Life and Work: Challenging Economic Man

Citation

Naylor, L.A. (2004), "Life and Work: Challenging Economic Man", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 228-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810410531042

This book is framed within the debate of two philosophies: economic rationalism, which relies on market forces, stresses productivity, and focuses on the bottom line of profits; and economic sustainability, which focuses on the triple bottom line of profits, people, and the planet. Coming from an economic sustainability paradigm, Birch and Paul argue that we must focus on quality of life to achieve balance between work and life, and between earning profits and moving the world into a sustainable environment. Their thesis is that “an organization's efficiency and profitability increase when the quality of life of its employees improves” (p. 163). In other words, employees who work fewer hours, spend more time with their families, and develop social relationships in their communities, are more productive workers. In order to achieve this balance, the authors “call for a more generous, more compassionate and a more humane working life” (p. 3).

The book is divided into three sections: quality of life, quality of working life, and learning to enhance the quality of life across nations. The first section frames the philosophical debate, persuasively argues that organizations should transit from economic rationalism to economic sustainability, and stresses that quality of life is important to both the worker and the employer. According to the authors, “making a living is less important than living a life, which involves a fulfilled life” (p. 4). Birch and Paul argue that quality of life is important because happy fulfilled workers are more productive, and organizations have an ethical responsibility to contribute positively to their workers' intrinsic value (not just see workers for their instrumental value). They also point out that fulfillment does not come from financial rewards alone for people need meaningful jobs.

The second section, Quality of Working Life, identifies the ailments of contemporary employment. People are expected to work for longer hours and work more intensively, which increases their levels of distress and can lead to sickness, injury, and occupational violence. Furthermore, the authors point out that work related stress has a negative impact on family life. The authors rely on numerous studies conducted in various countries to illustrate this point.

In the third and final section, Learning to Enhance the Quality of Working Life Across Nations, the authors argue that organizations must renew their culture if the quality of working life is to improve. After providing a brief review of human rights and human nature, the authors propose that organizations should become “learning” organizations to accommodate the change as needed. Accordingly, learning organizations are able to more easily transform their cultures and address the needs of workers. The authors conclude by identifying ten core principles for increasing the quality of work life. These principles suggest that organizations:

1. 1.

   recognize that workers have intrinsic value;

2. 2.

   adopt an 8 h stress‐free work day;

3. 3.

   treat women the same as men in terms of attitudes and pay;

4. 4.

   incorporate flex time;

5. 5.

   provide security of employment;

6. 6.

   reward good performance;

7. 7.

   decentralize decision‐making so that workers are empowered;

8. 8.

   improve work conditions;

9. 9.

   support the mental and physical health of all workers; and

10. 10.

    offer stress management programs to employees to prevent stress.

The concerns, issues, and principles for adopting an improved quality of life are not new. The authors' premise follows in the footsteps of Barnard (1938), Mayo (1933), Merton (1968) and Roethlisberger (1941) who acknowledged the importance of the human being in the work environment, the influence of work on employees, the need for socialization in the work environment and its positive impact on productivity. In sum, these scholars argued that people are not automatons, they are human beings who have human needs. This acknowledgement was significant because it dealt a severe blow to the esteemed values of efficiency, effectiveness and economy (Taylor, 1967). Similarly, Birch and Paul argue that the needs of employees are important; their quality of life matters. More parallel is their argument that the bottom line in business should not be profits. Specifically, they argue that “the only real justification for a business is to create and add value to the community” (p. 30), which is a direct attack on profits, efficiency and economy. Thus, the argument or concept put forth by the authors is not new; it has been around for at least half a century. In this sense, the authors contribute little to our base of knowledge.

However, it is disturbing, although not surprising, that the work problems identified in the 1930s and 1940s are the same work issues that are being discussed at present (albeit at a different level). In this sense, the authors remind us that little progress has been made in this area. To a certain extent, employees have remained cogs in the wheel of capitalism. As a whole, researchers have done an excellent job of identifying the problems associated with capitalism or the modern work environment, but have come up short in providing solutions, which is also the case here.

Generally speaking, most people would agree with the author's thesis that work influences the quality of our lives. Everyone can probably identify someone in their circle or network who works 50‐60 h a week, week after week, with little energy left for their families, communities, etc. From this standpoint, the authors remind us that corporations whose bottom line is profit and not people are not taking care of their employees. In fact, the values of economic rationalism and capitalism contradict the values of an economic sustainable paradigm. Thus, the key to the problem is how to convince leaders in corporations to shift from a philosophy of economic rationalism (short‐term profit‐based) to economic sustainability (long‐term, people, profit, and planet‐based). The authors fail to do this.

As the authors point out, for every ten companies that are created in the United States, only three survive the ten‐year mark (p. 167). So how do you convince corporations that profits are not the bottom line when many businesses fail? Furthermore, given that labor is a cost, how do you convince companies to hire more employees for the good of the community? For example, Birch and Paul (p. 61) argue that “if hours of work were shorter, workers would enjoy a better quality of life, and more people could be employed, thus lessening the ranks of the unemployed”. How do we end sex discrimination and ensure that women earn the same pay as men for doing the same job? The answers to these questions have baffled academics and practitioners for years. Unfortunately, the authors do not advance our ability to change organizations or corporate culture. The anecdotal evidence from various companies is useful, but how does one convince the masses?

The second criticism of this book is that all organizations are lumped together in one category, which assumes that organizations as a whole treat workers identically. Logically, one would expect differences between types of organizations. For example, one might expect the non‐profit organizations (NPO) to value workers differently than for profit organizations since NPOs are in the business of delivering social services. For‐profit organizations may be more likely to focus on profits and less on worker's needs. Even within organizations and corporation who are profit motivated, one might expect differences between publicly held companies, which answer to stock holders, and privately held companies, which answer to the owner. It may be easier to change the culture of a NPO than a privately held company versus a publicly held organization. If there are distinct differences among the types of organizations, it is likely that there may be distinct strategies in successfully transforming them.

I applaud the authors' normative argument for a more humane work environment. Corporations should take their employees' needs into consideration because it is the right thing to do. This argument is strong enough to stand by itself, and it should stand by itself. However, the authors do themselves and the reader a great disservice by weaving in biblical scripture, stories, and citations. The reliance on Christianity distracts from the value of the book. Readers do not want to know how the Bible defines time, or a recount of the story of Martha and Mary or Cain and Able. Although the book engages readers in a philosophical dialogue on the subject, it can achieve this goal without incorporating religion.

In conclusion, the authors argue that organizations must include human and environmental responsibility along with profits if the workplace is to provide balance for employees. The authors' argument is convincing, but the book falls short in providing any substantive guidelines on how to change organizations. The authors fail to tell the reader how to accomplish this overwhelming task. The “how to” component remains a missing link in moving organizations from economic rationalism toward economic sustainability. In short, Life and Work stimulates more questions than it provides answers, but it is headed in the right direction. As a society, we must continually engage in a dialogue on this subject until a solution has been found.