The philosophic question (if that is not too elevated a way of putting it) most urgently confronting most of us ordinaries concerns the proper relationship between our jobs and the rest of our lives. We need some money, that is clear, and the way to get it is to have a job. But it is not at all clear that having a job in any other way advances our cause. If you take public transportation (I do), check out the faces all around you on the commutes. It sure doesn't look like what they're headed to, or taking leave from, promotes health, vitality, or overall well being.
And yet, working their Blackberries and laptops, the commuters appear willing participants in the theft of their own lives. Does it stop when they disembark and enter their own houses? Most likely it doesn't have to. Exhausted at the end of the long work day, they eat a fast, bad meal and medicate themselves with television before starting all over again the next day.
Some people, the relatively enlightened ones in my view, make a conscious decision not to play. They need the money, poor slaves, and, in exchange for it, are happy to show up, put in their time, and lend their talents to the cause, probably not a very important one, for eight hours a day. I call them "the relatively enlightened ones" but more often it is probably just circumstances that compel them not to give too much away. The most stressful things in life are discouragingly common. People use up all their energy coping with problems--marital discord, illness in the family, infirm parents, troubled kids--that are their problems, not their employers', and therefore have nothing much left to give beyond half their weekday waking hours: a considerable contribution, it would seem, given what they may be up against on weekends and after 5 p.m. on weekdays.
Nevertheless it is in the interest of employers to get even more. They are aided in the effort by the fact that people need the money and so if put to the wall will cave to demands, threats, and quiet pressure. It helps, too, to keep people very busy. They tend to be persuaded by their own industry that what they are doing must be very important. Else why would they be so hard at it? Reward them with a promotion and, impressed by their new title, income, and social prestige, they'll work even more.
Where I work, "employee engagement" is the favored phrase for the task of persuading people to give more of their lives to work. An Employee Engagement Survey reveals, according to the Employee Engagement Specialist, that 70% of our people are disengaged. How can she tell? Well, when asked, for example, whether "every day at work I have a chance to do what I do best," they circle a number less than 5, which signifies "strongly agree," and also less than 4, which signifies "somewhat agree." Consequently we are all to meet with our supervisor to develop an Employee Engagement Action Plan. Since twelve people on earth are referring to me when they say "my boss," I have to convene one of these absurd meetings myself.
What is to be done? The problem begins with the need for money, so a first step would be to cut back on the need for it. Most of what's for sale is useless anyway. You don't sleep better in a big house, and travel is overrated. Save, keep your own counsel, comprehend that what you do to get money is not in any long view of things very important. Do you seriously believe that, coming to the end of your days, you'll wish you'd been a more engaged employee and logged more hours on the job? We are, as Thoreau wrote, too desperate to succeed--and in such desperate enterprises!
Comments