Barcelona Metropolis

The modern concept of work is under scrutiny worldwide due to unprecedented mass resignations. To address this new reality, we must move away from the perception of work as something painful and return to the anthropological view of work. This perspective sees work as an organised activity through which humans not only transform the natural and social realms but also undergo personal transformation.

The post-COVID era has sparked an unprecedented wave of resignations in job markets worldwide. In the United States, starting from the spring of 2021, the phenomenon known as the Great Resignation saw between four and five million workers resigning each month, marking figures unseen in history. On the Reddit platform, the Antiwork forum is among the most visited, attracting millions of internet users who share their most dreadful work experiences and most gratifying resignations. In China, also during the spring of 2021, the Tang Ping (‘lying flat’) movement emerged on Weibo, China’s equivalent of X, to protest against gruelling rhythms and schedules, advocating for a slowdown. In Europe, resignations are also on the rise, and according to Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union, in 2023, companies faced record-breaking hiring difficulties.

Mass resignations, mistrust of large corporations and career crossroads… The health and ecological crisis, combined with new methods of corporate management, is increasingly prompting a reassessment of the meaning of work. For quite some time, in academic (economic, sociological, etc.) circles as well as in political discourse, the concept of work, viewed as an activity, has been overshadowed by employment: discussions revolve around its scale, remuneration, precariousness or even the social rights it grants access to. From this standpoint, the impact of working conditions in general, and the intrinsic value of work in particular, on workers’ behaviours (particularly wage earners) has often been relegated to the background.

Taking the matter of the meaning of work seriously

For this reason, it’s imperative to discard the conventional and often grim view of work, linked to a contentious etymology[1] (tripalium, meaning ‘instrument of torture’), and instead embrace a more anthropological perspective, akin to Marx’s, referenced by the labour sciences (ergonomics, psychodynamics of work): an organised activity through which humans reshape both the natural and social realms and undergo personal transformation.

The essence of work is intertwined with these challenges of transformation: work holds significance if it allows us to contribute meaningfully, adhere to or enhance social and ethical norms guiding our actions, and foster our skills and expertise. Hence, social utility, ethical consistency and opportunities for personal growth stand as three fundamental pillars shaping the essence of work.

To gauge employees’ capacity to find meaning in their work across these dimensions in a holistic manner,[2] we turned to French surveys on working conditions (compiled by the French Ministry of Labour). An analysis of data from a representative sample of employees in both public and private sectors in 2013 and 2016, allowed us, firstly, to compare professions in terms of the meaning of work and, secondly, to explore the factors behind any loss of such meaning.

Our findings reveal that the most fulfilling occupations are not always the most prestigious or best paid: roles such as childminders, home caregivers, skilled construction workers, tourism sector employees, etc. Conversely, jobs deemed lacking in meaning tend to fall within the lower-skilled spectrum, such as unskilled labourers, cashiers, security guards, etc. However, exceptions exist; an example is bank managers and insurance company employees. In fact, there is no clear relationship between the level of qualification (or salary) and the meaning of work. Conversely, roles involving direct interaction with customers or within small-scale companies tend to imbue work with greater meaning. Similarly, jobs in the public or non-profit sectors typically foster a deeper sense of meaning, owing to a heightened perception of social contribution, despite encountering more frequent ethical dilemmas.

Is the meaning of work important to employees?

Our statistical analysis reveals a groundbreaking finding: perceiving work as lacking meaning is the foremost factor driving employees to resign. As previously evidenced by other studies, jobs characterised by high intensity or hierarchical conflicts also contribute to resignations, but not the feeling of being underpaid. Resigning from one’s job is a viable solution: on average, new employment offers an opportunity to find greater fulfilment in one’s work.

For those who are unable to resign or are hesitant to do so, the loss of meaning in their work is linked to a surge in mental health issues (such as symptoms of depression) and a sharp rise in sick leave absenteeism. And this isn’t solely a concern for the wealthy. Needless to say, workers, on average, find less meaning in their roles compared to managers. However, when the sense of purpose in work diminishes, the risk of depression doubles, both for workers and managers alike. As for young people, this factor affects them just as profoundly as it does older individuals.

The burden of numbers-driven management

How can we explain this loss of meaning perceived by salaried workers? The accused in the dock is the practice of results-based corporate management. This practice has become widespread since the 1990s, when financial investors began demanding high returns (or cost reductions in the public sector) and absolute transparency regarding performance sources. Current signals to financial markets indicating this relentless pursuit of optimisation come in the form of permanent restructuring. While initially inspired by the Toyota model of the 1980s, lean production (or lean management), focused on cutting costs and inventory through enhanced worker accountability, has been sidelined due to control and standardisation imperatives. This has led to the proliferation of stringent procedures (termed ‘processes’ in management parlance) and the recurrent obligation to be accountable for activities (known as reporting), resulting in what can be termed ‘digital neo-Taylorism’.

The research findings affirm the accountability. Consistently undergoing organisational changes, striving to meet numerical targets or working as a subcontractor for a third party are three indicators of number-driven management. The data reveal a significant correlation between these practices and a decline in the sense of purpose at work and mental well-being.

The demise of living work

These management strategies seek to overlook a fundamental insight from labour sciences.[3] Real-world tasks always deviate from the directives issued by leaders. Even amidst seemingly mundane tasks, individuals find themselves compelled to innovate, interpret or even disobey orders to navigate unforeseen challenges. Work becomes meaningful when it is ‘living work’, facilitating the expression of individual and collective intelligence, sensitivity and human attentiveness.

Yet, under results-driven management, ‘dead work’ (instructions, processes, algorithms, reporting, etc.) seeks to govern ‘living work’, posing a threat to its existence. Consequently, demotivation, mental health disorders or mass resignations become the price to pay. These challenges are compounded by a decline in engagement beyond the workplace (such as civic behaviours).[4]

While the distribution of generated wealth has historically been a source of social conflict, there is now a growing political battle surrounding the meaning of work. This adds a highly critical dimension to the power dynamics within the workplace.

Some leaders are striving to respond to this evolution. Corporate social responsibility policies aim to enhance the social and environmental impact of organisations. However, the outcome is not particularly encouraging: these policies fail to alleviate the constraints imposed by a financial capitalism based on liquid markets.

Some more audacious executives are conducting experiments in ‘liberating’ work by embracing non-Taylorist participatory organisational structures. These endeavours have the commendable quality of tangibly demonstrating that it is feasible to move away from digital neo-Taylorism, promoting both efficiency and well-being. Nonetheless, their boundaries are clear: as consultant Marvin Weisbord, drawing on results obtained during his extensive experience advising dozens of major American companies on anti-Taylorist management, the initiatives he spearheaded “rarely outlasted the tenures of the leaders who had initially championed them”.[5] The underlying reason can be encapsulated in a single word: for many conventional executives, the “pursuit of power and control” often outweighs that of efficiency.

Opening the organisation of work to debate

Considering that power over the organisation of work appears to be the pivotal issue, it is not particularly surprising that self-regulation fails to deliver the anticipated outcomes. This is precisely why rediscovering the meaning of work entails, in our perspective, a revolutionary ambition: today, the organisation of work is solely the domain of shareholders and their delegates. Yet, the quest for the meaning of work calls for a reassessment of this monopoly over decision-making.

That’s why there’s a current need for democratic innovations in real work organisation. These innovations should not only focus on power-sharing in corporate governance but also, and above all, on granting new rights to workers’ collectives and stakeholders so they can deliberate and participate in decisions regarding work organisation and objectives. Today, such measures are necessary to shift from a productivity-oriented logic to a ‘care’ logic. The fiction of the private nature of the employment relationship no longer holds: the decisions of large companies regarding production and work organisation have a significant impact on people’s health and ecosystems. From now on, putting a ‘policy of living work’ on the agenda is imperative.