had done a job really really well.
I have to believe that a highly trained surgeon derives pleasure in how well he performed something highly intricate and life-saving; that a teacher gains satisfaction from watching a class get excited about her own excitement; and that creatives (writer, graphics artists, designers, chefs--the list goes on and on) can actually see the merits of their labor.
Thus, sure, I want my work to be of value to others, but I also want it to be valuable to me when I look back at my various jobs. It's human nature to seek praise, but lacking that, self-praise and personal appreciation of one's results at work, also represent a highly intrinsic reward from work.
One thing not discussed in this otherwise excellent article is something that at least for me, was very, very important throughout my career. And that was this: I wanted to feel pride in my work, that something of myself got left in the task so that I was proud of my accomplishments. It went beyond whether or not my efforts were appreciated by others ,to include my own perception that I had done a job really really well.
I have to believe that a highly trained surgeon derives pleasure in how well he performed something highly intricate and life-saving; that a teacher gains satisfaction from watching a class get excited about her own excitement; and that creatives (writer, graphics artists, designers, chefs--the list goes on and on) can actually see the merits of their labor.
Thus, sure, I want my work to be of value to others, but I also want it to be valuable to me when I look back at my various jobs. It's human nature to seek praise, but lacking that, self-praise and personal appreciation of one's results at work, also represent a highly intrinsic reward from work.
6
The idea that people are looking for more than wages in their jobs and the idea that they would prefer not to have a job at all are not mutually exclusive. Millions of happy retirees (including me) who have chosen not to work at a point when they can afford to make that choice are proof of this point. Adam Smith my well have been right.
2
I work in a field full of creative and otherwise motivated individuals. If you believe that a team of people will spontaneously come up with great ideas an implement them, I'd suggest you take a look at Microsoft Windows.
1
Many cite the example of the stone masons who worked harder when they realized that they were not just moving rocks, they were building a cathedral.
Lester Thurow explores this in some of his books.
Lester Thurow explores this in some of his books.
2
Spot on. Someone once said that if you tell a worker precisely what to do, he'll do the minimum, but if you tell him what you need and let him figure out how to do it he'll go to the moon for you, and I've found that to be true. Naturally gifted managers know this in their bones, and people will do just about anything for them. Poor manager micromanage, and nothing destroys motivation faster.
27
I've been in a situation where going to work was the most fun thing I could imagine doing when I woke up in the morning--everyone should be so lucky. But the nadir came much later, when I was being vectored into general administration instead of research management (TPS report cover sheets, here I come!) because I was "under-utilized." Fortunately, by that time I no longer needed to work, and could walk away--with a finger in the air--to retirement.
11
As a small business owner (who offers a decent salary, health benefits 401k paid time off, & profit sharing to my employees), it is very hard to find workers who are motivated and that need little supervision.
In my experience, workers just want to have a 9 to 5 ( 10 to 4 & a 2 hour lunch, if they are not supervised) job that pays well but, requires nothing extra.
It is a very frustrating for me to have to play policewoman to people that have no ambition whatsoever.
In my experience, workers just want to have a 9 to 5 ( 10 to 4 & a 2 hour lunch, if they are not supervised) job that pays well but, requires nothing extra.
It is a very frustrating for me to have to play policewoman to people that have no ambition whatsoever.
12
You're not working hard enough at motivating them.
3
Hire better people.
It is not as if there is an undersupply of workers, but to get motivated workers, you have to pay them more - $15 an hour will get you a college graduate.
If you cannot afford to do that, your business plan is not viable.
It is not as if there is an undersupply of workers, but to get motivated workers, you have to pay them more - $15 an hour will get you a college graduate.
If you cannot afford to do that, your business plan is not viable.
The main benefit of work is the ability to provide for yourself and others. That was the lesson I learned from my immigrant relatives, and that has sustained me throughout my life.
There were several years I had to work in an animal lab where my salary was $17,500 and I routinely worked 50+ hours a week. I lived in a cramped apartment that I split with my sister, and she had the bedroom and I slept on a sofa. There was no promise of greater success or wealth when I was there, but I was satisfied knowing that I was providing for myself and helping provide for my family. And we did not receive any government aid like food stamps, medicaid, etc, because we knew we could take care of ourselves.
That mindset kept me going throughout my life, and I am disgusted when people complain about work. This world owes you nothing! You have to go out and earn what you can. I also believe strongly that, once people earn enough to be safe, they should donate to charity.
Sadly, the mindset in the country is addicted to materialism, overly secular (remember, Ayn Rand was an atheist who hated religion), and believes that people should depend on the government. The government should support only those truly in need; everyone else needs to be proactive and find something productive, and stop thinking that another paycheck of another purchase will bring them happiness.
There were several years I had to work in an animal lab where my salary was $17,500 and I routinely worked 50+ hours a week. I lived in a cramped apartment that I split with my sister, and she had the bedroom and I slept on a sofa. There was no promise of greater success or wealth when I was there, but I was satisfied knowing that I was providing for myself and helping provide for my family. And we did not receive any government aid like food stamps, medicaid, etc, because we knew we could take care of ourselves.
That mindset kept me going throughout my life, and I am disgusted when people complain about work. This world owes you nothing! You have to go out and earn what you can. I also believe strongly that, once people earn enough to be safe, they should donate to charity.
Sadly, the mindset in the country is addicted to materialism, overly secular (remember, Ayn Rand was an atheist who hated religion), and believes that people should depend on the government. The government should support only those truly in need; everyone else needs to be proactive and find something productive, and stop thinking that another paycheck of another purchase will bring them happiness.
32
This got a Times' Pick? Life may not be fair, but the world is also what we make of it. And for all your selfless work ethic, here you are presumptuously whining about the masses of godless slackers surrounding you. Find yourself a holiday season first or second job this fall at any major department store; then you and devote your close-after-midnight, Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and (next up) Christmas work hours to your family and your god.
3
I guess you'd be surprised to learn the fact that secular people have values and morals, too, often clearer and more people-focused than those handed down by organized religion with its emphasis on obeying orders that benefit few and make little sense. (Sounds like programmed workers, to me) Nor do we believe that we 'depend' on the government in your deprecating sense. We believe that the necessary things that must be done for the good of us all include helping those in need, and reining in those who do wrong to others. I'd suggest looking at your fellow human beings through a less me-centered lens, and not assuming that your experience constitutes the limits of reality for everyone else.
'This world owes you nothing!' is totally untrue, this world is you, me, and our neighbors, the fruits of individual and collective labor bring benefits to this world, we owe each other.
1
The answer to this dilemma is remarkably simple: There's a profound disconnect between the tasks someone enjoys doing (laying bricks, engaging with people, solving technical problems), and the personal values that can cause the work to be satisfying (having strong coworker relationships, working in an environment with supportive management, being independent, receiving recognition from one's peers, etc.).
Most of us are "two people" -- the person who performs the particular tasks (which is how most of us set about finding jobs) and the person who longs for satisfaction from their work. The number of actual jobs that meet both our job interests AND our work values are remarkably low.
For example, I might have a job whose tasks thrill me, but if management is controlling, then my need for independence won't be met and I may be miserable. Or I might have exactly what I want in terms of independence and recognition, but find the tasks tedious.
None of this has anything to do with money or bribing me to work.
There are tools out on the web for figuring out the relationship (or lack thereof) between job interests and work values, and those can be used by workers to start getting a handle on what they really need so they feel as if their work is worthwhile.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt if managers had some insight into their employees' work values, too, because then they could cultivate an environment that met those needs.
Most of us are "two people" -- the person who performs the particular tasks (which is how most of us set about finding jobs) and the person who longs for satisfaction from their work. The number of actual jobs that meet both our job interests AND our work values are remarkably low.
For example, I might have a job whose tasks thrill me, but if management is controlling, then my need for independence won't be met and I may be miserable. Or I might have exactly what I want in terms of independence and recognition, but find the tasks tedious.
None of this has anything to do with money or bribing me to work.
There are tools out on the web for figuring out the relationship (or lack thereof) between job interests and work values, and those can be used by workers to start getting a handle on what they really need so they feel as if their work is worthwhile.
Of course, it wouldn't hurt if managers had some insight into their employees' work values, too, because then they could cultivate an environment that met those needs.
34
Hits the nail on the head. Many people love their actual work (e.g. brick laying, computer programming, accounting, whatever), but their management's army of bureaucrats tries incessantly to destroy that love. Management's argument is always something like: 'War is too important to leave to the military.' Stretching that logic brings us to 'engineering is too important to leave to engineers', 'brain surgery is too important to leave to brain surgeons', etc. Sure, an orchestra needs a conductor. But does it need ten times as many conductors as players? Does it need an approval form filled out by each orchestra member for each bar of music played? Does it need each member to attend 4 teleconference meetings daily? To fill out periodic ranking of each of their colleagues? (bad example; in the real world you're asked to rank 'colleagues' that you've never even worked with). After 40 years of that, you cry 'uncle.'
Raised in the late 1950s and '60s, my career goal was to be a housewife and to learn pottery. My mother hated every job she had and regularly let us know. Unable to finish college, I began my work life in small factories. I would spend all day thinking about the reading and writing I was going to do when I got home only to be so tired at the end of the day that I couldn't think anymore. I had a million projects undone. After college I got better pay but the jobs were worse. My last job paid well and was complicated and dealt with difficult and complicated situations. I referred to it as, "responsibility without authority." I'm retired now and it's the best time of my life. I found out that I can paint and the first piece I did that I liked gave me a proud feeling of fulfillment that I had never before enjoyed. What ever happend to job sharing and work reduction due to "cybernation." We're in a truly sad state. Common core is such a big deal because no one needs to know or understand anything anymore. Most jobs murder one's humanity.
71
This analysis is too facile. I've designed call center jobs and metrics to pursue brevity and quality, simultaneously. Customers actually appreciate being assisted quickly. Their time is valuable. I also teach negotiation skills at the university level and we do not fixate on optimizing income. We discuss value fulfillment and negotiating work rules as part of our courses.
2
Actually, what customers actually appreciate is being treated like an actual human being by an actual human being. The time it takes to do that is actually irrelevant.
6
It takes a certain boldness to try to change the way we live 50% of our lives. But it also takes a stroke of genius. Work satisfaction comes from an array of determinants ranging from organizational structure, financial pressures of raising a family, heuristics of living in a society which puts materialism at its pedestal. The article myopically focuses on changing organizational structure. That in itself will not short circuit human heuristics living in a capitalist society.
Many people enter the workforce with an idealistic vision of their worth and input in the workforce. This framework had been inspired by our grade 3 teacher and our parents, plus all the wonderful books we read as kids. Then comes raising the kids, the mortgage, and yes, workplaces that focus on the bottom line whilst not rewarding achievement. So the problem is not only that organizations need to change, it is that we need money and we want more money to keep up with the Joneses. The study about people declining a fee for helping with a couch does not address the problem of the person 'making a living'. No one will lift couches 'for a living' pro-bono.
We should shepherd in organizational changes to make work more meaningful and rewarding. However, in our society, broad enjoyment of work is still a pipe dream. My wonder if people are enjoying work more in this mechanistic society, or in the previous agrarian society where people saw the fruits of their labour for themselves.
Many people enter the workforce with an idealistic vision of their worth and input in the workforce. This framework had been inspired by our grade 3 teacher and our parents, plus all the wonderful books we read as kids. Then comes raising the kids, the mortgage, and yes, workplaces that focus on the bottom line whilst not rewarding achievement. So the problem is not only that organizations need to change, it is that we need money and we want more money to keep up with the Joneses. The study about people declining a fee for helping with a couch does not address the problem of the person 'making a living'. No one will lift couches 'for a living' pro-bono.
We should shepherd in organizational changes to make work more meaningful and rewarding. However, in our society, broad enjoyment of work is still a pipe dream. My wonder if people are enjoying work more in this mechanistic society, or in the previous agrarian society where people saw the fruits of their labour for themselves.
26
Another aspect of work that should be rethought is this notion that we all need to work full time. Do you know how hard it is to find companies that have part time roles? They really don't exist at all. There are many of us who don't need to work full time and would enjoy work more it if were part time. I suspect as us Baby Boomers age, we will hopefully force companies to change their policies, because we want to work and in many cases will need to work past retirement age. The generations coming after us will have a lot to be grateful for if we can, as our swan song, redefine the work place for aging workers.
49
I totally agree with this. I would happily work 4-5 hours a day, and in fact, I would prefer that over not working at all. I like the routine of work, and I always have my most productive hours in the morning. The 8+ hour work day, however, is excessive and leaves room for little else. I'm sure that many of us would get just as much work done - and would work much faster and feel more refreshed - with a shorter work day.
21
"Work" satisfies many needs, many more than economists are concerned with (or can easily measure). Work satisfies social needs, group belonging needs, psychological needs (pride in work, self-efficacy, accomplishment, achievement, etc.) and so on. The typical Marxian view is that when people were separated from their labor thru capitalism they became alienated and negative about work, and then needed to be "motivated/forced" by management.
BTW one of the main factors in workplace satisfaction is relative autonomy, decision-making authority and pride of ownership over one's work, not perks like "free lunch" or "massages."
We've know this for years (whether of not one agrees with Marx). Organizational psychologists and social scientists have discussed this for more than a century. It is only the dominance of the technocrats that marginalize these human values.
BTW one of the main factors in workplace satisfaction is relative autonomy, decision-making authority and pride of ownership over one's work, not perks like "free lunch" or "massages."
We've know this for years (whether of not one agrees with Marx). Organizational psychologists and social scientists have discussed this for more than a century. It is only the dominance of the technocrats that marginalize these human values.
19
In addition to observing that making tasks meaningful also may mean slower creating better outcomes (see: Slow medicine, slow food movements) - there is an existential factor.
It is important to feel mastery, competence, special personal depth of understanding, commitment to a subject, yes--even passion. Spending years getting really good at a task, enriched by full conscious attention and expanding aesthetic/intellectual/craft skill makes life better. Encouraging all workers to find the good & compelling part of their jobs has to be essential to sound management. Efficiency per se is deadening as a goal.
Folks may achieve this in avocational activities, but the current youth culture that sees a 40 year career as a loser's life (they aim for that billion dollar buy out at 25 so they never have to work) seems like a dreadful misunderstanding of human nature.
It is important to feel mastery, competence, special personal depth of understanding, commitment to a subject, yes--even passion. Spending years getting really good at a task, enriched by full conscious attention and expanding aesthetic/intellectual/craft skill makes life better. Encouraging all workers to find the good & compelling part of their jobs has to be essential to sound management. Efficiency per se is deadening as a goal.
Folks may achieve this in avocational activities, but the current youth culture that sees a 40 year career as a loser's life (they aim for that billion dollar buy out at 25 so they never have to work) seems like a dreadful misunderstanding of human nature.
4
Besides appropriate autonomy, a deep sense of purpose, and a living wage, one needs intelligent management, i.e., an organization that works so that group effort actually creates worthwhile outcomes and makes a difference. The non-profit world would be much more attractive if it carried the promise that managers will be really good at managing the effort. Very often, not true. For profit manages to get results, and not-for-profit gets lost in a labyrinth of poor management.
2
>
As Freud showed, the "Crazy Ape" is a pleasure seeking organism, so if you obtain pleasure from your work you're probably engaged with it. For the majority of us pleasure is not found working, especially working for other people's fortunes.
As Freud showed, the "Crazy Ape" is a pleasure seeking organism, so if you obtain pleasure from your work you're probably engaged with it. For the majority of us pleasure is not found working, especially working for other people's fortunes.
7
Really now, how many people reading this would go back to work if they suddenly won the lottery with a six-figure income in the mail each year for life? Even if you already have such an occupation and feel secure and happy in it. I've asked many over the years but usually only after they've had a few drinks, and with no one else listening to us when I brought it up, and only found one who said he would. I am very fortunate: after several occupations, none truly drudgery, retired at 50 through luck and planning and not financially carrying anyone else on my back. I have never been a lazy layabout or TV watcher. After retiring I volunteered where it's needed and love it; it's the best job I've ever had, and it makes a difference. But if I had to do it five days a week, it would become a grind. There are only so many hours in our waking lives and so many interesting things to learn and do.
10
The "lottery" theory is 100% correct. This column represents a classic Ivory Tower perspective. Finding meaningful work is difficult for almost everyone, and very very few would work for no pay. It's certainly true that pay is not the only measure of satisfaction (nor the most important), but "work" is a requirement first, and then while you're there, maybe it can be half-way decent.
7
He's not saying that most people would work for free. But there's a big gap between "people are lazy, driven only by pay" and people want meaningful work and will work harder if given it. That viewpoint--that people need more meaning in their work--needs to be emphasized more in our contemporary economy, not less. What a horror show to have your every keystroke measured.
7
I'm carrying a lot of people on my back. Those people and what I can do for them are my meaning. Retirement at 50 is unlikely for me - my youngest will still be in college then.
2
I'm sure Gallup meant well but my life experience gave me a contrary conclusion, that is, most people are very happy about their job and want to come to work. As a matter of fact, most professionals always wanted more work and responsibility and worked many more hours than a 40 hour week. In fact, they didn't count the hours and if there was a sacrifice of other things or people they came as an expense in favor of work. And to further refine this thought, most did not consider what they did as "work" but rather as a career doing what they loved doing. Now, I did work in the non-profit sector which is, I noted, where employees have a very different mindset about the reason they do what they do. Motivations minimized dollars, benefits and time for the employer. So I must conclude that working for private enterprise or because they were asked, the folks responding to the poll said what they thought they were supposed to say rather than their life actions on a day to day basis.
1
I was with you till the comment about doctors. I'm afraid you got that completely wrong. Doctors don't work in 'cushy practices'. To start with, few practices are 'cushy', barring cosmetics perhaps. The practice of medicine is inherently stressful.
Second, doctors who work in 'clinics', i.e. are employees or work in some capacity in the system, are suffering a terrible degree of burnout. The main reason is loss of autonomy. Doctors are now treated as dispensable, interchangeable cogs, bullied and abused by admins. Admins are usually MBAs. Doctors are now seen as someone whose role is to serve the MBA and 'perform' by doing all the paperwork and meeting all sorts of made up mandates and metrics that have zero to do with the health of the patient. Doctors are under such severe assault that many are completely burnt out and are either retiring early or looking for every which way out of the 'healthcare industry' as it has come to be known. This is immensely demoralizing and creates a high level of stress, and a high degree of PTSD. Case in point, as I woke up this A.M I was thinking about the last CEO who bullied me and her psychopathic ways.
The happiest doctors who're still practicing are those who quit working in this 'industry' and open direct pay practices, where they find the meaning and sense of fulfillment that led them into medicine. They regain their autonomy, stop running like a rat in a maze, take care of patients, and take care of their health in the process.
Second, doctors who work in 'clinics', i.e. are employees or work in some capacity in the system, are suffering a terrible degree of burnout. The main reason is loss of autonomy. Doctors are now treated as dispensable, interchangeable cogs, bullied and abused by admins. Admins are usually MBAs. Doctors are now seen as someone whose role is to serve the MBA and 'perform' by doing all the paperwork and meeting all sorts of made up mandates and metrics that have zero to do with the health of the patient. Doctors are under such severe assault that many are completely burnt out and are either retiring early or looking for every which way out of the 'healthcare industry' as it has come to be known. This is immensely demoralizing and creates a high level of stress, and a high degree of PTSD. Case in point, as I woke up this A.M I was thinking about the last CEO who bullied me and her psychopathic ways.
The happiest doctors who're still practicing are those who quit working in this 'industry' and open direct pay practices, where they find the meaning and sense of fulfillment that led them into medicine. They regain their autonomy, stop running like a rat in a maze, take care of patients, and take care of their health in the process.
16
There was a time when "professionals" were by autonomous, "professing" to the creeds and codes of ethics ethics of their "calling."
Then in the past decade or two, MBA's (who were once more bean counters than strictly "professionals") dominated the professions and the professionals. With the urge to "monetize" and the rise of the "financial class", the professionals (doctors, lawyers, educators, scientists, etc) were de-skilled and manipulated by the "financial class." Right-wing politics supported this move as well; further there was much propaganda against the professional class ("greedy" doctors, "incompetent" teachers, etc. who now "needed" to be "managed") that ushered in the destruction of the professional class, as well as the "working class." When I was in college, the brighter students became (autonomous) professionals, and the less-bright became business students.
It is debatable whether the (former) professional class is engaged wit their work, since it now is to serve the financial masters, not the clients (who are mere sources of revenue).
At least this is my analysis.
Then in the past decade or two, MBA's (who were once more bean counters than strictly "professionals") dominated the professions and the professionals. With the urge to "monetize" and the rise of the "financial class", the professionals (doctors, lawyers, educators, scientists, etc) were de-skilled and manipulated by the "financial class." Right-wing politics supported this move as well; further there was much propaganda against the professional class ("greedy" doctors, "incompetent" teachers, etc. who now "needed" to be "managed") that ushered in the destruction of the professional class, as well as the "working class." When I was in college, the brighter students became (autonomous) professionals, and the less-bright became business students.
It is debatable whether the (former) professional class is engaged wit their work, since it now is to serve the financial masters, not the clients (who are mere sources of revenue).
At least this is my analysis.
6
Newsflash.
There's a whole lot of capital in this country and it's ridiculously unevenly distributed. Those who hold the capital don't HAVE to work--they get to go indulge in helping others and using their time meaningfully every day. The rest of the population is stuck--you guessed it--working.
We can naively hope that cushy empowerment policies will be extended to many forms of work, but I don't buy it. I'm lucky enough to work at a company that takes really good care of its employees, but we're a tech company with an extremely highly paid work force.
We need a capital tax and redistribution via a basic income to disincentivize low-paid, low-skilled work, and encourage automation. Some portion of those freed from drudgery will go watch Netflix all day, yeah. But who cares? Another chunk will choose to go out and find fulfillment through impacting their communities, entertaining patients, etc. And they won't need to get paid for it because they'll have a capital-supported minimum income.
End wage slavery now.
There's a whole lot of capital in this country and it's ridiculously unevenly distributed. Those who hold the capital don't HAVE to work--they get to go indulge in helping others and using their time meaningfully every day. The rest of the population is stuck--you guessed it--working.
We can naively hope that cushy empowerment policies will be extended to many forms of work, but I don't buy it. I'm lucky enough to work at a company that takes really good care of its employees, but we're a tech company with an extremely highly paid work force.
We need a capital tax and redistribution via a basic income to disincentivize low-paid, low-skilled work, and encourage automation. Some portion of those freed from drudgery will go watch Netflix all day, yeah. But who cares? Another chunk will choose to go out and find fulfillment through impacting their communities, entertaining patients, etc. And they won't need to get paid for it because they'll have a capital-supported minimum income.
End wage slavery now.
28
" Those who hold the capital don't HAVE to work--they get to go indulge in helping others and using their time meaningfully every day."
Helping others? Are you kidding?
Helping others? Are you kidding?
1
An excellent article. It would also be interesting to see an analysis of the extent to which people are naturally "greedy" (something with which I disagree) or are influenced by yet another self-fulfilling meme and narrative perpetuated by free market fundamentalists. It is telling that Americans are unreasonably suspicious of one another and government now compared to decades ago and have a much lower sense of civic unity and collective solidarity compared to nations in Europe and Asia. I must confess that I only really felt distinctly "American" when I lived abroad in Japan for a year. Otherwise, I was never really instilled with any form of patriotism or pride for American values, though I suppose part of it had to do with witnessing hateful Americans that justify their xenophobia and racism with American values. It is rather ironic.
7
"...extent to which people are naturally "greedy" (something with which I disagree)"
Can you elaborate on this?
Can you elaborate on this?
1
Years ago I had a passion for my chosen career. I chose it specifically because I thought it would not enrich anyone, it was instead one of the "helping" professions. Years ago I worked in a pleasant environment where I felt my work was valued, I was adequately paid, and we had great benefits. I felt my work was meaningful, and I was always willing go further than absolutely necessary to make sure my job was done well.
That has all changed now. Wages stagnated and benefits were cut. As colleagues retired or moved on, the workloads of those remaining were increased to ridiculous levels to avoid hiring new workers. Those who couldn't keep up were harassed until they quit or were simply let go - then the work was again redistributed and the process started all over again.
So now I say that if my employer's mission is to get as much work as possible out of its workforce while paying out as little as possible in wages, then my mission is to get as high a wage as possible while doing as little work as possible.
Turnabout is fair play, right?
That has all changed now. Wages stagnated and benefits were cut. As colleagues retired or moved on, the workloads of those remaining were increased to ridiculous levels to avoid hiring new workers. Those who couldn't keep up were harassed until they quit or were simply let go - then the work was again redistributed and the process started all over again.
So now I say that if my employer's mission is to get as much work as possible out of its workforce while paying out as little as possible in wages, then my mission is to get as high a wage as possible while doing as little work as possible.
Turnabout is fair play, right?
211
All my great jobs, the ones I would have volunteered to do, were in the non profit sector working for a cause. People were motivated to work long and hard because they believed in the work. Money was not the issue or none of us would have been in non profit. I was hired by a corporation where the CEO had also run a non profit and used that team business model to run his company. Employees were motivated and happy and were allowed to be team managers of projects based on their own good ideas. The boss called it horizontal management. I had so much fun there and would rather have been working than taking vacation. I am sorry for all workers that this kind of workplace has disappeared now in the land of the cubicles.
4
The start of the anti-work mentality is not in working life, but in school.
In our public school system, and in many traditional private schools, children are motivated by extrinsic rewards--incentives like stickers earned to be exchanged for treasure chest rewards or ice cream parties, or disincentives like missed recess, bad grades, or trips to the principal's system.
From the youngest ages, the implicit assumption is that children aren't naturally motivated to learn, to work hard, to persist, and that they must be cajoled and manipulated into learning and working.
No wonder they become adults who are disengaged from their work!
As Montessori educators, we reject this assumption. We observe in our schools, every day, that in a carefully prepared environment, children are eager learners, who set themselves tough challenges, who bite of bigger-than-life projects, and persist in completing them. We see how, with autonomy, a sense of purpose and the space and time to achieve mastery, they stay as intrinsically motivated in middle school as they are as bright-eyed kindergarteners.
In Montessori education, work and play aren't opposites--nor should they be in an adult life fully lived!
http://www.leportschools.com/blog/play-vs-work-a-wrong-alternative/
In our public school system, and in many traditional private schools, children are motivated by extrinsic rewards--incentives like stickers earned to be exchanged for treasure chest rewards or ice cream parties, or disincentives like missed recess, bad grades, or trips to the principal's system.
From the youngest ages, the implicit assumption is that children aren't naturally motivated to learn, to work hard, to persist, and that they must be cajoled and manipulated into learning and working.
No wonder they become adults who are disengaged from their work!
As Montessori educators, we reject this assumption. We observe in our schools, every day, that in a carefully prepared environment, children are eager learners, who set themselves tough challenges, who bite of bigger-than-life projects, and persist in completing them. We see how, with autonomy, a sense of purpose and the space and time to achieve mastery, they stay as intrinsically motivated in middle school as they are as bright-eyed kindergarteners.
In Montessori education, work and play aren't opposites--nor should they be in an adult life fully lived!
http://www.leportschools.com/blog/play-vs-work-a-wrong-alternative/
38
Both my children did Montessori for pre-school and kindergarten - and you are right - it was wonderful. I remember them equally enthusiastic (and proud of themselves) doing "numbers jobs" or reading jobs or scrubbing down a chair jobs. I think it gave them a great start.
Game changer - next time I'm found negotiating a job offer, I will ask for power & not compensation.
Some commenters are assuming that all paid work is inherently disagreeable for the people who perform it. It's unfortunate that many people have to work at jobs they dislike in order to live, but there are many jobs that are enjoyed by those who perform them. The trick is to find something you love to work at; however, even the most desirable work will have its duller moments -- if you care about something, you put up with all its facets. This is true of human relationships as well as work. Think of the less attractive tasks that are required for babies -- usually they're a greatly desired joy, but changing diapers isn't a job enthusiastically embraced by most.
The point made in this article is that even boring, repetitive work can be make more interesting when the workers aren't treated by management as automatons.
The point made in this article is that even boring, repetitive work can be make more interesting when the workers aren't treated by management as automatons.
97
Do you seriously think such a system will work? What if everyone wants to be musicians, artists, writers? Who will want to clean the office bathrooms?
These sorts of poorly thought out ideas is why I LOATH these sorts of conversations. The implication in all of them is that everyone can be 100% happy most of the time. When in the entire history of the human race has that been the case?
The truth is that the goal is to minimize the misery, it is NOT to maximize the happiness. The former is a realistic goal; the latter is an impossible task. And, in terms of the former goal, the U.S. has been quite terrible at it. In fact, it seems to have implemented a system which seems to grow misery with each passing generation.
These sorts of poorly thought out ideas is why I LOATH these sorts of conversations. The implication in all of them is that everyone can be 100% happy most of the time. When in the entire history of the human race has that been the case?
The truth is that the goal is to minimize the misery, it is NOT to maximize the happiness. The former is a realistic goal; the latter is an impossible task. And, in terms of the former goal, the U.S. has been quite terrible at it. In fact, it seems to have implemented a system which seems to grow misery with each passing generation.
Good, but most people will not be able to make a living off of the kind of nonprofit work described as the model for job satisfaction described here. There always have to be many more people involved in making, distributing, and selling goods and services for a profit in order to provide the extra money to support scientific, artistic, and philanthropic work. So the key to contentment at work must be found elsewhere for most.
7
Could the dismal "engagement" numbers be the result of Shareholder Value Capitalism, which regards workers as mere expenses to be reduced or eliminated?
When management intentionally creates a toxic, fearful workplace by continually culling workers, outsourcing, replacing older workers with younger cheaper ones, or offshoring them, people are unlikely to be motivated or enjoy their work. If management fails to develop or promote workers (why spend shareholders' money on training and development of workers who will eventually be laid off?), people are unlikely to be "engaged." When the primary form of employee motivation is fear of the next round of layoffs, workers will behave accordingly. When the hiring process begins with robotic gatekeepers that screen out anyone who isn't a widget that exactly fits a list of requirements for two or more disparate jobs, a worker will feel like an expendable machine part.
In summary, if companies treat workers as expendable widgets and constantly seek to eliminate them or replace them with cheaper widgets, employees are going to despise their jobs and see them only as a source of the income they need to live. It's a very shortsighted way of doing business, but it's what the company's only real customers (institutional investors) demand.
When management intentionally creates a toxic, fearful workplace by continually culling workers, outsourcing, replacing older workers with younger cheaper ones, or offshoring them, people are unlikely to be motivated or enjoy their work. If management fails to develop or promote workers (why spend shareholders' money on training and development of workers who will eventually be laid off?), people are unlikely to be "engaged." When the primary form of employee motivation is fear of the next round of layoffs, workers will behave accordingly. When the hiring process begins with robotic gatekeepers that screen out anyone who isn't a widget that exactly fits a list of requirements for two or more disparate jobs, a worker will feel like an expendable machine part.
In summary, if companies treat workers as expendable widgets and constantly seek to eliminate them or replace them with cheaper widgets, employees are going to despise their jobs and see them only as a source of the income they need to live. It's a very shortsighted way of doing business, but it's what the company's only real customers (institutional investors) demand.
350
Great phrase, Shareholder Value Capitalism. As I understand it, the cause goes back to a supreme court decision in the late 1920s that ruled that corporations must put the payoff to shareholders above any other considerations in their decision making. That is a decision that needs revisiting. I think it went against something that Henry Ford was trying to do for his workers.
3
Right on point Ted, I couldn't agree with you more
1
Having been both a manager and a worker bee, the one thing that all bosses should understand is that if they treat their workers badly, as most do, the workers will always find a way to get back at them.
Always. And they will never get caught at it.
When managers wonder why their department or company failed? Their workers have subtly undermined their success, as they do not see it as everyone's success when the rewards and accolades go only to management.
Always. And they will never get caught at it.
When managers wonder why their department or company failed? Their workers have subtly undermined their success, as they do not see it as everyone's success when the rewards and accolades go only to management.
Why are we still working 40 hour weeks especially white collar jobs (or more if on call)? With automation, computers,etc...why aren't we rethinking this..work expands to fill the 8 hours a day..there should be more 9/80(or less) work weeks.
58
If I was your boss I wouldn't have a problem paying you 32/40 of your paycheck. The problem is you and your ilk want a full 40 hour paycheck for 32 hours of (questionable) work!
Good question. Early in my career, I took an 8-5 hour publishing job. The work was interesting and often compelling, but the amount of time wasted in the office appalled me. I could have accomplished my actual professional tasks in half the hours if allowed to, but the office culture encouraged endless dawdling and little creative challenge. To bear down on my projects and "gitter done" made me a drudge, and the whole arrangement bored me. So I quit and went freelance. (One of my clients was the company I left.) I worked from 4 to 6 hours a day - and sometimes 2, and sometimes 10 -- which offered a greater sense of accomplishment and more free time, not to mention freedom from commuting and parking costs. As it turned out, my closest colleagues in that company also left within two years for positions offering more autonomy and better use of their skills and ideas. All of us secured more free time in the process; all of us thrived.
I am grateful to Dr. Schwartz for bringing attention to this issue. Here is a proposal that I think could address it successfully on a national level: Collect and publish workplace quality scores for all American employers.
Here’s how it can be done: Attach to each employee’s IRS Form W-2 a survey that can be returned as part of the tax filing process. Responses can be tabulated anonymously by IRS computers and published on a website where anyone can review the workplace quality scores for any employer by simply entering the employer’s name and address or tax identification number.
A more detailed description of this proposal can be found here: http://legislativeagenda.com/2011/05/how-to-fix-our-biggest-hidden-problem/
Here’s how it can be done: Attach to each employee’s IRS Form W-2 a survey that can be returned as part of the tax filing process. Responses can be tabulated anonymously by IRS computers and published on a website where anyone can review the workplace quality scores for any employer by simply entering the employer’s name and address or tax identification number.
A more detailed description of this proposal can be found here: http://legislativeagenda.com/2011/05/how-to-fix-our-biggest-hidden-problem/
One Litre of Gasoline is supposed to perform 2000 Manhours or 25 Humans @ 40 Hours / person work.
A liter of Gasoline does no work whatsoever _ am not sure you understand how work is defined: "using a force to move an object a distance"
While he might have hoped it would sell well, Adam Smith wasn't being paid while he wrote about how lazy everyone else was.
1
Good time to start (re)reading Wendell Berry who says it best.
3
"An American is probably the most unhappy citizen in the history of the world. He has not the power to provide himself with anything but money, and his money is inflating like a balloon and drifting away, subject to historical circumstances and the power of other people. From morning till night, he does not touch anything that he has produced himself, in which he can take pride. For all his recreation and leisure, he feels bad, he looks bad, his health is poor. His air, water, and food all contain poisons.
In living by his own will and skill, the stupidest peasant or tribesman is more competent than the most intelligent workers or technicians or intellectuals in a society of specialists."
Wendell Berry
In living by his own will and skill, the stupidest peasant or tribesman is more competent than the most intelligent workers or technicians or intellectuals in a society of specialists."
Wendell Berry
9
There are a lot of tedious and boring or intense and perilous jobs to assure everyone can have a meaningful and rewarding one for a lifetime but the most counter productive notion that dominates virtually all enterprises is that people would not work if they did not have to support themselves on the wages that they earn. It determines that virtually all of these enterprises are organized along the lines of military formations which must send people to their deaths or to kill others for a higher purpose and in which the reward for success is more and more command authority, but only for a few. This results in institutions which are authoritarian and pyramidal in which the only reward for excellent work is promotions to oversee the work of others and in which decisions are all made at the top and all those down the line are expected to obey and never to question. It's the kind of arrangement that ensures widespread dissatisfaction by having been designed to manage widespread dissatisfaction.
15
I find this analysis to be the poster person for problems in the Social Sciences. You can find facts and figures, no matter how banal, to prove just about any point you want. I've learned about the much discredited and maligned Marx mostly from third party philosophers, but there's no discussion here about the ideas of how the worker devolved to become a commodity in itself, a cog and tool to keep businesses rolling out their products for unnecessary and falsely created "need" - the so-called "commodity-fetish" society. You could even find studies, I would think, that companies who treat their employees well carrying out their mindless, bitter tasks do it for greater returns on the bottom line. It's just good business. Jacques Ranciere notes how we do have an educated class, but pity most in the world denied free time to experience the world's pleasures of intellect and wonder simply because after a day at the job or in a factory or in a field, there is no energy for anything else but bitter tiredness.
1
After working at a gas station as a kid, a couple of retail jobs and then an autoworker, because ithe job paid so well, and having the privilege of a college education on top of that, I agree with you, CarlenDay. Unless, you are Donald Trump, and answer to nobody, as long as you are a corporate cog, the modus operandi is to go to work, put the emotions and common sense that makes you human on hold, do your assigned tasks, robotlike ( because, God knows, a robot is likely to replace your job one of these days anyways) and then go home dead tired, where hopefully your boss can't control you by smartphone, and repeat this the next day, ad nauseum, for thirty or forty years. In today's parlance, that's known as a good job. And it only gets worse from there if you are not fortunate.... a certain conservative political party pushes the belief that ANY job is a good job, as long as the job provider is profitable.
What I see happening, in my circle of friends still working and nearing retirement is a vision of work that reminds me of marathon runners, definitely not front-runners, struggling mightily to reach the finish line.... Rubbery legs, gasping for breath, just willing themselves over the retirement line. So many changes in work rules, expectations, job assignments, and even appreciation for a job well done over the course of a lifetime. The author didn't mention this in his thesis.
I guess that's why there is "the 1%" and then there's everyone else.
What I see happening, in my circle of friends still working and nearing retirement is a vision of work that reminds me of marathon runners, definitely not front-runners, struggling mightily to reach the finish line.... Rubbery legs, gasping for breath, just willing themselves over the retirement line. So many changes in work rules, expectations, job assignments, and even appreciation for a job well done over the course of a lifetime. The author didn't mention this in his thesis.
I guess that's why there is "the 1%" and then there's everyone else.
8
*disaster as a
and probably related to why you can't edit entries here
and probably related to why you can't edit entries here
Many professionals actually enjoy or even love working, even if they are loath to admit it, and our identities and place in society are inextricably intertwined with what our work represent. The main difference may well be that those of us who have control over when and what we work on, and they were able to find work in an area that interest them.
91
@Elizabeth
Is is possible for an entire society to "choose" what they do?
Perhaps some of us have that good fortune, and we enjoy or find stimulating those "Dilbert moments" at work that are good-natured rather than dark.
But I find it hard to believe, as the progressive believes, that all people can either "control" what they do or find fulfillment in work.
As an American, I would be happier with a society that provides each of us for some outlet for that fulfillment or happiness. For you, it might come at the office. For me, it comes from raising a family. For someone else, it might come from serving others in a volunteer role. And each of us might have to hold our nose and just do some things to enable the rays of light we emit.
Is is possible for an entire society to "choose" what they do?
Perhaps some of us have that good fortune, and we enjoy or find stimulating those "Dilbert moments" at work that are good-natured rather than dark.
But I find it hard to believe, as the progressive believes, that all people can either "control" what they do or find fulfillment in work.
As an American, I would be happier with a society that provides each of us for some outlet for that fulfillment or happiness. For you, it might come at the office. For me, it comes from raising a family. For someone else, it might come from serving others in a volunteer role. And each of us might have to hold our nose and just do some things to enable the rays of light we emit.
1
We are a tiny minority. I'm an academic. I don't consider what I do work at all: what I do used to be called 'liberal pursuits'. I don't work.
I think it is more likely than many professionals have become addicted to money and to the power their position provides.
What part of Capitalist slaveocracy don't you understand?
The old society and it's relations seem permanent and eternal until suddenly they aren't.
People naturally want to work and be engaged in society and the things it produces for them and they produce for it. What they don't want is to be slaves of Capital, to live in the corruption of the very concept of society which is the end stage of Capitalism as a social order. It's a stain that spreads to every element of life. Pretty good as a properly scoped economic discipline. An unworkable disaster and a gloabally dominant basis of all human society.
The old society and it's relations seem permanent and eternal until suddenly they aren't.
People naturally want to work and be engaged in society and the things it produces for them and they produce for it. What they don't want is to be slaves of Capital, to live in the corruption of the very concept of society which is the end stage of Capitalism as a social order. It's a stain that spreads to every element of life. Pretty good as a properly scoped economic discipline. An unworkable disaster and a gloabally dominant basis of all human society.
13
Most of the world "works to live," while we in the US are said to, "live to work." So Professor, if you think things are bad here with regard to motivation, you should sample the rest of the world.
76
Find your life purpose in pursuits outside the office if your job isn't doing it. If happiness bests money, force yourself to leave your chair after an eight hour day. People have ridiculous expectations of work and then get resentful when they don't come to pass-- just as they have unrealistic expectations of their significant others. Our divorce rate from commitments is high! We need to accept, be grateful, and fill in the missing pieces elsewhere. We can't find everything in any one pursuit. Impractical.
2
I guess you're referring to the "third world". In the rest of the developed world satisfaction is consistently higher.
1
I don't think the author is specifically targetting the US. I think that what he says applies to work in general.
I run a language school in Africa. I'm Canadian. I once heard a Canadian doctor who had worked in the US say taht in America, you worked all the time but you enjoyed your work because management gives you what you need to get the work done. I never forgot that. i try to give my teachers what they need.
I run a language school in Africa. I'm Canadian. I once heard a Canadian doctor who had worked in the US say taht in America, you worked all the time but you enjoyed your work because management gives you what you need to get the work done. I never forgot that. i try to give my teachers what they need.
Another good example here is teaching: One of the reasons why teacher attrition is so high in this country is because young people enter the field believing they will be making a difference in people’s lives, only to find they are bootstrapped by standardized tests and bottom line accountability. Money has very little to do with it.
345
Well no - mostly relatively under-performing students enter the teaching profession.
The exact characteristics that made them poor under-performing students leads them to desert the profession as poor under-performing educators.
The exact characteristics that made them poor under-performing students leads them to desert the profession as poor under-performing educators.
1
@RMC
TIred of the teaching reference. Go to most towns and tell the residents that, from now on, they will be supporting the salary increases needed by their teachers and those of an adjoining burg. Don't know about you, but I don't see alot of parents or the local, older residents getting behind such a campaign.
Teaching is a tough profession because we don't fully value it in society. That is not the fault of the test, and the test came about because we scolded ourselves for years for not keeping up with the Swedes and Singaporeans.
TIred of the teaching reference. Go to most towns and tell the residents that, from now on, they will be supporting the salary increases needed by their teachers and those of an adjoining burg. Don't know about you, but I don't see alot of parents or the local, older residents getting behind such a campaign.
Teaching is a tough profession because we don't fully value it in society. That is not the fault of the test, and the test came about because we scolded ourselves for years for not keeping up with the Swedes and Singaporeans.
Actually, money has everything to do with it. Teacher pay in the US is a complete disgrace. Teachers do far more important work than hedge fund managers; they should therefore be paid more than hedge fund managers, period.
6
Barry, as with so many academics, misses completely an important link in the chain that ties compensation with satisfaction: return on invested capital. That is, people who are well compensated for what they do -- assuming they work for successful organizations -- receive not only a salary, but also a share of the profits.
There is no reason why a call center operator or the janitor should not receive options on shares of the stock for their company for the "extra" work they do when they invest themselves fully in their jobs -- but 99 times out of 100 they do not.
This topic is the one worth studying.
There is no reason why a call center operator or the janitor should not receive options on shares of the stock for their company for the "extra" work they do when they invest themselves fully in their jobs -- but 99 times out of 100 they do not.
This topic is the one worth studying.
28
Ownership has its place, and real employee ownership in the form of co-ops can make a real difference in how employees interact with customers and how they feel about their employers. However, I have seen even more cases of senior managers with very attractive share ownership schemes who were completely miserable but held on for years to get the payout. In some cases, the payout was pulled at the last minute. I saw executives who were extremely stressed, suffering health issues and growing ever more difficult to work with as they stayed in jobs they hated. They completely disengaged from real work and just started manipulating the numbers to meet their targets. When they finally realised they wouldn't get the payout because of all the value they destroyed, they became extremely bitter and left the company in droves.
4
Too bad Jeff Bezos and the other techbots at Amazon are unlikely to read or believe any of this. In fact, apparently they are trying to export their own workplace management tactics to other employers. I wonder if it has occurred to them or others that maybe this is why Amazon has been so slow to show profits, as opposed to growth.
5
"I wonder if it has occurred to them or others that maybe this is why Amazon has been so slow to show profits, as opposed to growth."
Nah! In the case of Amazon, it is all about the taxes.
Nah! In the case of Amazon, it is all about the taxes.
You contradict yourself. You are saying that Amazon should adopt this author's strategies in order to be successful, yet Amazon is enormously successful. Maybe, just maybe, the NYT article on Amazon didn't do a very good job of assessing the real work atmosphere there.
1
I think an important thing missing from this article is a critique of Capital. You talk about what makes a company more successful, but successful for whom? There is an excellent book by Harry Braverman called *Labor and Monopoly Capital* (1974) which shows that workers are deskilled because that makes them easier to exploit. The overall health of a company makes very little difference to investors who might never set foot on the premises and who can cut their losses virtually whenever. Skilled workers get more fulfillment out of their work. But they also command a higher share of the profits and greater control over the work process. Even though the company as a whole and the society around it might benefit from happier, healthier workers, the capitalist will lose control. "The company" in a capitalist society is a conflicted organism.
31
Adam Smith's, and by extension Barry Schwartz, is a 'capitalist argument,' A notion that work can be done in trade for something, 'money,' that may be accumulated as 'wealth.'
Consider Michel Serres' 'genetic argument': that work is a natural disposition, expenditure of energy and its own reward — what is invested and saved is in the work itself.
"The masterwork is unknown, only the work is known, knowable. The master is the head, the capital, the reserve, the stock and the source, the beginning, the bounty...The work is made of forms, the masterwork is a formless fount of forms, the work is made of time, the masterwork is the source of times, the work is a confident chord, the masterwork trembles with noise...The masterwork never stops rustling and calling..."
Consider Michel Serres' 'genetic argument': that work is a natural disposition, expenditure of energy and its own reward — what is invested and saved is in the work itself.
"The masterwork is unknown, only the work is known, knowable. The master is the head, the capital, the reserve, the stock and the source, the beginning, the bounty...The work is made of forms, the masterwork is a formless fount of forms, the work is made of time, the masterwork is the source of times, the work is a confident chord, the masterwork trembles with noise...The masterwork never stops rustling and calling..."
10
On the other hand, we must agree with Aristotle that,
"...happiness is thought to depend on leisure; for we are busy that we may have leisure…” (Nicomachean Ethics) http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/nethics.htm
"...happiness is thought to depend on leisure; for we are busy that we may have leisure…” (Nicomachean Ethics) http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/nethics.htm
13
Sorry, but if I do only what my natural disposition directs my to do, directed only by my own personal reward, that is play, not work. Good luck finding others who will support your play time (and even better luck surviving in a community where everybody just plays).
1
This is an old, old story. We have known all of this about human motivation for a long time. Yet, just like the Mississippi chocolate cheesecake mud pie in my freezer, I loose out to the sinful lure of sugar. In spite of all my efforts to resist, I choose to degrade my health.
If management and supervision were presented with the right incentive structure, they would act in accordance with the health of their fellows and the common good. So, why not? That's why sin is always present. What in the judgment of our forebrains' best calculations looses to the demands of instinctual pleasure receptors in our brains? The author doesn't need to teach a lesson, he needs to uncover the deep places where incentive lies and to disarm them. I have always believed in catharsis--that once we see deeply enough and clearly enough the hidden persuaders buried within, the insight becomes a self-cleansing process. There is knowing about and there is deeply understanding. Knowing about is greatly overrated.
If management and supervision were presented with the right incentive structure, they would act in accordance with the health of their fellows and the common good. So, why not? That's why sin is always present. What in the judgment of our forebrains' best calculations looses to the demands of instinctual pleasure receptors in our brains? The author doesn't need to teach a lesson, he needs to uncover the deep places where incentive lies and to disarm them. I have always believed in catharsis--that once we see deeply enough and clearly enough the hidden persuaders buried within, the insight becomes a self-cleansing process. There is knowing about and there is deeply understanding. Knowing about is greatly overrated.
1
To identify and disagree with the repressions of capitalism is not "sin".
3
Since you insist it is about ideology, then your dismal and hopeless assumption that we are trapped by our own greed condemns us to being automatons of exploitation, whenever do you expect that we will ever live in joy? If we stop believing in some movement toward perfectibility for ourselves, then that genetic accident making our specie possible was the condemnation of our planet--the misery and chaos that was baked into the pie from the beginning--that we cannot step outside our temporal loop to understand what we are and what we are to this planet.
Will you help me understand what you mean by "repressions of capitalism?" Who is repressing what? Do you mean "repression" as Freud would use the term? Do you mean some actor within the capitalist system is unconsciously denying a thought or feeling and that process is inherent in the functioning of capitalism as necessary, because if the repressed mental notion became conscious, what would happen? Repression is about inner conflict, a state of being that Freud and I also believe is not the state of a happy, healthy person. Do you believe self-interest and altruism are or are not compatible?
There's some light at the end of the tunnel. During 2004 the US Environmental Protection Agency and NASA collaborated to fix problems like lack of diversity and low employee engagement. They pioneered the Project Announcement Visibility Effort (PAVE) --- an online project announcement system that measures diversity and engagement in realtime, it's a partial solution that is adaptable, portable, flexible and proven. NASA and EPA use PAVE to announce work that is challenging and engaging --- employees get exciting opportunities to show what they can do. They volunteer for hot projects they like and get selected if qualified. In other words, enabling employees to exercise some discretion and control over what they do. The hot projects are chances for employee to engage in opportunities that may lead to promotions, visibility while reducing burnout. In addition, the dynamics breakdown artificial barriers in organizations . . . while employees learn and grow. Originally some officials fought against the idea tooth and nail --- they were overruled by Congress, the Office of personnel management and numerous professional organizations. American's model of work must change in order for all of us to get a better chance to pursue happiness.
1
What I'd like to see is management treat it's employee's as members of the enterprise instead of resources to be exploited. All too often, supervisors have zero empathy and are driven merely by the desire to feather their own nest instead of growing the individuals they supervise. If that corporate culture exists all the way up the chain of command you end up with a pretty dysfunctional company.
61
Love this article. Sorry to politicize but one of the many things that bothers me about the GOP is their belittling of the little people-- "takers vs. maker;" "I built this;" "raise the retirement age to 70;" Americans don't work hard enough. " I always wonder where they make thee observations, because ni my world, most people put a lot of effort into their jobs, and take pride in what they do. That includes my mailman, the UPS driver, my trash collectors, most of the clerks at Safeway, the hair stylists who work in the salon I own, the people who make the sandwiches at the deli next door, my 19 year old son working 6 days a week at a car dealer to save money for school. Who and where are these losers the GOP disparages so freely? always say, all the CEOs take off for a week, who would notice? the janitors-- well, THAT would be a disaster.
422
Most Americans who work do work hard enough, but the reality is that we are now living into our 80's, and social security was designed in the 1930's to take us to 67 if we even reached 65. If we are living longer, shouldn't we have to work a few years longer, too?
2
Not everyone can work past their 60's. I'm in a business where the physical aspects of the job make it harder as you age. You can't live a life because you're so exhausted after doing your job. It's a horrible cycle, waiting to have a life. There are many "blue collar" jobs that are worse than mine, but I can't wait till next year when I retire, at 62.
11
Knock yourself out, Jack. I don't care if you work until you are 100. You pose the question: if we are living longer, shouldn't we be working longer? For me, retirement was the reward for 37 years of working at jobs that I didn't necessarily like to do. Retirement, for me, hasn't been about traveling to the Bahamas or to Yosemite, but has been about caring for elderly parents, where, thankfully, I now have the time to do so, unimpeded by the demands of a job. I was lucky: I worked under a union contract that allowed me to retire after 30 years, just in time to concentrate full-time on family concerns.
Jack, if there is going to be anything resembling full-time jobs in the future, given the rate of automation we are seeing now, people are going to have to retire at a younger age, not an older age. Yes, this brings about the quandery of how to pay for old age in an aging society. The corporate world won't like this, but given that the push for productivity is never-ending, and that wages have remained flat for 30 years, and that profits overall are at an all-time high, and that the need for human workers is diminished, then for every active worker there is going to have to be a significant raise in pay, channeled into the Social Security/Medicare fund. I know, the corporations will dcream bloody murder, invert, offshore, whatever, but the reality is that for most, if they are doing business here, they have to be located here.
Jack, if there is going to be anything resembling full-time jobs in the future, given the rate of automation we are seeing now, people are going to have to retire at a younger age, not an older age. Yes, this brings about the quandery of how to pay for old age in an aging society. The corporate world won't like this, but given that the push for productivity is never-ending, and that wages have remained flat for 30 years, and that profits overall are at an all-time high, and that the need for human workers is diminished, then for every active worker there is going to have to be a significant raise in pay, channeled into the Social Security/Medicare fund. I know, the corporations will dcream bloody murder, invert, offshore, whatever, but the reality is that for most, if they are doing business here, they have to be located here.
6
I have felt for years that there is creativity in all of us. Allow a human being to feel creative and he will jump at the job. It is as creative to size up a tree before cutting it, to analyze the straightness of an appropriate piece of lumber, to design the proper code, as it is to write, or act or paint. Society, employers, need to realize this. Adam Smith was regarding humans from the perspective of struggle, work or starve, the most base animal nature in man. Hopefully we have advanced past this.
11
I used to work for a large company that threw these insights back onto the worker in nefarious ways, such as "research says that money isn't that important, so don't be asking for raises." They also said that research said that having goals was important, so everybody needed to jump on board the company agenda. They conveniently left out the autonomy bit. They also said that contentment was a personal thing, so they were not responsible for morale...that was our problem. Seriously, a management leader came in and did a hour and a half powerpoint of this stuff. Bottom line: get with our goals and don't ask for more money or you will be subverting your own happiness...and it will be your own fault. The research supports this! Needless to say, I don't work there anymore.
141
Yeah, but is that company still in business?
1
All those Corporate mantras have a hint of Orwellian double-speak to them.
You know, "Freedom is slavery" (you are free to do anything so long as it is what we want you to do); Ignorance is Strength (don't be weak and think for yourself; be strong and resolute by believing what we tell you is true);
Not so ironic . . .
You know, "Freedom is slavery" (you are free to do anything so long as it is what we want you to do); Ignorance is Strength (don't be weak and think for yourself; be strong and resolute by believing what we tell you is true);
Not so ironic . . .
Since far too many US companies have adopted variations of the Jeff Bezos amabot model, work places are not the source of joy, happiness and fulfillment for many of us. I have had jobs that I loved. My first out of college was with Ford Motor Company when it was in their prime. My supervisor was not only competent, caring and supportive but had a sense of humor that he knew how to use at the appropriate moments. I was paid a living wage and had excellent benefits. I also worked for a real estate syndicate in the SanFrancisco Bay area back in the 1970's that was an exciting place to work. My co-workers were high energy team players and the owners brilliant. I loved going to work everyday and the owners recognized the contributions made by the team and there was no anger or hostility.
But times have changed and so has the work place which has become dehumanized and heartless. If we had universal single payer health care and an adequate Social Security retirement program it would give us all more flexibility to pursue job fulfillment. Right now most of us are just serfs.
But times have changed and so has the work place which has become dehumanized and heartless. If we had universal single payer health care and an adequate Social Security retirement program it would give us all more flexibility to pursue job fulfillment. Right now most of us are just serfs.
230
You bring up a good point about health care and pensions. I was surprised at the 90% dissatisfaction rate, but that is world wide. I wonder what it is in the developed countries?
I can't imagine being shackled to my job in order to have health insurance. Since company pensions are in decline over all, and the defined benefit pension is almost gone, an adequate pension such as social security would be good for everyone.
People staying in jobs they hate or are not suitable for is not productive of anything.
I can't imagine being shackled to my job in order to have health insurance. Since company pensions are in decline over all, and the defined benefit pension is almost gone, an adequate pension such as social security would be good for everyone.
People staying in jobs they hate or are not suitable for is not productive of anything.
4
Besides human beings, no creature on this planet expects anything from work beside the natural consequences. Wages, profits, payments are human constructs that sustain or distort our natural human life. if all our work was free of payments and as simple and pleasant as holding a hand in need, feeding a child or brushing or teeth we would become more human. While this is unrealistic, we must realize that our relationship to money is a critical one. It could be a healthy relationship or an immature one that saps our intelligence and humanity.
4
Yes, professor Schwartz, you are spot on. Adam Smith saw the ideal society as one of kings and peons. My opinion is that the company janitor/maintenance person who comes in to clean every day or night is just as invested as the president of the company and maybe even more because he or she might not be able to eat or clothe themselves and their families if they didn't have the work. Much of the dissatisfaction today is because so much work is "contracted out" to companies with people who have no real interest in the companies or people they serve - they just want to provide labor as cheaply as possible so THEY can make money. Good People of The United States of America have a truly historic opportunity to change the work world by forming true, sustainable employee-owned companies where ALL employees share equitably in the responsibility and profit of the company. NO outside investors to siphon off the rewards. No robots replacing people. These companies will serve their local communities and invest profits in other employee-owned start-up companies. Call it the Habitat for Humanity model for business. Help others build something then they help you build something and soon everyone lives in a sustainable, productive civil environment.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0329/ESOP-Employee-ownership-of-c...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/0329/ESOP-Employee-ownership-of-c...
75
Umm, sure, and don't forget that you will also have to have strict controls on the marketplace so that when the happy owner-employees go shopping, they will not be tempted by products made by evil profit-driven, robot-using companies, products that also have lower prices (and probably higher quality).
Besides, how much do you think a pin will cost when the only pins are made by individual craftsmen using hand tools and artisan materials? Do you really think we could maintain anything close to our modern standard of living without a high degree of mechanization?
Besides, how much do you think a pin will cost when the only pins are made by individual craftsmen using hand tools and artisan materials? Do you really think we could maintain anything close to our modern standard of living without a high degree of mechanization?
Even employee "owned" places will have workers who don't pull their own weight and those people generate tremendous antagonism from the other workers. Then the problem again is how to get rid of them? There is no way yet devised to organize work which can avoid all problems.
The break in morale occurs when management dictates false necessities to the workforce simply to occupy its time, not the needs of the company or, by extension, tap into the talents of employees. By the nature of that, false necessities expand to accommodate the growth of management, and it becomes an exercise in exponential meaninglessness. If the Notorious B.I.G. had worked a corporate gig, his song would be Mo' Management Mo' Problems.
149
This is a perfect example of "false consciousness". The worker's real job is to secure the resources that supply him/her and family with necessities and luxuries. Everything else is about satisfying someone else's goals (generally, those of your boss). If it's meaningful to them, who are you to say otherwise?
1
But these "resources" are obtained through a system of burden and repression, massive power imbalance. We are inculcated to the goal so as to abide by the rules but the system itself is loaded with constraints to freedom of spirit, intellect and ways of nurturing.
2
I retired in 2007 at age 55 after a successful career. The key to my success was to move jobs when I felt I was no longer productive. That required me to rise above the pay check and be willing to walk through the fire of finding a new and challenging job. I held 7 jobs in 34 years. Managerial, non managerial, and administrative. When I felt complacent and bored I would immediately clean up the resume and get it out. It worked every time. No panic. I went up and down in compensation...at one point dropping almost 30K a year. But it didn't matter. What mattered was that feeling of "wanting to get up and go there"
66
Do you have a family? Children? A home?
5
You dropped 30k a year in salary ... that is my entire yearly salary. You had the option to take that pay cut to find more fulfilling work, and that's awesome, but it's not a choice everyone has. It is a choice everyone should have, though, which is what this article is all about.
16
You can set out to do it no matter the income level. It is harder in the lower brackets but you only get one life. I know so many folks who just hate their jobs. No thanks.
2
I think most people are self motivated. They like to think that they are doing a good job and try to find ways of being fulfilled in their work. I work in a hardware store, yesterday, one of my co-workers told me how she had reorganized her section so the product would be easier for the customers to find. She did this on her own because she had observed the frustration of customers trying to locate products. Many companies would discourage this because it changes the corporate approved layout for that section (called a Plan-O-Gram). A more enlightened approach would be to say "OK, let's try it and see what happens."
In my 30 plus years of experience, when you empower your people to take charge of their jobs, amazing things happen. This is not the behavior of "just gimme my pay" workers, and I think most people would do this if given the chance.
In my 30 plus years of experience, when you empower your people to take charge of their jobs, amazing things happen. This is not the behavior of "just gimme my pay" workers, and I think most people would do this if given the chance.
149
Most people would do this if given the chance, but once they realize there is no rewards for doing so, or rather, the rewards and credit will go to their manager, they lose a lot of incentive.
This rings true for me. I worked for a couple of decades in a large corporation, where money was good but aspirations for meaningful challenge were stymied by a degree of specialization and "turf" battles that meant one really didn't get to learn and grow that much. I didn't even know it. I thought that was how work was. I now work for a small company, where I have lots of autonomy and responsibility, regularly spend my days solving varied and interesting problems, and no one tells me not to do something because it's someone else's responsibility. I get paid far less, but I am far happier with what I am doing with my time. And I happily give more of myself and my time to this little company, because what I am doing matters.
62
Work is unpleasant. It's why they have to pay us to do it. And, it's why almost nobody would keep doing their job if it stopped paying. I look forward to a socialist future where our robots do all the work while we all just get to chill out. Hopefully it will happen in my lifetime.
13
I am not sure what planet Prof. Schwartz is from, but here in the real world people show up to get a paycheck. There are these little things called bills to pay that tend to focus the mind. The examples of janitors entertaining patients are rationalization and sugar coating. And all that learning and being challenged means is more stuff to plow through before being able to go home.
Here is the best way to prove this. Ask your self, if money were no object, would you keep working? I bet 90% of people would say no.
Here is the best way to prove this. Ask your self, if money were no object, would you keep working? I bet 90% of people would say no.
20
Tell me why volunteerism is at an all time high in the United States, QED?
10
No prof Schwartz acknowledges that pay is a necessary aspect of getting people to work but it's not the only thing that matters and it is not sufficient which goes against what Adam Smith thought. You missed the main aspect of the argument.
26
Because we still want to make the world better and we're not seeing any overarching governmental or corporate action - so we salve our desires for good with little deeds. Or, we're out of work and need to keep doing something so as not to have gaps on our resumes.
4
When you are young, you have little say. When older, if you have produced good results and are valued because of a proven track record, you will have more say. Once close to retirement, you likely have less autonomy than when at your peak, unless you are in the right place - takes luck and effort.
Today, 20 and 30 somethings think they should start with flexibility and pay.
Who raised these people with such false expectations and so much entitlement?
Much of the joy one experiences from work is self-induced. anyone that blames their boss constantly is doomed to unhapiness, but somehow too many growing into the workforce today blame everyone except themselves and their own lack of vision, hard work, and risk taking.