Work, work ethic, work excess

Work, work ethic, work excessGayle Porter

School of Business, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, Camden,New Jersey, USA

Keywords Workaholism, Work ethic, Philosophy

Abstract Organizational change initiatives are successful only through the efforts of the people,so it is important to look beyond surface reactions and understand the deeper implications ofemployees’ visible work habits. By integrating work from several disciplines, this paper poses aseries of questions aimed at creating better awareness of differences in how and why people work.Historic tracking of beliefs about work in the USA is provided as an example of how a positivefoundation of strong work ethic can become the dysfunctional extreme of workaholism.

Introduction

From the viewpoint of social scientists, who assume that the best way to understand whatpeople want is to watch what they do, the easiest conclusion to be drawn . . . is thatAmericans are choosing hard work for themselves and their children because they want to.Forget a “better balance.” All the talk about making room for the rest of life – about theimportance of family, friends, community, personal callings, and spiritual fulfillment – is justsuperficial posturing in front of the cameras.

Robert ReichMany of the organizational issues discussed as change efforts relate to increasedcompetition, drives for higher productivity, and the need for constant innovation.Regardless of the label put on the overall initiative, a successful change can happenonly through the efforts of the people in the organization. Understanding how peoplewill respond to change is critical to manage the process, and this understanding isfacilitated by a broader view of why people work the way they do.

The trend in recent years is that every change increases demands on the people.Everyone is asked to do more with less, then even more with less again. Manyindividuals feel they are stretched to the limit; others seem to thrive under the pressure.It is easy to applaud the group that embraces the challenge, but much can be learnedfrom questioning the assumption that those individuals are always best for theorganization. Some people too readily accept an excessive workload, but how is excessdetermined? How much work is too much? The amount of work people do isinescapably tied to the meaning of work in their lives, and this meaning can changeover time and across circumstances. Only by clarifying the norms for an appropriateamount of work, is it possible to make the distinction between a healthy work ethic andworking to excess.

This paper explores the reasons people might feel compelled towards excess work,with special attention to those who would choose that path even without high,externally imposed demands. These individuals can be detrimental to the workingenvironment and to attempted change efforts.

Background incorporated into this paper is drawn from authors of history,sociology, psychology, counseling and other disciplines who have commented on work,work ethic and work excess. It is a sampling of perspectives around the topic, rather

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM17,5

424

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagementVol. 17 No. 5, 2004pp. 424-439q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814DOI 10.1108/09534810410554461

than an attempt to provide exhaustive coverage. Arranged around a series ofquestions, this discussion is intended to provoke thought and broaden the perspectiveemployed during management decision-making. The historical tracking focuses ontraditions of work and work ethic in the US. In today’s global economy, implications ofthis discussion extend across national boundaries.

Do people work more now?People seem to have a fondness for debating issues related to work ethic. Do we workmore now than at times in the past? If so, what might be causing the trend? Can any ofthese conclusions be automatically classified as a good thing or a bad thing? In TheOverworked American, Juliet Schor (1992) opened with an observation that the presenttrend, if continued, would soon lead to Americans spending as much time at their jobsas they did back in the 1920s. In spite of productivity gains, efforts by organized laborand technological advancement, contemporary society seems determined to maintainheavy time investment in paid work. Schor cites examples in the ancient societies ofGreece and Rome, as well as materially poor societies that we might refer to as“primitive,” as having a much stronger inclination toward leisure time thancurrent-day working Westerners, particularly Americans. In spite of having so manymore comforts than those primitive cultures, most American workers cannot seem totake the time to enjoy what they have achieved.

The meaning of work has varied across time and culture – a curse, a calling, a socialobligation, a natural activity, a means to better life, or simply what we do becausewe have to. Following are a few reasons people work hard, and ways in which eachreason may lead to undesirable consequences to the individual, the organization, orboth.

Working to have thingsOne of Shor’s conclusions – and the focus of her subsequent book – is that increasingwork is both fed by and contributes to growing consumerism. Endless innovation andincreasing standards have led people into an ever accelerating work/spend cycle. Morerecently, Joanne Ciulla (2000) has extended the criticism, referring to the “betrayal” ofwork as we currently experience it. Ciulla contends that work has become a primarysource of identity, in place of the fulfillment previously derived from family, friends,and religion. Both overwork and unemployment put stress on individuals and families,yet people continue to entrust their happiness to the marketplace and, therefore, aredependent on their employer to establish their status in the market and thus theirindividual well-being.

Drawing from a deeper discussion of the meaning of life, one of Ciulla’s conclusionsis that people are struggling with too many choices. The prevailing belief that anindividual should be able to have everything brings growing frustration. In the midstof rapid change and mushrooming options, people defer to the readily availableguidance of marketers and employers – one helps us spend our money, the other laysout rules for how we can get more of it to spend.

Both Schor and Ciulla have shown patterns in societal explaining the role of work inpeople’s lives. One troubling aspect is the recurring theme of each individual seen asonly a pass-through for the money that facilitates more production of things on which

Work, workethic, work

excess

425

to spend more money. As spending options and opportunities increase, the only way tokeep the system balanced is for the individual to generate more earnings. Theopportunity to work hard and achieve a better life is a foundation of capitalisticenterprise, but when the process itself becomes the predominant theme of life, peoplemay have reached an unhealthy extreme of that philosophy. The acceleratingwork/spend cycle is likely a factor of two outcomes that are growing in frequency:the breakdown of an individual whose work habits surpass the tolerance point, andpoor decisions by organizational leaders, sacrificing the firm’s long-term viability formore immediate market gain.

Working to not be left behindThe opening quotation from Reich (2000) suggests that the observed behavior ofworking more and more could be taken as an indicator of what people want. Goingbeyond a simple desire for more material goods, Reich explains some of thecomplexities that contribute to this lifestyle. For one thing, people lack confidence thatthe earnings they have today will be there for them tomorrow. Without assurance of asteady income, there’s a felt need to get as much as possible now, just in case. Jobs seemmore tentative today in the knowledge-based economy, as compared to the past whenone might enjoy security based on rank or seniority. Still, the knowledge-based jobs arecurrently where the big money is, so people opt for higher pay with the accompanyinginsecurities.

Reich (2000, p. 224) also refers to the over-abundance of choices people have today,including consumers’ ever-increasing standards and ability to switch easily from oneproduct supplier to another as each innovation attracts their attention. This creates avolatile marketplace and continuous demand for companies to update their offeringsfor every whim of the consumer. In turn, each employee trying to excel in thecompeting organizations must be ever ready to put in the extra effort it takes to meetboth internal and external competition. More uncertainty, more competition. Morecompensation for those who do well but, for the less successful, concerns about theacceptability of a more modest standard of living including the possibility of having towork just as hard in a lower status endeavor. According to Reich, “you don’t have toscale the wall, but the consequence of not doing so is harsher; and the reward for doingso is sweeter, than you have ever encountered before.” He states that both theharshness and the sweetness are intensifying, and that disparity of outcomes is largerin America than other countries.

Here we begin to get a larger picture of the pressures to devote more time towork. The driving desire to acquire things is exacerbated by the social costs of nothaving them and the lack of a perceived acceptable middle ground. D’Souza (2000)further explains that we evaluate our situation in relative terms, comparing to thosearound us. Being surrounded by affluence allows vulnerability to feelings ofinferiority or humiliation, although the specific life circumstances could beconsidered adequate by many standards. The outcomes of work, thus, becomesour comparative scorecard. While inequity can spur individual effort and innovation(Shlaes, 2002), it can also lead to depression and anxiety (Prowse, 2002), outcomesthat do not support organizational efficiency. The second possibility may be morelikely than the first, especially in situations where employees already feel they areworking to their limit.

JOCM17,5

426

Working to confirm self worthWhile work outcomes supply a scorecard to compare with others, they also serve as abasis for self judgment. Work has become such an integral part of personal identitythat loss of work becomes loss of personhood. Success at work is compared againstpersonal ambitions, which often have foundation in social expectations. Admiration forindividual accomplishment also takes its toll in self-criticism when outcomes are lessthan full success. “If you believe the American Horatio Alger credo of pulling oneselfup the ladder and then you fall off, it must be because you misstepped” (Rayman, 2001,p. xvi).

Most workers today have internalized these perceptions and fears, so that littleprompting is needed for them to feel pressurized to work hard. For others, day-to-daymessages in the workplace clearly emphasize that more is required today than wasyesterday. In reality, the company can only stay in business if each employee createssome product or service that exceeds the cost of employing that individual. Whetheryou think of this in terms of Marx’s exploitation of the worker, or the morecontemporary idea of value added at each process step, there must be residue worth ofsome type after the employee is compensated. A troublesome question is, how muchadded worth is a reasonable margin?

Critics point to the growing disparity between rich and poor as an indication thatsome of this push to get more out of each person is based on greed of those in controlof resources. In an economic system that only recognizes value in those things thatare easily marketed, many believe corporate decision-makers put increasing profitsbefore concern for people (Roddick, 2001). Stories abound of bosses who think timeaway from work for family and personal matters is a sign the employee lackscommitment, is weak, or simply cannot make the grade. One manager continued a20-minute phone conversation with his employee on the verge of giving birth to herchild (Wright and Smye, 1996). Her “alerts” at the beginning of each contraction mayhave interrupted the tempo of the conversation a little but not enough to conclude thecall. Would the margin of profitability have been significantly affected by ending thatphone call?

People tell these stories and complain about job demands. Still, they feel unwillingor unable to refuse the intrusion of work into time and situations that should bepersonal. This may encourage sneaking attention to personal activities during worktime ( Jackson, 1999), due to perceived lack of any other options. This also initiates aself-reinforcing cycle – individuals working more hours because organizationalsuccess supplies a sense of worth, then expending extra energy to surreptitiously offsetthe sacrifice of personal time, resulting in organizations pushing for higherproductivity by rewarding those willing to spend more time at work.

Working to use the toolsTechnology has added another bite to the assault. Somehow the availability of newtools has shifted into a belief that anything less than full utilization is wasteful. Nowthe technology seems to be governing how and when people work. What Fraser (2001)refers to as workplace gadgets are showing up in homes everywhere. By 1998, mosthouseholds had cellular phones (about two-thirds), with pagers and fax machines alsocommon. Along with personal computers at home, laptop computers and nowhandheld devices increase the expectation for constant contact through e-mail.


excess

427

Hotels, cafes, and even hospital rooms are now wired to keep people connectedelectronically while away from the workplace. Wireless technology enables evenbroader access with less dependency on time and place.

Farson (1996) used the term iatrogenic to describe the impact of technology on ourlives. Borrowed from medical terminology, iatrogenic refers to physician-inducedcomplications from surgery or other medical treatment. Similarly, technology bringsthe potential to improve lives but also carries ill effects in further linking people to theirwork, unless they take action to limit the intrusion. The ability to work at any timeand place may be too easily confused with need or desirability to do so.

Working to provide for childrenMany people claim that their hard work is to provide a better life for their children, buteach generation seems to be critical of the next for not wanting to work as hard.Reading excerpts from paper by Howard and Wilson (1982), MBA students tried toidentify the correct 20-year differential between the referenced management recruits.The description of the later group contained comments, for example, about them beingless inclined to loyalty, wanting a lifestyle that is not all work, showing a rejection ofauthority, and being cynical about traditional rewards from the organization. Somestudents thought they recognized these as typical differences between baby-boomersand generation-X employees, and guessed the paper to be comparing recruits in the1990s to those of the 1970s. Actually, the study was a comparison of recruits in the1970s to those in the mid 1950s.

That student exercise was set up to highlight the tendency of each generation tocreate stereotypes to criticize the generation that follows – stereotypes that are inflated(Tulgan, 1995) but remain popular. “One curious thing about the work ethic is thatmembers of almost every generation think that the next generation does not want towork as hard as they do. This revelation usually strikes people about the time that theyreach middle age. If each generation were right, then the work ethic would have diedout a long time ago,” (Ciulla, 2000, p. 69). Perhaps each generation, on reaching middleage, begins to question the sacrifice they already have made to work. Sacrificing fortheir children sounds like an honorable justification but, if valid, should result in ashow of some appreciation from the beneficiaries. However, for those who, inretrospect, suspect they have crossed that line into giving too much, no validation fromanother can ever be adequate. Anything the next generation does differently can beinterpreted as their being unappreciative of what they were given and unaware of whatthey should be willing to give for the next group.

This generational tension is also fed by another paradox of parenthood. At the sametime people want to protect their children, these same parents want them to learn towork hard, to be all they can be, and to succeed in a world where both the price ofsuccess and cost of failure are high. Parents are often unaware how finely attunedchildren are to parental moods and attitudes and underestimate the messageschildren are picking up about work from parents’ behavior and incidental comments(Galinsky, 1999).

Jonathon Lazear (2001) begins his book about chronic overachievement with thelyrics from the song “Cat’s in the Cradle” – wherein the son grows up not to have timefor dad, the mirror image of dad’s inability to make time for his son while growing up.So, while on the one hand each generation thinks the next does not work as hard, on the

JOCM17,5

428

other hand, that the next generation often replicates and extends the very pattern ofwork modeled during their formative years.

What then is the status of work ethic? If it is not declining with each generation, is itchanging form or substance? Before attempting to differentiate between strong workethic and work excess, it is first necessary to focus on a definition of work ethic – itshistory, origins and accepted current meaning.

What is the “work ethic”?Discussion of work ethic usually begins with this general progression. TraditionalJudeo-Christian beliefs positioned work as penance for Adam and Eve’s disobedience;heaven would finally offer eternal leisure (Rodgers, 1974). Greeks, similarly viewedwork as a curse; manual labor was for slaves. The Romans followed suit byconsidering hired labor or handicrafts to be vulgar, dishonorable work. During themedieval period, one positive aspect crept into attitudes about work – that earningsthrough work were acceptable to the extent that it prevented being reliant on others forbasic needs of life. St Thomas Aquinas endorsed this trend in society’s view of work,adding the idea that profit making and ownership of property was good, as long assurplus wealth went to those less fortunate after one’s own immediate needs were met.

The Protestant Reformation during the 16th century was a period of upheaval inWestern Europe that changed perspectives on work. Martin Luther eliminated thedistinction between working and serving God; work was seen as the best way to serveGod, with each person pursuing his “calling” and each calling having spiritual dignity(Yankelovich, 1974). John Calvin extended the moral connection between work andGod, proposing that work is “God’s work” so every person must work unceasingly,methodically, and in organized rational form (Yankelovich, 1974). Calvinism includedthe belief that only those people predetermined as the “elect” had potential to go toheaven. It was impossible to know who was among the elect, but success in worldlyendeavors suggested inclusion, whereas idleness signified that one was definitelydoomed to damnation. Achieving success, therefore, maintained the impression ofbeing among the elect. Striving for success was a means of keeping that potentialin view.

During the settlement of what later became the US, the hardships of the wildernesswere also given a biblical connotation and enduring the struggle in this new land gavesettlers a sense of self and purpose. By the first half of the 19th century, the hard laborneeded to survive in America came to be seen not as a burden or bare necessity but as aprivilege, a glory and a delight (Rodgers, 1974). Max Weber identified these beliefsabout work as the Protestant work ethic, and saw related changes in economicstructure as an outgrowth of that ethic (Weber, 1992).

Zuboff (1983, p. 154) discussed the emergence of industrial capitalism in 18thcentury Britain. Increased productivity and profit incentives fundamentallycontradicted the previous mentality of rural and cottage laborers. Employers, tryingto impose greater demands, needed some new approach to connect worker to outputs.The ideology later immortalized by Weber as the Protestant work ethic, provided therequired link at that time. This view is not fully aligned with the Marxist view, thatchanges in economic structure created the need for values and beliefs to justify the newwork ethic. According to Zuboff, the choice of linkage on which to base managementpractice can only provide motivation to workers to the extent it reflects “sentiments


excess

429

and meanings that have currency for the wider society”. Compatible beliefs mustalready have some root in the society.

Some authors question the connection of work ethic to any religious foundation.Furnham (1990, p. 11) discusses the spread of Calvinism to South Africa, whichresulted in very different application than that in America. Therefore, the religiousgrounding cannot be said to definitively lead to economic development orientedbehavior. Furnham further describes the origin of capitalism and a multi-directionalinteraction among Protestant/Puritan beliefs, economic and structural forces operatingat the time and the spirit of enterprise we refer to as capitalism. What he calls “Naı̈veWeberianism” is modeled more simply as the Protestant belief and economic/structuralforces supplying only unidirectional influences on capitalism. Furnham’s model, incontrast, emphasizes reciprocal influences.

Daniel Bell (1996) also considers broader influences in claiming that early capitalismwas the coming together of two impulses – the self-discipline of asceticism along withacquisitiveness. However, these only became “yoked together” as they coincide with aculture of self-realization and of character structure supporting delayed gratification inpursuit of well-defined goals. A recent paper by Handy (2002), suggests that thesuccess of American capitalism rests on the combination of the Puritan traditions(wealth as a symbol of worth, being well-off through one’s own efforts as sign of God’sapproval), with a unique culture of optimism and self-confidence. None of theingredients of the Protestant work ethic were unique to America, but only in theindustrial north of this newly settled country was it adopted as such an article ofpopular faith (Rodgers, 1974).

The essence of Protestant work ethic contains elements of hard work, long hourswith little or no time for leisure, pride in work and a job well done, an orientationtoward achievement as well as acquired wealth, along with frugality, thrift and wiseinvestment (Cherrington, 1980). After the Puritan colonization of America, the ideals ofthe Protestant work ethic were retained with less emphasis on the individual’s “calling”and more reference to national virtues and social duty. Benjamin Franklin popularizedthese virtues in his writings of “Poor Richard.” For example, frugality, industry,justice, chastity, humility, resolution, and order were seen as necessary for self-reliantindividuals, without particular reference to religious doctrine.

It is important to note that in pre-industrial America these virtues were applied in alife where work and time had a more leisurely rhythm than that of today’s businessworld. During the transitional period between the pre-industrial and industrial age,people prized leisure as well as work and engaged in a wide spectrum of leisure-timeactivity, including competitive sport, participation in volunteer organizations,lounging on street corners, and drinking in pubs and taverns (Laurie, 1979).

Lasch (1979, p. 111) suggests that in the 19th century the idea of self-improvementhad already degenerated into a “cult of compulsive industry”. He uses the example ofP. T. Barnum, who quoted freely from Franklin in his speeches, but without Franklin’sconcern for wisdom. Barnum valued information only as a means of mastering themarket. According to Lasch, the turn of the century was a shift from struggling tosurpass the past generation to a competitive struggle within the industries of that day.Management of interpersonal relations became a means to accomplish personaladvancement. Self-testing through competition became more important. TheProtestant virtues survived, though in a form of instrumental values rather than as

JOCM17,5

430

an end in themselves; personal success as a contribution to general progress still hadmoral and social overtones.

Towards the end of the 19th century, mills and factories grew rapidly. Managinglabor in these larger organizations required discipline, a new pace to the work, anddisplacement of skill. Efficiency took precedence over craft “Industrialization upset thecertainty that hard work would bring economic success” (Rodgers, 1974, p. 28).Factories improved the average standard of living for workers and consumers bypouring a large volume of goods into the homes of the middle class. At the same time itbrought “longer hours of uninterrupted work, a frenetic pace, and unemploymentduring economic slumps” (Eisenberger, 1989, p. 8). This disconnection between hardwork and a sense of control over one’s destiny is considered by many authors to haveinstigated a decline in the work ethic.

During the rise of Taylor’s scientific management, work began to seem anunpleasant necessity, and idleness a luxury (Eisenberger, 1989). Faced with 380percent turnover in the workforce, in 1913 Henry Ford was only able to recruit workersfor his plant by offering $5.00 a day – a wage far above the norm at that time. Zuboff(1983) describes this time as a shift from workers motivated by intrinsic valuesto workers responding to economic incentives – a managerial reinterpretation ofwork ethic.

The work ethic has also been said to decline during the 1930s, as the workweek andworkday declined leaving more time for leisure activities. It is also said to havedeclined during the 1950s as emphasis shifted from production to consumption. Theeconomy expanded following the Second World War, affluence increased, and unioncontracts gave people more time to enjoy that affluence. Young people now knew thatthe government would partially provide for basic needs in old age, eliminating the needto work so hard in preparation for retirement. Authors also write of work ethic declinein the 1960s, when the availability of good-paying jobs was taken for granted and asteadily increasing standard of living came to be expected. Cherrington (1980) chartedarticles published on work ethic per year, showing it had dipped to almost nothing inthe late 1960s, with re-emerging interest in 1970. Authors throughout the 1970sconsistently wrote that the traditional work ethic had diminished and a desire forself-fulfillment had taken precedence over desire for organizational advancement, ofteninterpreted as lack of ambition.

This pattern seems to follow the observation by Ciulla (2000), that each generationsees the next as lacking work ethic, but that it would be down to nothing by now ifthese successive declines were all reality. Others have made more sweeping statementsabout what has happened since Weber identified a unique Protestant work ethic. Forexample, Bell (1996), who explained capitalism as the yoking together of asceticismand acquisitiveness, also claims that the Protestant ethic has been undermined bycapitalism itself. The engine of that destruction is the installment plan or instant credit.With credit cards, people do not have to save to acquire goods. There is no longer aneed for self-discipline in order to have material things. Bell’s claim that this immediateaccess to goods has destroyed the work ethic, makes an interesting comparison toCiulla’s (2000) and Schor’s (1992) claims that our accelerated habit of acquisitionunderlies the propensity to work more and more hours. What will, ultimately, be thelasting impact of working hard to pay for yesterday’s purchases, instead of workinghard to save for tomorrow’s?


excess

431

Work ethic is a concept with enough different facets that it is easily invoked forexplaining a wide range of observed changes in society. As pointed out by Furnham(1990), various authors have used Protestant work ethic as explanation for not onlycapitalism but also sexual repression, ecological crisis and destruction, and a spirit ofviolence and militarism. There is even evidence from animal psychologists of workethic detected in rats. One confusing element in comparing all these studies of workethic is that there are so many components. Each discipline – history, sociology,psychology, economics, and others – has a tendency to emphasize the piece of mostinterest from that one perspective, with little cross-disciplinary research. Anothercomplication in tracking changes in work ethic is that various researchers haveemployed differing measures and methods of study.

It seems problematic to speak as if there is one defined work ethic on which to basediscussion of increases and decreases. Maccoby (1983) broke from this tradition bysuggesting a series of four overlapping ethics, described in historic sequence. First, theProtestant ethic growing out of Calvinistic and Quaker/Puritan individualism andasceticism. Second, the craft ethic – a rational ideology for self-reliance demonstratedin Franklin’s writings. Third, the entrepreneurial ethic emerging at the beginning ofthe 19th century, which combined the desire to build industry with willingness to takerisks. Finally, the career ethic focused more on success within large organizations andthe increase in professional affiliation.

Even within Maccoby’s historic progression, the overlapping ideas give theimpression of an evolution rather than comparison of distinctly different ethics.Historic context can account for the change from one into the next. Furnham (1990)refers to this type of change as monitoring changing features within the work ethic,rather than establishing constant elements of work ethic and tracking decline orincrease from a set starting point. In either case, the starting point is the same set ofbeliefs that many have come to use as the prevailing definition for work ethic.

The constraint of packaging work ethic as a singularly identified concept seems to setthe stage for overgeneralization of changing work values across time. Rather thanfocusing on the work ethic, it seems more useful to discuss a work ethic, allowing forfurther identification of what each person holds as personal values and the priority ofwork. Siegel (1983, p. 29) offers a definition of work ethic as “a value or belief that either(a) serves as a conscious guide to conduct or (b) is simply implied in manifested attitudesand behavior”. This positioning of work ethic as an individual difference, rather than abelief system common to an entire population, offers greater flexibility to exploremeaningful variations in the workplace. The breadth of this approach, also, maycontribute much more to study of the larger population if and when commonalities arediscovered.

Cole (1979) contends that the entire view of the Protestant work ethic as a demandfor hard work, is based on a romanticized image of an idealized past. In his view, theseexamples represent only a portion of the workforce, a distortion resulting from laborhistorians’ failure to integrate the successive immigrant experience into study ofAmerican work ethic. This possibility makes it all the more important not to formulateevery analysis of today’s work values as change from that same starting point.

Despite the arguments for considering a variety of work ethics, reference to theProtestant work ethic is a convenient means from which to discuss the coming togetherof religious beliefs, economic growth and cultural norms, because it has gained such

JOCM17,5

432

familiarity over time. Further, research in the 1960s (Yankelovich, 1974) revealed thatadults still identify work with being a good provider, achieving independence, successbased on one’s own abilities, and self-respect gained through the dignity of work.These themes reveal that the influences of Protestant work ethic (whether based on factor popular myth) were still prevalent in the 1970s, as they likely would be today.

Adopting the view of hard work as virtuous still does not set any boundary as towhen more hard work becomes a problem. With all the external and internal pressuresto devote more time and energy to work, and a shared history in which hard work isidealized, what determines too much?

How is excess defined?The historic emphasis on pursuit of God’s work also prescribed the exclusion of allleisure. This idea of virtue is ingrained in many people, even though the means areavailable today to work less. Historically, people were not drawn away from familyand community involvement for the sake of paid work until industrialization and thestructured work of mass-producing factories. Changes over time to reduce the workweek and add paid vacation and holidays seemed to be a movement towardsrecognizing the importance of leisure. However, the norm for amount of work hasshifted upward in recent years. People feel compelled to take work home over theweekend, carry a computer on vacation, and be available by cell phone, fax or e-mail24 hours a day, seven days a week.

A recent “Emerging Issues” article in HR Magazine (Leonard, 2000), highlightedtwo apparent changes in America’s work ethic:

(1) change from working hard to working smart, and

(2) work smart but do not forget your other life obligations.

The article was intended as a caution to employers to have strategies in place forpromoting a healthy work/life balance, in response to this social change. From then onthe economy shifted into a recession. Many of the work/life balance initiatives in largecompanies had come about during a time when qualified employees were difficult tofind and recruit. Staff reductions in many large firms lessened the perceived need for,and brought into question the wisdom of, investing in programs that encourageattention to life outside the workplace.

Workers again felt insecure about the future of their jobs and prospects forpromotion and pay increases. Many would say they were already working as smartand as hard as they know, while still fearing that it would not be enough to assure anylevel of success, independence, or continue to provide for their families. Whileemployers will accommodate a work ethic that includes a balance of personal life, theirwillingness to consider it a priority may well change with economic cycles. How, then,can society consistently define how much is enough work and what constitutes excess?

The concept of well-being refers to general mental health, including the mental andphysical conditions that affect workplace productivity. In economic terms, employerscan calculate the costs related to health insurance claims, on the job accidents,absenteeism and productivity loss. To the extent that non-work life satisfaction can bedemonstrated as integral to avoiding those costs (Danna and Griffin, 1999), companieswill give consideration to accommodate non-work involvements. However, those linksare not always as direct as the looming competitive pressures. People are expected to


excess

433

give priority to work in times of crisis and many organizations seem to be continuallyoperating in crisis mode. If the company is hesitant to support balance of non-workinterests, and the employees fear their jobs are at risk if they insist on more balance, nochange can take place. Under these conditions, neither the evidence of working longhours nor the lament for more time away from work is necessarily indicative of workethic.

Job specific well-being and general well-being fall under the broader concept ofmental health, which includes features of positive self-regard, competence, aspiration,autonomy, and integrated functioning (Warr, 1999). These features seem relativelycompatible with the traditions of Protestant work ethic and its common variations.Although well-being is a social judgment and therefore variable, societal valuestypically are applied as a foundation for defining appropriate mental functioning(Wakefield, 1992). While Americans have always valued hard work, the additionalvalues of family involvement and community contribution have also been consideredand applied in determination of what constitutes mental health. The current demandsfor working long hours would seem at odds with general well-being in two mutuallyreinforcing approaches. First, the stress (in workload and insecurity) of the workplaceis wearing on the individual. Second, the actual time spent on the job may prohibitnon-work involvements that could otherwise contribute to the resilience needed to copewith workplace stressors.

One conclusion here might be that everyone nowadays is working excessively. Yet,even in identical circumstances, some people are more able than others to findopportunities for balance, or to maximize those opportunities by truly leaving theworkplace concerns behind them when they walk out the door. This may have little todo with the values that govern their work ethic, values that may be very similar tothose held by co-workers who are overwhelmed by workplace demands. It is theirabilities to cope that differ. Work that is excessive for some, because it interferes withtheir well-being, may not be excessive for others who find ways to insert non-worksatisfaction into their routines.

There is another type of person to consider in discussing excessive work. Theseindividuals do work to the exclusion of all other interests but do so because they haveceased to experience any satisfaction from other sources. The opportunity fornon-work satisfaction is not being forced out by work demands (although they mightmake that convenient claim); no other satisfaction is sought. These people, who chooseto neglect other life interests in favor of work, are labeled as workaholics (Porter, 1996,2001a, b) or work addicts (Robinson, 1989, 1998), a view compatible with earlier writingon compulsive work habits (Naughton, 1987; Oates, 1968). That perspective is adoptedfor the remaining discussion of work excess.

Workaholics give the appearance of working hard for the good of the organizationbut, to whatever extent they do succeed on organizational objectives, that is incidentalto their drive to always make sure there is an endless supply of work to do. They areaddicted to the process of work and the outcomes are important only as they supplyexternal rewards for temporary boosts in self-esteem.

Following the pattern of other addictions, workaholism typically seems to have afoundation in identity issues such as low or damaged self-esteem. The structure oforganizational goals can provide regular boosts in feelings of self-worth. However, asthey are coming from the outside and do not reinforce the individuals existing

JOCM17,5

434

self-concept, these boosts are short-lived. The workaholic’s life is an endless pursuit ofmore and more accomplishment, in an attempt to finally feel of genuine worth – but tono avail. This still might sound like a good employee from the organization’sviewpoint. On the surface, this person might be identified as having a very strong workethic and as being of great value to the company. Below that surface impression, this isnot a person enjoying optimal mental-health (well-being on and off the job), and theaddictive pattern has repercussions that must be considered.

People who are addicted are prone to rigid thinking; they are not able to be flexiblein their ideas. This results in perfectionist attitudes that exceed simple maintenance ofhigh standards. Employees who must report to a workaholic will be continuallyfrustrated by the impossible tasks set before them. The workaholic then interpretsothers’ reactions as indication that no one else is able or willing to do the job the rightway – a convenient excuse to reassume all the responsibility and have more work todo. This inability to delegate is contrary to developing others in the organizationthereby limiting the potential for future organizational success. A similar dynamicoccurs with work among peers, making the workaholic a terrible team contributor.Sometimes, the worker higher management looks as a team member who does thework of three people is also inhibiting team interaction to the extent that several otherpeople are only able to do half of what they would like. Net team accomplishment islower than it could be, but the workaholic is viewed as and rewarded for being the starperformer.

To protect their “source,” workaholics are driven to be in control. This may meancontrol of the work, control of the flow of activity, and control of other people. Bytaking over critical job tasks, the workaholic can be in control of information thatothers need. This contrived centrality feeds the workaholic’s need for esteem bolsters,but it inconveniences others and may allow problems to develop that would otherwisehave been avoided. The workaholic may artificially be creating crises, which he or shemust then step in to resolve. The crisis situation is stimulating because of the intensework required, and its resolution provides another hero opportunity for the workaholic.

People working in close proximity to a workaholic know the problems theyexperience as a direct result. Because of information hoarding and other control tactics,an atmosphere of distrust forms, which damages both efficiency and theresponsiveness needed today for companies to remain competitive. Because of crisiscreation and impossible standards, the stress level on the job is even higher than itwould otherwise be. Other workers often face a choice between joining in theworkaholic pattern or expending extra effort to circumvent the workaholic individual.As more and more people adapt by replicating the workaholism, entire organizationscan assume the addictive pattern (Schaef and Fassel, 1988).

Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess the dynamics going on below the surface, andmost managers do not have the time or inclination to pursue this. Typical performancenot metrics do tell the whole story. Although workaholics will trade off theorganization’s goal to support their addiction, they will meet specified objectives whenthose outcomes serve both purposes. When deadlines are missed or goals not met,workaholics are particularly adept at supplying reasons why, in spite of their heroicefforts, other people or conditions blocked the achievement. It is always obvious thatthe workaholic is putting in more hours than others, so these excuses may be acceptedas truth, further damaging morale among other workers.


excess

435

The key indicator of workaholism is the choice to neglect other life interests (Porter,1996), which most often comes to light through complaints from a spouse and children,or friends. These complaints typically go unheeded. The workaholic, by securingpromotions and raises, is being a good provider. The company, whose reward systemtoo often relies on “face-time” as the indicator of who is the best, most devoted worker,will not respond to suggestions of family problems. Society supports workaholism, asit does no other addiction. One might question to what extent workaholism has becomethe new norm, making it even more difficult to determine whether anything in today’smodel can be labeled excess work.

Is there a conclusion?By reviewing perspectives on work ethic, it becomes apparent that this is a term thatputs a simplistic face on a very complex issue. Further, the tendency to explain broadtrends as changes in work ethic can provide a convenient, societal level excuse forbehavior that should be considered personal choice. Referencing the ideal of theProtestant work ethic, employers and social observers can claim declines among theworkforce, looking then for reasons that explain this unfortunate trend. Their timemight be better spent in learning what the current work ethic is and how it contributesto progress in today’s business environment. Difference is not indicative of decline,unless the system resists recognition of and adaptation to the change.

Evidence supports the conclusion that all the advancements in technology,communication, and transportation are not being applied to create more leisuretime. People work as many hours as in times past when these conveniences did notexits. Some authors assert that people have hit, or will soon reach, the point ofdesiring time more than acquisition of more goods. Others are skeptical this couldoccur in the near future. Only time will tell. In the meantime, it would be advisable todistinguish between behavior representing work ethic and the destructive pattern ofworkaholism.

The idea of excessive work is hard to pin down, until the point at which workers arefalling over in exhaustion or emotional collapse. Short of that, the prescriptions of theProtestant work ethic would suggest the more work the better, including all exclusionof leisure. Applying that standard today contradicts current-day definitions ofwell-being. The structure of work is becoming more ambiguous and the pace continuesto accelerate. Can it be realistic to call upon (and romanticize) an ethic of workinvolvement that was based on such different conditions? This is not to say that hardwork is an obsolete value. Hard work and other traits like order and frugality seem tohave enduring appeal. Yet, very similar ideals may go by different names. Someredefinition for use of the term work ethic would seem appropriate.

The case of the workaholic is one that highlights the dangers of over-generalizingabout work ethic. The behavior gives an impression of strong work ethic, defined intraditional terms: always at work, work is the unquestioned number one priority, andthe more work the better. Perhaps one element from earlier times should be reinstated,that of contribution to the community – in this case the community of the workplace.Imagine an early Puritan community, in which one of the citizens each night burneddown a neighbor’s house. This kept him and everyone else working hard each day torebuild the damage, certainly blocking out any opportunity for leisure time. Shouldthey discover one day that these fires were not random but one individual’s

JOCM17,5

436

contrivance to ensure a supply of work, they would undoubtedly try to stop hisdestructive behavior. In the workplace, managers too often fail to consider who isadding fuel to the fires. Instead they continue, unquestioningly, to reward those whostep forward to put them out.

Is this too extreme an example for discussion of workaholism in the businessenvironment? Perhaps not, once we recognize the damage done by people who placepriority on work at all costs. The quality of all interpersonal relations is affected by theaddictive pattern, which impairs functioning and stifles achievement of what couldoccur in a healthier community. A final conclusion, then, relates to the recognition ofworkaholism and willingness to take corrective action. Most people today are workingvery hard. Managers should make it a priority to eliminate anything in the communityof the workplace that interferes with reaching optimal outcomes – not just because itwill be a nicer place to work, but because it is good business.

This means looking below the surface of that romanticized vision that good workethic means always at work or on-call. A healthier approach to hard work wouldinclude a balance of non-work interests. Requiring, not just offering, that people putsome limits on their work time is one way to distinguish who is working in anaddictive pattern. Those people will self-identify by resisting or even trying tosabotage the effort toward balance. For those who are not workaholics, a sincere relieffrom the spiraling demands for more and more work may open new levels ofwillingness to support other changes in the workplace.

References

Bell, D. (1996), The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism, Basic Books, New York, NY.

Cherrington, D.J. (1980), The Work Ethic: Working Values and Values That Work, AMACOM,New York, NY.

Ciulla, J.B. (2000), The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work, Random House,New York, NY.

Cole, R.E. (1979), Work, Mobility, and Participation: A Comparative Study of American andJapanese Industry, University of California Press, Berkley, CA.

Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), “Health and well-being in the workplace: a review andsynthesis of the literature”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 357-84.

D’Souza, D. (2000), The Virtue of Prosperity: Finding Values in an Age of Techno-Affluence,Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Eisenberger, R. (1989), Blue Monday: The Loss of the Work Ethic in America, Paragon House,New York, NY.

Farson, R. (1996), Management of the Absurd, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

Fraser, J.A. (2001), White-Collar Sweatshop: The Deterioration of Work and its Rewards InCorporate America, Norton & Company, New York, NY.

Furnham, A. (1990), The Protestant Work Ethic: The Psychology of Work-related Beliefs andBehaviors, Routledge, London.

Galinsky, E. (1999), Ask the Children, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Handy, C. (2002), “Tocqueville revisited: the meaning of American prosperity”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 57-63.

Howard, A. and Wilson, J.A. (1982), “Leadership in a declining work ethic”, CaliforniaManagement Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 33-46.


excess

437

Jackson, M. (1999), “Working dads strive for balance”, Philadelphia Inquirer, D1.

Lasch, C. (1979), The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of DiminishingExpectations, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Laurie, B. (1979), “‘Nothing on compulsion’: life styles of Philadelphia artisans, 1820-1850”, inCantor, M. (Ed.), American Workingclass Culture: Explorations in American Labor andSocial History, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.

Lazear, J. (2001), The Man Who Mistook His Job for a Life, Crown Publishing, New York, NY.

Leonard, S. (2000), “Is America’s work ethic changing?”, HR Magazine, p. 224.

Maccoby, M. (1983), Leader: A New Face for American Management, Ballantine Books,New York, NY.

Naughton, T.J. (1987), “A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counselingand research”, Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 180-7.

Oates, W.E. (1968), “On being a workaholic: a serious jest”, Pastoral Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 16-20.

Porter, G. (1996), “Organizational impact of workaholism: suggestions for researching thenegative outcomes of excessive work”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Porter, G. (2001a), “Workaholics as high-performance employees: the intersection of workplaceand family relationship problems”, in Robinson, B. and Chase, N. (Eds), High PerformingFamilies: Causes, Consequences, and Clinical Solutions, a Monograph in the AmericanCounseling Association’s Family Psychology and Counseling Series, American CounselingAssociation, Alexandria, VA, pp. 43-69.

Porter, G. (2001b), “Workaholic tendencies and the high potential for stress among co-workers”,International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 147-64.

Prowse, M. (2002), “Is inequality good for you?”, Financial Times, Weekend, I & II.

Rayman, P.M. (2001), Beyond the Bottom Line: The Search for Dignity at Work, St. Martin’sPress, New York, NY.

Reich, R.B. (2000), The Future of Success, Knopf, New York, NY.

Robinson, B.E. (1989), Work Addiction, Health Communications, Deerfield Beach, FL.

Robinson, B.E. (1998), Chained to the Desk: A Guidebook for Workaholics, Their Partners andChildren, and the Clinicians Who Treat Them, New York University Press, New York, NY.

Roddick, A. (2001), Take it Personally, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

Rodgers, D.T. (1974), The Work Ethic in Industrial America 1850-1920, University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL.

Schaef, A.W. and Fassel, D. (1988), The Addictive Organization, Harper & Row, San Francisco,CA.

Schor, J.B. (1992), The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure, HarperCollins,New York, NY.

Shlaes, A. (2002), “Is inequality good for you?”, Financial Times, Weekend, I & II.

Siegel, I.H. (1983), “Work ethic and productivity”, in Barbash, J., Lampman, R.J., Levitan, S.A. andTyler, G. (Eds), The Work Ethic – A Critical Analysis, Industrial Relations ResearchAssociation, Madison, WI.

Tulgan, B. (1995), Managing Generation X, Merritt Publishing, Santa Monica, CA.

Wakefield, J.C. (1992), “The concept of mental disorder”, American Psychologist, Vol. 47,pp. 373-88.

JOCM17,5

438

Warr, P. (1999), “Well-being and the workplace”, in Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N.(Eds), Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, Russell Sage Foundation,New York, NY.

Weber, M. (1992), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.),Routledge, London, (Original work published 1930).

Wright, L. and Smye, M. (1996), Corporate Abuse, Macmillan, New York, NY.

Yankelovich, D. (1974), “The meaning of work”, in Rosow, J.M. (Ed.), The Worker and the Job:Coping with Change, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Zuboff, S. (1983), “The work ethic and work organization”, in Barbash, J., Lampman, R.J., Levitan,S.A. and Tyler, G. (Eds), The Work Ethic – a Critical Analysis, Industrial RelationsResearch Association, Madison, WI.


excess

439

Documents

Work, work ethic, work excess