Here's the first one: I just read something very interesting in Ricardo Semler's "The Seven-Day Weekend". He argues that companies need to let employees follow their interests and meet their needs, within the framework of the traditional work arrangement. His view is that people want to work, and will do so if treated like adults (i.e. given responsibility for goals and means) and allowed to work in a way that does not make them give up interests and needs that matter to them.
I resisted the idea at first - I have had way too many colleagues that have shirked responsibility, and that didn't want to work, but wanted to earn salaries. But as I thought about it, it occurred to me that perhaps these colleagues behaved the way they did because their jobs did not align with their interests. I typically don't know most of my colleagues outside of work, but by chance I found out last week that a colleague has an e-library of hundreds of crime fiction books. You don't keep that many books if you don't like the genre. No one forced him to build up the library; he just followed his interest. Now this colleague is very industrious and works hard, but I wonder how much harder he would work if he was in the crime fiction publishing industry. Interests matter. Round one to Ricardo.
How about needs? Isn't work all about sacrificing our needs, to meet the needs of our employers or customers? At least this is what I'd always believed, until Ricardo forced me to challenge this view as well. I thought back to when I worked for a bank. The rule was that we all had to be at work by 8am. For most of us, early morning traffic meant we had to leave our homes before 6am, to be sure of getting to work by 8am. So some would leave their homes at 5:30am, get to work by 6am, and sleep in their cars till just before 8am (or go to the gym). What made matters worse was that to avoid traffic in the evening rush hour, most of us would stay in the office till 8pm. Our needs to spend time with loved ones and to recuperate sufficiently were definitely not being met.
But what if the bank had come up with work shifts, whereby it paid two people to do one job, and one came in early and left mid-day, and the other came in mid-day and left late? In one stroke I estimate employment would go up between 50% and 80% in the banking sector (not all jobs can be accommodated under this arrangement), employees would have more time for life, they would spend less time in traffic, and they would get more hours of sleep. Of course they would also earn less, but I know several people who would gladly earn less if they can get time to enjoy what they earn. It's now 2 to Ricardo, 0 to Mayowa.
So it seems Ricardo is right - work does not have to mean employees giving up interests and needs. But it requires effort from both sides: workers need to follow career paths aligned with their interests; and employers need to structure work so employees can meet their needs.
One caveat, though. There is an inherent assumption in Ricardo's thought process. He assumes that people have the skills and knowledge required for the jobs they are asked to do. He takes that as a given, and focuses on making it easier for people to apply their skills and knowledge (via aligning interests, and structuring work arrangements so people can meet their needs). Unfortunately, this is not always the case; I have met too many people who do not have basic skills like critical thinking, time management, business writing, etc, talk less of technical skills required for their roles. That's where the government should come in, by providing the right kind of education at primary and secondary school levels. And that's where universities and employers also come in, by helping graduates develop theoretical and practical expertise; it really does take a village to raise a (good) child.
That caveat aside, Ricardo's book has challenged my thinking about what to expect from work, and the kind of work environment that I can possibly provide as an employer of labour. Challenge accepted!
