What is Work?
What is Work?
Work is that which must be done! I came across this definition at some point in my life and I do not remember the source, but it has always stayed with me. To me, this is the ultimate definition of work and can be read in so many different ways. The most important word here is "must". The word must can be read in a variety of ways and it is in those slight variations that we find most of our contemplation, confusion and conflict.
Some would read "must" as "need" - work is what needs to be done. I would agree with this to some degree. For me, this depends on who is determining the need. If I am determining the need, then I am more likely to find it value added. I will support and work based on what I believe in. Therefore, if I determine that the work is needed, then I will be diligent in the work. The problem comes when we are not the ones who determine what is needed. If we do not see the need for the work then we are more likely not to be diligent. This is structured around value and meaningfulness as was pointed out in this week's slides. This is where we would come up with other tasks to help fill that meaningless void that we might feel is being created by others defining the need.
Some would read "must" as "should" - work is what should be done. This definition is very close to the first but holds a sense of morality. If I know that to do something correctly, I must do a certain task in order to accomplish something bigger, I may be more willing to do the work to get to the outcome knowing it will be correct. Sometimes people get a false sense of "should". In their minds, their definition of what should be done to classify work is counterproductive.
"I should work long hours to show I am working hard."
"I should say yes to all work I am assigned without question."
"I should be busy constantly to prove I am working."
Again we fall into the pitfalls described in this week's slides. Making up work or tasks in order to meet what we feel work "should" be.
I have run into all of this in my career. I tend to believe that people can be trained and counseled to take a step back and look at their "should" pit falls. I also believe that people can be trained and counseled to look at what the "need" is and decide if that is a true value add or not. All of this will get people back to the "must" in the definition.
The real challenge comes with training and counseling of management. It seems to me that management has a "...perversely lingering prejudice in favor of work for its own sake."(Gutting, 2012) It is not the quality that they seek, it is the quantity. Most companies will say that they strive for efficiency, but they will hesitate to change procedure or practice in order to increase efficiency. This is because the executives of a company tend to think there is a direct relation to work being done and profits being made. They are slow to embrace efficiencies because that is what they "need" to make money. They are slow to change work balance because this is what "should" be done to make money. To get out of this mindset, we need to be able to give examples of where the extra tasks are and show that elimination will increase productivity. This is not an easy task.
Reference:
Gutting, G. (2012, September 8). What work is really for. Retrieved
from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/work-good-or-bad/?_r=0
Some would read "must" as "need" - work is what needs to be done. I would agree with this to some degree. For me, this depends on who is determining the need. If I am determining the need, then I am more likely to find it value added. I will support and work based on what I believe in. Therefore, if I determine that the work is needed, then I will be diligent in the work. The problem comes when we are not the ones who determine what is needed. If we do not see the need for the work then we are more likely not to be diligent. This is structured around value and meaningfulness as was pointed out in this week's slides. This is where we would come up with other tasks to help fill that meaningless void that we might feel is being created by others defining the need.
Some would read "must" as "should" - work is what should be done. This definition is very close to the first but holds a sense of morality. If I know that to do something correctly, I must do a certain task in order to accomplish something bigger, I may be more willing to do the work to get to the outcome knowing it will be correct. Sometimes people get a false sense of "should". In their minds, their definition of what should be done to classify work is counterproductive.
"I should work long hours to show I am working hard."
"I should say yes to all work I am assigned without question."
"I should be busy constantly to prove I am working."
Again we fall into the pitfalls described in this week's slides. Making up work or tasks in order to meet what we feel work "should" be.
I have run into all of this in my career. I tend to believe that people can be trained and counseled to take a step back and look at their "should" pit falls. I also believe that people can be trained and counseled to look at what the "need" is and decide if that is a true value add or not. All of this will get people back to the "must" in the definition.
The real challenge comes with training and counseling of management. It seems to me that management has a "...perversely lingering prejudice in favor of work for its own sake."(Gutting, 2012) It is not the quality that they seek, it is the quantity. Most companies will say that they strive for efficiency, but they will hesitate to change procedure or practice in order to increase efficiency. This is because the executives of a company tend to think there is a direct relation to work being done and profits being made. They are slow to embrace efficiencies because that is what they "need" to make money. They are slow to change work balance because this is what "should" be done to make money. To get out of this mindset, we need to be able to give examples of where the extra tasks are and show that elimination will increase productivity. This is not an easy task.
Reference:
Gutting, G. (2012, September 8). What work is really for. Retrieved
from https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/work-good-or-bad/?_r=0
Excellent. The use of Gutting at the end is the type of thing that takes a B+/A- type piece of introspection to an A level piece of introspection combined with evidence. Evidence is key; (we make "evidence" out to be something well argued and well cited). It's understood that your average business leader is not looking for a source or reference, but they might be if you make an argument they should. A typical leader/consumer of KM certainly wants SOMETHING to point to that adds grist to a point. Perhaps it should be citing work and expert opinions? (versus esoteric metrics and "data?")
ReplyDeleteI might be oversuspecting this, but I sense that this "work" tension, might have been at the heart of your last experience. It has certainly come up in my career.