This took a remarkably long time for me to think through. I had thought that I knew how I felt about th topic but I had to really think it out to figure out what I thought.
Oof. There's a lot to chew on here, and much that would be easier to sort out in a conversation rather than a "Reply." I certainly see how you arrived at the premises of this essay, and I agree with much of it—but I would add that there are many business/human endeavor models that don't fall into the tiger pit you describe. Sticking with the models I experienced first-hand, it's obvious that the hierarchical structure common in American capitalism is anti-labor, and ultimately self-defeating. One recent example of this arose out of the pandemic, when work that could be done remotely succeeded spectacularly—productivity and morale among those workers improved dramatically. Simultaneously, tasks that required workers to show up (and assume significant personal risk) were suddenly considered "essential," and the workers were "heroes." Once vaccines became available and the risk lessened, those same (mostly low-paid) workers went back to being invisible. And the remote workers whose productivity increased (to the benefit of employee and industry alike)? They were eventually (and nonsensically) required to return to their cubicles.
One more observation: not everyone is "...committed to being the best, to embody Quality." Some people live to work, others work to live. And some of the "work to live" types are the absolute best at what they do. But because American capitalism isn't built to accommodate the idea that people aren't plug-and-play cogs, infinite human (and business) potential is wasted/lost.
Mike, no doubt I am painting with a very broad brush, I probably should have prefaced it with saying that I am speaking from my own experience with the multi-national corporations that I had toiled for. It is my cynical observation of what had happened to me personally.
As far as the work to live person, I was one of them towards the end of my employment with the multinationals. I didn't start that way but the cynicism had overtaken me by the time I realized that the HR manipulations had nothing to do with me. As George Carlin said: “Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.”
Not to disagree with your conclusions, but I think one's relationship to work (and how it fits with the rest of one's life) has a great deal to do with factors such as whether one chooses a field and has some agency over what one does, or simply finds a job of some sort. And, in both cases, whether one finds the work satisfying/enjoyable and/or makes friends in the workplace. Does the work pay enough to live on, is the workplace stressful or relatively pleasant, etc. Is the type of work suited to one's personality (gregarious or reclusive, etc.). While a large part of the working world is comprised of hierarchical companies, there's also much work that isn't structured that way, or where the hierarchy is very small (as in most small businesses and sole proprietorships).
As I said to Mike, the comment after yours. I probably should have stated that I am speaking to my own experience working for the multi-nationals and not implied that this is a general comment on the working world at broad. Truthfully, the term work-life balance came out of the corporate HR offices and the name became a part of our consciousness.
Oof. There's a lot to chew on here, and much that would be easier to sort out in a conversation rather than a "Reply." I certainly see how you arrived at the premises of this essay, and I agree with much of it—but I would add that there are many business/human endeavor models that don't fall into the tiger pit you describe. Sticking with the models I experienced first-hand, it's obvious that the hierarchical structure common in American capitalism is anti-labor, and ultimately self-defeating. One recent example of this arose out of the pandemic, when work that could be done remotely succeeded spectacularly—productivity and morale among those workers improved dramatically. Simultaneously, tasks that required workers to show up (and assume significant personal risk) were suddenly considered "essential," and the workers were "heroes." Once vaccines became available and the risk lessened, those same (mostly low-paid) workers went back to being invisible. And the remote workers whose productivity increased (to the benefit of employee and industry alike)? They were eventually (and nonsensically) required to return to their cubicles.
One more observation: not everyone is "...committed to being the best, to embody Quality." Some people live to work, others work to live. And some of the "work to live" types are the absolute best at what they do. But because American capitalism isn't built to accommodate the idea that people aren't plug-and-play cogs, infinite human (and business) potential is wasted/lost.
Mike, no doubt I am painting with a very broad brush, I probably should have prefaced it with saying that I am speaking from my own experience with the multi-national corporations that I had toiled for. It is my cynical observation of what had happened to me personally.
As far as the work to live person, I was one of them towards the end of my employment with the multinationals. I didn't start that way but the cynicism had overtaken me by the time I realized that the HR manipulations had nothing to do with me. As George Carlin said: “Scratch any cynic and you will find a disappointed idealist.”
Not to disagree with your conclusions, but I think one's relationship to work (and how it fits with the rest of one's life) has a great deal to do with factors such as whether one chooses a field and has some agency over what one does, or simply finds a job of some sort. And, in both cases, whether one finds the work satisfying/enjoyable and/or makes friends in the workplace. Does the work pay enough to live on, is the workplace stressful or relatively pleasant, etc. Is the type of work suited to one's personality (gregarious or reclusive, etc.). While a large part of the working world is comprised of hierarchical companies, there's also much work that isn't structured that way, or where the hierarchy is very small (as in most small businesses and sole proprietorships).
As I said to Mike, the comment after yours. I probably should have stated that I am speaking to my own experience working for the multi-nationals and not implied that this is a general comment on the working world at broad. Truthfully, the term work-life balance came out of the corporate HR offices and the name became a part of our consciousness.