Have you ever noticed how negative the idea of a “real job” actually is?
When people say “get a real job,” they’re usually not thinking of something fun. They’re usually thinking of something involving 40 hours a week (plus overtime), two coveted weeks of vacation time, a tough boss, and a lot of paperwork.
Sometimes we acknowledge this problem jokingly, as in:
“How’re you doing, man?”
“Well, work sucks, but you know how it is.”
Awkward laughter.
When did the idea of a “real job” get so depressing? Why do we martyr ourselves to it? Or, to put it another way – why does a job have to be depressing and oppressive to count as “real?”
A few reasons:
1. We confuse long work with hard work.
When someone puts in a 50, 60, or 70-hour work week, we admire them. We say, “Look at Jack – he’s such a hard worker.” But how much is Jack actually getting done? How much of those 70 hours is spent spacing out in pointless meetings and wading through bureaucratic red tape? Is hard work really measured by a timesheet, or is it measured in focus, ingenuity, efficiency, and productivity?
We might also ask about the kind of work that Jack’s doing. Is he playing the role of yet another replaceable rubber-stamp employee, or is he contributing something truly valuable? Is he following the status quo, or is he trying to improve it?
It’s possible that Jack is working both long and hard – but they aren’t the same thing. A 70-hour work week has more to do with burnout than with hard, useful, productive work. But as long as we confuse the two, it’s impossible to get away from the push for a 40-hour-a-week “real job.”
2. We confuse autonomy with anarchy.
Last week I posted about the idea of a results-only work environment (ROWE), which fascinates me. Several commenters, however, expressed genuine concerns about the practicality of a results-only workforce. Don’t standards and rules help people work better together? Wouldn’t a free-for-all environment lead to conflict and chaos?
This is a good example of how we tend to associate autonomy (or freedom) with anarchy (or chaos). We assume that, if a team of employees (or students, or citizens, or whatever) are left to their own devices, things will inevitably fall apart. According to this logic, we have no choice but to impose rules and regulations to keep people under control.
But a results-only work environment has nothing to do with lawless anarchy. In a ROWE, employees and teams are free to decide on rules and standards and conventions, so long as they agree that these standards will help them get better results.
That’s a crucial difference. In most workplaces, rules are made by management and enforced from above, leading to cumbersome, inefficient bureaucracies. In a results-only environment, any standards are set by the workers themselves, leading to more flexibility, more responsiveness, and more freedom – if we’re willing to trust them to be competent, responsible people.
Team standards and conventions are fine in a ROWE – but they’re set by the team, not imposed on it.
3. We mistakenly separate work happiness from life happiness.
Popular wisdom tells us to keep our work lives separate from our private lives. It tells us to live as two people: the dutiful, long-suffering employee, and the vibrant, creative person when not at work.
But we can’t compartmentalize like that for long. Can we genuinely be happy at home when we’re stressed out for 8+ hours every weekday? Can we really separate work and life activities when we’re carrying around our Blackberries 24 hours a day? How long can we ride the bipolar roller coaster of office work vs. the rest of life, before we crash and burn?
Yet the push to compartmentalize, to draw a fragile, artificial line between work and life, is part of what makes us accept depressing, oppressive jobs as the standard. It’s okay to hate your job, we’re taught, as long as you have fun outside of it. Work hard, party hard, burn out before 40 … right?
***
I think we can have something better. I think we can grow toward something better. I think we can reclaim the idea of the “real job” and turn into something both respectable and enjoyable.
A results-only work environment is one powerful idea. But it’s not a magic bullet, and it won’t solve everything overnight.
What big changes would you like to make to the way we perceive and carry out “real work?” What small changes would you need to start making now to make those big changes possible?
Do that. Start that.
We’ll talk more about change later this week, so stick around.
11 Comments on “Saving the Real Job”
says:
I love your thoughts on the matter, and I admire your push for change. Unlike you, though, I’m not very hopeful for change. It would be nice, but….
I was definitely hit by how you say we can’t compartmentalize like that for long. Very true. At my “real job” (that is, my former job), I saw this happen with new receptionists that came in but were unable to handle this compartmentalization. Unfortunately, the one woman who was perfect for the job, who knew it was as much a part of her life as her life outside work, who enjoyed it, had to leave because the employers were not compensating her well enough!
I’d also like to point out that it feels as if you’re pushing for change from a top-down perspective. Regular bottom-of-the pyramid employees can’t really change their work situation to a ROWE. However, even those without the power to make that big of a change can start with changing their attitudes. Get in a job that you can stand to see as part of your life, rather than separate from it.
says:
I struggle sometimes with the possibility for change too. I’ve found, though, that paralysis and discouragement usually come from looking at the full expanse of the problem (such as changing an entire company), instead of the small-scale changes we can make now (such as changing your own outlook or that of a teammate).
It’s often said, but big changes have to start small; you have to take a lot of little steps before you find the right place to take the big leap.
At work, I guess you could say I’m upper-mid management, if that makes sense – so yes, I do see things from my particular point of view. Nevertheless, I don’t think change necessarily needs to come from the top down. In my position, for example, I still have to work on changing the opinions of my equals and superiors (and, if I want to be a good manager, the opinions of my direct reports as well)!
But it’s my belief that, no matter where you are, the important thing is that you stretch for the few changes that are within your reach, then use those as footholds to reach even further. If you’re a ground level employee, for example, you might start by making an effort to connect with other people at all levels of your organization – that’s one way to start tackling the obstacle of influence.
I don’t know if all organizations can change, or if change is always worthwhile in all situations. But I think, if we see a need for improvement, we owe it to ourselves to at least do what’s within our power. If nothing else, we’ll gain a better appreciation of what we’re doing and why.
says:
I feel that change is possible if there’s an attitude change, as Michy noted. Until a person’s motive changes any policy change in the company – no matter how much it improves the overall working environment – will be met with resistance and will probably fail.
People do what they want to do. The majority don’t want to work 9-5 jobs but do so to pay pills or support families. If their job can be made more enjoyable in any way possible maybe you can shift the average worker’s motives. They might come to enjoy more aspects of work and when this feeling permeates the corporate culture the little changes which you speak of can be made step by step without much resistance from the work force.
says:
I would just like to start by saying that today was my last class day of my college career as I will be graduating in a week. For me, there’s a looming cloud of “This won’t be summer vacation, but rather it’s going to be the rest of my life…” which is combined with “Now I need a ‘real job’.”
However, I’ve always thought that if I make a career out of what I love to do, I won’t have to suffer through the common ‘real job’ as you’ve described. Your last two posts have really spoken to me, and that’s because I aim to start my own company making films and animations. The ROWE system would be a perfect fit for my company, and I look forward to the “amazing work” that we will achieve together (my team and me).
says:
Jeffrey – you said it all man
I totally encourage all you singles out there to shoot for the moon – do what you love! you’ll NEVER regret it. I’m saying that – cause for me that chance has past… now I’m married with a family – so i need to consider my responsibilities – I’m not going to paint butterflies on the beach anymore :-)
I can still do something i love – (which i am) but it takes sacrifice, a lot of hard work & still isn’t an easy road to walk.
Rich
says:
Jeffrey: Your post describes the future of work.
We no longer rely on employers for pensions or security or even long term employment. I think that, as the old ’social contract’ between employers and employees changes for good, it’s up to employees to take control over their own working environment and vision of success.
Used to be that being a corporate employee was the imprimatur of success -and a big source of security. No longer. I think many top corporate employees – who often transfer to consulting jobs for big money and glory – will consider creating their own visions of success. And maybe success will mean having a fantastic personal life. And maybe success will mean delivering fantastic work product to delighted customers – on a schedule that makes sense and creates value – but is not based on a number of hours worked per week. Delivering the goods is part of the new vision. Delighting the customer is part of the new vision. Putting in long hours, doing administrative work, managing busy work are all old school. Time for a new vision of success.
says:
Jeffery,
I think when people speak of the “real job” it has to do more with not taking on a “risky” venture but engaging in the “tried and true” (go to school, get a job with benefits, live happily). The “tried and true” actually works for some. Though the “tried and true” method has revealed itself to be just as “risky”. In truth the “tried and true” has always been a risk and based more on a fear of failure. The idea was to survive. The conflict is at some point for the dreamer or visionary it is not enough.
I do believe reaching our dreams may involve the “real job” on some temporary basis. This can be a part of the solution because then it is seen as a link to obtaining the true desire.
The main crisis here comes in making the jump from the “real job” to living the dream, of being engaged in the something we would do for free, if possible.
The part of productivity vs. amount of busy time was a great point. Yet again weakness of thinking from a defensive posture as opposed to moving forward.
I look forward to your next posting!
Vonzel “Maxafier”