Dear everybody-
The discussion on job satisfaction and motivation is fascinating for me. I
think it has already reached a level of complexity to pick up patterns and
assumptions that we demonstrate and critique in the discussion. Let me start
that.
1) "Bad job" assumption. Some jobs are inherently bad: they are dull,
boring, repetitive, harmful, and not creating.
Our discussion shows that we are really ambivalent about this assumption. On
the one hand, we demonstrated many convincing examples where people turned
the apparently boring and non-creative jobs into something exciting for
themselves and others. On the other hand, we feel that these examples can be
used for exploiting people and justification of oppression (e.g., Nate's
example of happy slaves). In the later case, although, the question still
remains what makes slave a slave: the nature of job required to do or social
relations that "contextualize" the job.
Underneath of this controversy is a tension between voluntarism (and
individualism) claiming that under some right attitudes any condition can
become enjoyable (illustrated in the movie "Life is Beautiful" - the movie
I, personally, hate) and determinism asserting that human agency does not
play any role in judging how bad or good jobs are.
2) "No choices" assumption. According to this assumption as I see it, jobs
can't be authentically meaningful and enjoyable without have choices that
people have about these jobs (freedom means choice and choice means
freedom).
The issue here is how much this assumption is a cultural bias rooted deeply
in middle-class Western communities. The question is whether we make
something fit by selecting what pre-fits us (interactional model) or by
working our relations out to make it fits us (transactional model). We can
bring examples of these models.
For example, children who are happy with their parents and parents who are
happy with their children are happy clearly not because they have choices
but probably because they work on their relations that transactionally
change who they are. When people happy with their family, they are happy not
because they have freedom of choice and not because they prefer their own
children or parents over other children or other parents that they might
have had but freely chose not to. Similarly, people may be happy with their
jobs not because they have freedom of choice and not because they prefer
their current jobs over other jobs that they might have had but freely chose
not to. In other words, in a transactional model, happiness and choice are
antagonistic: happiness is about rejection of choices - (desire for) choice
is an indicator of unhappiness rather than a measure of happiness. When
family members (e.g., husband and wife) start thinking of their "choices"
(i.e., other possible partners), they are probably close to divorce...
According to the other model probably best exemplified in the Western notion
of romantic love where people search for the fit that immediately ignites
mutual love. According to this interactional model, the conditions pre-exist
in the individuals to find what they really like and need. Thus giving
people rich choices can authentically test what people REALLY want (and
enjoy with). Following Rogoff and Altman's terminology, I call this model
"interactional" because according to it, relations do not define people
(unlike in a transactional model).
In an interactional model, choice is equal personal preference (even a "bad"
choice), it is unfolding *real I* into the world, making the world mine. It
is marching of the individual status quo on the world: "I want to live in a
safe and comfortable neighborhood" (i.e., among people like I), "I chose
this work therefore I like it" (therefore I am).
In contrast, in a transactional model, choice can be a "guided provocation"
aiming on disrupting the status quo including the status quo of one's own I.
It is a motivational ZPD (potential new motivations and thus potential new
Is). For example, "I may seek a contact with people with whom I'm not
comfortable and even afraid of because not only I can be wrong about them
but also because I might be transformed by those people in something better
and they can be transformed by me." In this case, choice is not a matter of
reaching individual comfort but rather "a better shared life." So, the issue
may be not about choice vs. necessity and duty but rather individual comfort
vs. a better shared life (note that this notion of "better" is an
essentially uncertain, open, and collective value).
3) "Coping strategies" assumption. This is a variation of "bad jobs"
assumption: people are not really happy on their inherently miserable jobs
but rather they find ways of coping with the stress. The problem with this
assumption is that it is... simply wrong. Yes, it is true that some people
can adjust and cope with their miseries better than others but it is not
true that working class people (and other oppressed people) who had/have not
choices always see they jobs as miseries and could/can not enjoy them.
What can prove my words? I do not know in case of Ana's cop (although I
suspect it), but in case of my grandmother, my grandmother kept working as a
tailor often 12-14 hours per day (alternating with home chores and cooking)
long after she retired of her job. One may say, "aha, she had free choice to
that," but I think it was not her free choice (I even remember her
complaining on the chores and tailing work she did) but her way of life (by
the way, these activities were well-integrated with other activities like
singing and storytelling). She became very depressed when she had to stop
doing these activities because of her declining health (and she died very
quickly after that).
I can push an envelop further by saying that I can imagine slaves who were
happy of jobs they had to do as slaves but, of course, I'd be very against
of using these examples for justifying slavery. I think we should resist of
"intellectual totalitarianism" reducing everything to something one like
"oppressed people can never be truly happy due to their oppression." Yes,
they can! Oppressed people can be happy - oppression can't fully define
them. Ironically, happiness of oppressed people can be fuller and deeper and
more fulfilling than happiness of their oppressors. Their happiness
distributed in particularities of their lives is not justification of their
oppression but rather in reverse - it is justification of why oppression has
to be abolished. For example, the beauty and creativity of Aesop's fables
(and perhaps his authentic enjoyment of writing them) is not justification
of slavery that produced conditions for his creative writing but rather a
verdict to slavery as a shameful practice.
For people who are not oppressed, it is difficult to imagine happiness of
extremely oppressed people without creating justifications, romantization,
and farce of oppressive conditions (like in recent movies "Jacob, the lair"
or "Life is beautiful"). That is why narratives by oppressed people
themselves are so important.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Jobs and motivation: Help is needed
>
> N***
> It appears to me that this discussion of Jobs and motivation has descended
> to the anectodal; amazing cases of people who transform what we regard as
> boring inadequate occupations into research projects, dance, or social
> welfare. Individual styles of work, like individual experience, is so
> varied that exceptions to all "laws" of relations of labor are an
inevitable
> feature of objective experience with work and workers. Then too, the
> emotional states of happiness, of coping, and so on,are too subjective to
be
> in themselves a sure basis for analysis. At best we can discuss the
> objectifications of "happiness" that may comprise part of the properties
> considered important in certain relations between worker and consumer,
> worker and employer and so on; e.g. the relations between a real-estate
> salesman and prospect, between house-servant and her mistress, and so on.
>
>
> A rational consideration of the issue of job statisfaction in the general
> sense would be based on the relation between the outcomes of the job and
the
> objectives of the laborer. Obviously these latter are complex and often
> likely to be contradictory. For example, a worker may endure boring and
> difficult labor to bring home the paycheck that purchases room and board
for
> his or her family. In any case considering the complexities of the human
> will, it is likely that a job may satisfy all workers some of the time,
some
> workers all of the time, but never all workers all of the time.
>
> Clearly, objectives of workers and the degree to which their occupations
> satisfy these are a function of historical conditions. The issue here is
> the determination of the particular conditions current to the labor
> relations under examination. A trade union that is facing new management
> that has announced its intentions to streamline the productive process is
> likely to present different conditions for job satisfaction than it would
if
> it was just renewing an old contract with a well-domesticated management.
> Jeff Heyward's interpretation of Andy's objection to the research results
of
> the Taylor committee are misdirected. The problem is one of taking into
> account the current conditions (political, economic etc.) of the labor
> sector or group studied, rather than of an issue of depth, i.e. duration
of
> the investigation.
>
> Concerning the issue Andy raised of the unemployed and underemployed by
> choice. Most research on unemployment and underemployment till now has
been
> imbued with the work ethic of pre-, proto- and -modern capitalism: "the
> plight of the demoralized unemployed," " the marginal culture of the
> chronically unemployed," and like themes. The declining demand for
> productive labor, the development of cheap access to vast amounts of
> information, and the globalization of communications have and will change
> attitudes towards labor, the formation of social and personal goals and
the
> desireability and even the possibility of realizing them through gainful
> employment. It appears to me that we are facing a major cultural
> revolution and no one is really very excited about examining where it is
> going.
> Victor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "N***" <vygotsky who-is-at nateweb.info>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: Jobs and motivation: Help is needed
>
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > That was partly what I was getting at. Coping
> > strategies like the friendly cashier, toll booth
> > operater etc can appear to an outsider as enjoyment or
> > to use your word happy. Those "coping strategies" may
> > even become virtues so to speak such as "work ethic",
> > or doing ones best.
> >
> > Yet, to even take your assertion that most poor
> > workers are not "happy" in their jobs, what does that
> > mean? What does it mean to be happy in ones job?
> >
> > The lottery question has, of course, as its
> > assumption, money. That if ones motivation is money,
> > and ones job is oppressive, then they would take the
> > money and run. If there are other factors to ones
> > motivation, then this would not hold true. This, of
> > course has nothing to do with enjoyment or happiness
> > per se.
> >
> > One may very well stay in an oppressive situation
> > because of habit, it houses ones social network etc.
> > This would be particularily true for those who have
> > worked at a particular company for generations.
> >
> > Yet, I have to admit, I am still wondering what
> > "happy" in ones job looks like.
> >
> >
> > --- Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
> > > I guess we like these stories because getting
> > > enjoyment and fulfillment out
> > > of a routine unskilled job takes a special talent.
> > > One gets the feeling
> > > that Ana's traffic cop, your cook or my
> > > toll-collector could have earnt
> > > lots of money, but their special quality allowed
> > > them to get total
> > > fulfillment from what we could never cope with. I
> > > think this is something
> > > different from the "Aunt Jamima Syndrome". Poor
> > > people doing routine jobs
> > > are not usually happy in their job. But the prospect
> > > that anyone is capable
> > > of enjoying their job is a kind of Utopian vision,
> > > and just a few people
> > > are capable of living that vision.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > At 03:46 AM 17/12/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >There is a local resturaunt by our house which is a
> > > >favorite because of the cook. Usually the cook is
> > > kind
> > > >of hidden in the back, but this one comes out, goes
> > > to
> > > >your table, and cracks a joke or two. One day, the
> > > >summer after 9-1-1, my kids and I went there and a
> > > >group of elderly church like ladies came in with
> > > red
> > > >hats. This cook came out out and loudly asked,
> > > "what's
> > > >up with those red hats". He then loudly proclaimed,
> > > >"Ladies and gentleman, beware its the red hatted
> > > >terrorists."
> > > >
> > > >Yet, there seems to be this other side too, Aunt
> > > >Jaminma factor. If one looks at old 1930's
> > > cartoons,
> > > >which were clearly propaganda, one sees these
> > > strong
> > > >images of African Americans happy as shit in their
> > > >oppression.
> > > >
> > > >So, I have these mixed feelings. On the one hand, I
> > > >agree with much of what is said. Those that are
> > > >economically and socially oppressed are able to
> > > find
> > > >enjoyment in their work. Yet, what interpretation
> > > does
> > > >the powers that be make of this with studies that
> > > >focus on enjoyment. Is it like the Aunt Jamina
> > > >propaganda films that aim to show society that
> > > 1930's
> > > >African American life can't be that bad if Aunt
> > > Jamima
> > > >is that happy.
> > > >
> > > >I remember this old Christmas story that might be
> > > >pertinant. Its begins like the classic two worlds
> > > >story. There are two children, one rich and one
> > > poor,
> > > >the day after Christmas. One, the rich child, got
> > > all
> > > >the newest toys; DVD player, X-Box, Bratz dolls,
> > > wide
> > > >screen tv etc, while the other, the poor child,
> > > only
> > > >got a big bag of shit. After about an hour the rich
> > > >kid is bored and not sure what to play with next,
> > > >while the poor kid is still enjoying playing with
> > > his
> > > >shit.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not sure why I was told this story as a child.
> > > >Partly I suppose to demonstrate how I was much
> > > happier
> > > >than any rich child with a silver spoon in his
> > > mouth.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >=====
> > >
> >
> >
> > =====
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST