“Work itself is but what you deem it.”
Marcus Aurelius

Love and work bring meaning to life. The hardest part to align them according to our strengths. Happiness turns out to be about knowing our strengths. But first things first: what is it exactly we are after?

Reframing the Question

In the last chapter of the book the Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt underscores the importance of asking the right question.  It makes sense to pause and examine the kind of answer we are expecting whenever we ask for the ‘meaning’ of something.

To ask “what is the meaning of life” is not asking to define life. Rather than expecting a direct answer, we are hoping for some enlightenment – or an aha experience. An insight in which things we have not understood before begin to make sense.

So what we are really after is not the purpose OF work but the purpose WITHIN work. So we will not get hooked into a debate on ‘do you live to work or do you work to live?’. Instead we dive a little deeper. The below paragraphs and drawings are all inspired on the last chapter of Haidt’s magnificent 2009 best-seller – more in particular: the paragraph called ‘Love and Work’.

Job, Career or Calling?

Recent research suggests that most people approach their work in one of three ways: as a job, a career or a calling.

If you see your work as a job, you do it only for the money and you tend to look at the clock frequently while dreaming about the weekend ahead.

If you see your work as a career you have larger goals of advancement and promotion. The pursuit of these goals often energizes you and you sometimes take work home because you want to get the job done properly. Yet at times you wonder why you work so hard.

If you see your work as a calling however, you find your work intrinsically fulfilling. You see your work as contributing to a greater good. You have frequent experiences of flow during the workday and you don’t have the desire to shout ‘Thank God It’s Friday’.

Growing Instead of Fixing

Peter Senge pointed to the mechanistic mindset of change initiatives when he said “We keep bringing in mechanics–when what we need are gardeners. We keep trying to drive change–when what we need to do is cultivate change.” The same is true for work itself and the way we look at work.

When you approach employees as plants to grow  instead of robots to fix, you will easily find that you can’t fix a plant like you can fix a robot. You can only give it the right conditions: water, sun and soil and then… wait. It will do the rest.

Love and work are to people what water and sunshine are to plants. People have this intrinsic need to contribute beyond themselves. According to Jonathan Haidt, the craving for a realization of love and work can even be found in Maslow’s pyramid as Esteem – which is mostly earned through one’s work. The question we should ask ourselves is ‘what is the best way to tap into this energy so that people can find self esteem in their work?

Aligning Instead of Alienating

The search for purpose within life turns out to be a matter of aligning love and work in your life. Getting the right relationship between you and your work is not easy. However, if you think that blue-collar workers have jobs, managers have careers and the more respected professionals (doctors, scientists and clergy) have callings, you are wrong. In his book Haidt cites research that suggests that ‘occupational self-direction‘ is the determining factor.

In earlier posts I have described this occupational self-direction as ‘job control’ and ‘job autonomy’ and came to the same conclusions. Nevertheless, I would like to quote the inspiring example he used  to state this fact. In a study of hospital workers, Amy Wrzesniewski, a psychologist at Yale University, found that the employees who cleaned bedpans and mopped up vomit, sometimes saw themselves as part of a team whose goal was to heal people. They went beyond the minimum requirements of their job description, for example by trying to brighten up the rooms of very sick patients, or by anticipating the needs of the doctors and nurses. They viewed their work as a calling, and enjoyed it far more than those who saw it as a job.

The conclusion coming out of this research in positive psychology is that most people can get more satisfaction from their work. In this respect, Haidt cites the research of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on Vital Engagement, described as a relationship to the world that is characterized by both experiences of flow and meaning.

The first step is to know your strengths. Look for the aspects in your work that make use of your strengths. Haidt advises to re-cast and re-frame your work in order to reflect your strenghts even if that would involve some extra time. Sadly, I have experienced first-hand that the opposite is also true: focus on your weaknesses and you are spiraling downwards: zombies at work.

If you can find your strengths in your work you will find more gratification in work. If you find gratification you will shift in a more positive mind-set. Finally, it will be easier for you to see the bigger picture and the contributions you are making. Your job might turn into a calling. The meaning of work then becomes connection, engagement and commitment. 

Work done with love is the meaning within life. Love and work are crucial for human happiness because they can draw us out of ourselves and into connection with people and projects beyond ourselves.

A few weeks ago I posted my thoughts on employee burnout and Dr. Beverly Potter was kind enough to post a comment. According to her it is a common misconception that stress causes burnout.  As she continues:

“Stress and burnout are not the same. Burnout is a kind of job depression and is caused by feeling of powerlessness; it is not caused by stress – though it is stressful. Stress is a taxing of the body.

Burnout is a motivational problem. A person struggling with burnout is demotivated, dispirited, depressed – down. Whereas a highly stressed person may be highly enthusiastic – though driving their body.

Stress is the “fever” of burnout. As with pneumonia. A high fever must be reduced or there is a risk of brain damage – BUT once reduced the pneumonia is still there. Similarly with burnout – the stress must be reduced but reducing stress does not deal with the job situations rendering the person helpless. The person must develop a feeling of controllability.

Burnout is caused by feelings of uncontrollability. Powerlessness, damed-if-you-do damed-if-you-don’t situations. It is prevented by developing feelings of control over the job – which is an on-going process.” (end of quote)

Dr. Potter’s findings completely match the Job-Control-Job-Demand view of Karasek and the reseach of professor Barsade: high job-demands cause stress, but it is the level of autonomy and the level of respect that determine the ‘color’ of that stress.

Some time ago I posted an article on burnout and just recently I shared my view on the causes and effects of grumpy bosses. Until now I only vaguely realized that both were related with each other, but since I used the car – engine – driver comparison as a metaphor the relationship is getting pretty obvious. As I stated before job control (as opposed to ‘job demands’) or ‘autonomy’ is the bottom line when it comes to employee burnout. When people are supported by the right level of autonomy, context, framework, tools etc. in order to cope with the job demands then the job is stimulating rather than exhausting. If not:… well … quite the opposite. The research of Professor Barsade points out that autonomy can act as a buffer on stress – and actually decrease job burnout. That same research points out that a lack of respect accelerates burnout when the autonomy is low. Now, picture this: the grumpy manager that I introduced some weeks ago, with his powerful people-engine wants to control everything – so he shifts the gears into Neutral and he starts pushing the car himself. Every initiative of a project member to bring the project forward is scrutinized, reworked and criticized until it is completely according to the flavor of the boss. People stop using their brains as pro-active initiatives are discouraged by micromanagement. The engine is not ‘empowered’ because of fear of it getting out of control.




If the engine is not empowered: that is a lack of autonomy. If that boss is pushing the pedal to the metal – with the gear shifted in Neutral - it only makes a lot of noise and smoke: that is the lack of respect. So there you go: the car driver’s guide to employee burnout: – The powerful engine: skilled people – The grumpy driver: grumpy boss – The pedal to the metal: high job demands – The gear shifted in Neutral with the engine on: low autonomy (job control) – The damage to the engine: employee burnout By the way, if you type in ‘burnout’ on youtube, you get all kinds of movies that illustrate this comparison in terms of cars. Do I need to paint a picture?

Every once in a while I meet bosses and project managers who are very tired and extremely grumpy. You probably have met these kinds of managers too or maybe you are one of them. They seem to be carrying the weight of the world on their shoulders. They are literally looking after everything and are trying to manage everything into the last detail. They have everything under control and they work very hard to keep it that way.

However, when I look at the results of these managers and compare it to the results of other – less grumpy and less tired – bosses and project managers I see no major differences. So there must be a way to achieve the same level of excellence with less suffering. In my humble opinion the answer is ‘yes’ and it is all tied to the manager’s maturity level: being able to let go of the control and to empower his people. Let me explain with the simple comparison of the project team and the engine of a car (*).

Grumpy Car Drivers

The grumpy managers I have met so far are action oriented, results driven and demanding so they hire the best people, which gives their project engine a lot of horsepower. Quite soon they kick off the project – the initial combustion to get the engine running. But then – since they want to control everything – they shift the gears into Neutral and they start pushing the car themselves. Every initiative of a project member to bring the project forward is scrutinized, reworked and criticized until it is completely according to the flavor of the boss. People stop using their brains as pro-active initiatives are discouraged by micromanagement. The engine is not ‘empowered’ because of fear of it getting out of control.

The boss complains that he always has to take care of everything – and he does. He also complains that nobody ever takes any initiative – and indeed they don’t; people are discouraged to do so. The project does not advance as it should, the boss is very tired, the skilled people are also tired of being told what to do in the last detail and all the fuel (i.e. resources: time, money, manpower and attention) are wasted. These managers would be better off with a project bicycle than a project car with a powerful engine.

Turbo Managers

We all know that these bosses should just be shifting that gear into Drive and empower their team of skilled people, consciously making use of time, money, manpower and attention. However, in their minds they are already doing that and they may even be pushing the pedal to the metal – but with the gear shifted in Neutral it only makes a lot of noise. People only do what they are being told because the more our grumpy man uses his reins the less they will use their brains.

Changing the gears of this project car from Neutral to Drive will not require the boss to “do” certain things differently or to “do” more things. Instead it will require the boss to “be” a different driver. The basic question here is: “Who am I being that I always have to take care of everything and that nobody ever takes any initiative?” This type of question refers to Ben Zander’s The Art of Possibility and here is my personal answer to that question…

An empowering manager is not the driver of the project car but the turbo of the engine. Instead of controlling the engine in all its details a turbo is committed to the performance of the engine. The function of a turbo is to aerate the engine when the engine needs extra performance. Turbo managers are committing rather than controlling; they hold themselves responsible for creating the circumstances for better engine performance. So the solution is not a quick fix like changing the oil or the tires, but a transformation from a driver into an engine part.

The Real Driver

You may wonder: “when the project manager is the turbo of the engine – who is at the steering wheel and controlling the pedals?” The customer is. And the manager no longer ‘assumes’ what the customer needs. Again this requires the manager to give away another part of his control: reporting about the delivery part of the project (when the customer does not follow the project car from close by the project manager can report any status he wants).

As you can guess Turbo Management (wow, a new buzzword is born!) requires two fundamental changes:
1. The boss is no longer controlling the project like a grumpy maniac but declares himself as an empowering part of the engine;
2. The customer needs to be in the driver’s seat – which makes more sense since the customer knows the road and the destination better than the boss or the project manager.

It’s just a thought that came to my mind…

______________
(*) Regular readers of my articles will note that this article builds further on the 2003 article “Communications Antislip Training for Project Managers“.

Research suggests that the level of autonomy or job-control determines the level of stress and burnout to a larger extent than job-demand or complexity. For managers there is a lesson in there: Respect.

I was on the 5:50 pm train with Nancy. She works for the social security administration on a department I would simplify as ‘accounts receivable’. She talked to me about how puzzled she was by the high turnover in the team of datamanagers – a team that is fundamental in managing the accounts of about 6 million inhabitants (as you can guess: Flanders).

On the other had she was very surprised by the stabilty of the claims department. Not only do they have the straining job of hunting citizens to pay social security, they also need to take care of the complaints, excuses, arguments and plain threats. Because of that stress, she would have expected to witness a high turnover the latter team instead of the former.

The Insights

As an outsider who is keen on organizational behavior I immediately thought of the reseach on burnout. Two specific researches came to my mind:

1. The 1979 Karasek model (*) which is also known as the ‘job-demand-control model’. It illustrates that high job demands do not necessarily lead to burnout. The point here is not job demand but the ability to control the job at hand! In other words: are people supported by the right level of autonomy, context, framework, tools etc. in order to cope with the job demands? If yes: then the job is stimulating rather than exhausting. If no:… well … quite the opposite.

2. The 2006 research on Employee Burnout by by Lakshmi Ramarajan and Professor Sigal Barsade from Wharton suggests the same as Karasek: job control is the bottom line. In their research, Ramajaran and Barsade have elaborated this dimension a bit further. First, they found that respect (indeed: R-E-S-P-E-C-T) influences burnout above and beyond the effects of job demands. In their own words: “The impact of organizational respect on burnout is felt most strongly when job autonomy is low.” Autonomy (i.e. ‘Job Control’), the researchers note, can act as a buffer on stress - and actually decrease job burnout.

The Real Bottomline: Respect

And there is more. According to Ramajaran and Barsade, the extent to which others are treated can influence an individual’s own perceptions of respect. For example, when team members see someone else on the team being treated unfairly, they alter their own perceptions of the fairness of the team. In case you would not have a clue what Ramajaran and Barsade are referring to, have a look at this video of Tom Peters explaining the correlation between R-E-S-P-E-C-T and excellence in leadership: my gut feeling says it must be around 99,9%.

Of course, as an outsider I could be terribly wrong in my analysis but blogging about this topic was a good reminder of what really matters in the workplace. Thanks Nancy, for sparking these ideas!
______________
(*) Source: Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp. 285-306.