When we take the time to pause, reflect, and critically examine what we often consider self-evident, it can reveal surprising and thought-provoking insights. This is especially true when we explore concepts like “humanizing work” or “human-centered work” alongside “well-being.” Examining these topics from first principles leads us on a fascinating journey that spans various disciplines, including history, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, politics, science, and beyond.
Let’s begin with some fundamental questions:
What does it mean to be human, and how are humans different from other living beings?
Some of the unique qualities that define humanity include self-awareness, self-reflection, the ability to contemplate, sophisticated language and communication, the capacity for social cooperation around abstract concepts (such as nation, community, religion, sports, morality, ethics, legal frameworks, etc.), creativity, a need for meaning and purpose, autonomy, agency, and a deep appreciation for beauty, truth, and awe.
One interesting hypothesis, the “cultural drive hypothesis,” suggests that culture itself plays a key role in human development. A critical aspect of this hypothesis is our ability to teach and learn. Unlike most animals, humans learn not only by copying but with remarkable fidelity. No other species teaches with the same precision, allowing humans to pass on knowledge in a way that enables cumulative cultural evolution.
A 2018 Scientific American article titled “What Makes Us Unique” underscores this point: “The secret comes down to the fidelity of information transmission from one member of a species to another. The accuracy with which learned information passes between transmitter and receiver is key to the exponential growth of cultural complexity. Above a certain threshold, culture begins to evolve rapidly, leading to massive cultural change. Humans are the only species to have surpassed this threshold.”
What is Work?
For hunter-gatherer societies, work was focused primarily on survival—finding food and ensuring security for kin. Since food didn’t last long, the concept of storing for the future didn’t exist, and people lived day to day. There was little incentive to work harder than necessary for immediate survival. According to anthropologist James Suzman, in his seminal book Work – A Deep History, hunter-gatherers worked on average only 15 hours a week, spending the rest of their time in leisure. Contrary to popular belief, life in these societies was not necessarily harder than today. In fact, Suzman points out that some hunter-gatherer tribes, like the Ju/’hoansi, lived longer and were healthier than people in many agricultural societies.
The advent of agriculture changed everything. For the first time, humans could store food for the future, creating new incentives to increase productivity. Land, once a communal resource, became valuable property, leading to conflicts over ownership. This shift, along with the rise of trade and barter systems, marked the beginning of a more complex and specialized economic structure. It also gave rise to jobs that had no direct connection to survival, purpose, or meaning—jobs that we now recognize as part of modern economies.
What is Well-being?
Well-being is often defined through various frameworks, but the core elements typically include personal growth, self-esteem, autonomy, environmental mastery, positive relationships, and life purpose. The challenge is integrating these dimensions into our work in a meaningful way. For example, managers can foster autonomy by resisting the urge to micromanage, and employees can focus on continuous improvement in their roles to build mastery and satisfaction.
Are we Proliferating ‘bullshit jobs’?
In contemporary work, the disconnection between work and meaning has intensified, a phenomenon famously explored by the late anthropologist David Graeber in his essay and book Bullshit Jobs. Graeber categorized these jobs into five types:
1. Flunkies: Roles that serve to make others look important (e.g., personal assistants).
2. Goons: Jobs that exist to manipulate or deceive others for organizational benefit (e.g., PR, corporate law).
3. Duct Tapers: Jobs that exist to fix problems that shouldn’t exist in the first place (e.g., consultants).
4. Box Tickers: Roles that fulfill bureaucratic or compliance requirements (e.g., process or quality teams).
5. Taskmasters: Jobs focused on managing or supervising others without a clear impact on productivity.
While the validity of Graeber’s categories is debatable, the larger point is that these jobs tend to reduce work to a transactional, meaningless experience, furthering what philosophers and psychologists call the “meaning crisis”—a crisis that has roots in the shift from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural economies.
Do we have bad work conditions today?
Bad work conditions have existed throughout history, but they persist today, even in some of the most prestigious roles. For example, the tragic death of Anna Sebastian Perayil, a young, chartered accountant at Ernst & Young (EY) in India, reportedly due to overwork, highlights how modern corporate cultures can glorify overwork while neglecting employees’ health and well-being.
While it’s true that work conditions in some developing countries still fall short of basic human dignity, we also need to recognize that for some workers, these “poor” conditions may be an improvement compared to previous job situations, such as extreme poverty. In more affluent, high-tech workplaces, conditions may be much better—comfortable offices, flexible hours, and competitive salaries—but the paradox remains: despite these improvements, many workers report higher stress levels, burnout, mental health issues, and work-life balance challenges than previous generations.
Even more perplexing is the fact that people often report experiencing “peak flow” during difficult, effortful work, rather than during leisure. This raises questions about the true nature of happiness and well-being at work.
What are the solutions?
We can approach potential solutions from two perspectives:
1. External Factors: These include aspects like company culture, management, and colleagues.
2. Internal Factors: These involve personal attitudes, mindset, proactivity, and agency.
What can companies do to improve work conditions?
Much has been written about organizational effectiveness and the role of leadership in creating a healthy work culture. Professor Adam Grant identifies four “deadly sins” that can undermine work culture:
* Toxicity: Where results trump relationships, leading to micromanagement, blame games, low trust, unrealistic expectations, and poor communication.
* Mediocrity: When relationships take precedence over results, with promotions based on likeability rather than competence.
* Bureaucracy: When strict rules stifle innovation, risk-taking, and autonomy.
* Anarchy: When lack of rules and processes leads to chaos and disarray.
To combat toxicity, managers can make a concerted effort to appreciate their employees’ work and help them see how their roles contribute to the broader mission of the organization. Initiatives like Nimble OKRs can align individual goals with the company’s vision, enhancing purpose and motivation.
What can individuals do to improve their work experience?
On the internal side, the “how” of doing a job is just as important as the job itself. This is where concepts like Job Crafting come in, allowing employees to redesign their roles to better align with their interests and strengths. Google, for example, allows employees to spend 20% of their time on passion projects, boosting autonomy and creativity.
Research by Justin M. Berg and colleagues demonstrates that adopting a “growth mindset” at work can significantly enhance happiness. They suggest a “dual-growth mindset,” where employees view both themselves and their roles as flexible and capable of growth. This mindset can increase agency, self-concordance, and personal fulfillment, leading to sustained happiness.
Reframing Attention in the Workplace
Dr. John Vervaeke explores how wisdom and sacredness—concepts often lost in modern, utilitarian work cultures—can bring deeper meaning to life. He argues that the modern world’s obsession with efficiency has led to a loss of the sense of sacredness, which in turn diminishes the potential for truly meaningful life and work.
Dr. Iain McGilchrist also highlights how modern life has become overly mechanistic, dominated by the left hemisphere of the brain, which is analytical and narrow-focused. In contrast, the right hemisphere’s holistic, context-sensitive approach to attention could offer a more fulfilling, meaningful engagement with work.
Can we change the way we pay attention to our work?
By shifting our attention from narrow, transactional views to more holistic, engaged perspectives, we may discover new energy and satisfaction in our work. While this shift may initially feel daunting, it may ultimately empower us rather than drain us.
This exploration is just the beginning. As I’ve researched and written about this topic, it has transformed many of my own views on work and life. I hope this discussion sparks further reflection on how we can humanize work and cultivate well-being in our professional lives.
I would love to hear your thoughts and perspectives on this journey.
