
So what is this obsession in corporate culture with enhancing health and happiness?
There’s always been debate over whether a happy worker is more productive, but a more interesting question is how employers are now intervening to “make things better”. In the last decade or so, they’ve suddenly become interested in employee happiness and are designing workplaces to make the physical space itself increase happiness. One company built .
Advertisement
But most interventions involve the employees themselves. BP gave each employee a Fitbit. It was a gift and using it was optional, but increasing numbers of companies are now insisting you use these things. At a hedge fund in London, the traders have to wear them, plus record things such as their diet and sleeping habits, and then the employer correlates that with their trading activities. At one Swedish utility company, if you don’t go to the gym as part of your working week, you get paid less.
Does the research on any of these interventions stand up?
There is a lot of research showing that if you exercise regularly, you’re likely to be happier, or that after doing exercise you might find certain cognitive tasks a bit easier. But does it actually make employees more productive and efficient? There’s not much good data to answer that question. The measures that employers use to assess such things are rarely what you’d call scientifically robust. They’ll often use employee satisfaction measures.
“The beatings will continue until morale increases.” That sort of thing?
Exactly. A study about employer health interventions showed they have very low take-up, and that even when people do adopt them, they don’t work that well. In particular, corporate weight-loss programmes aren’t effective. The truth is that we don’t really know what happiness does or doesn’t do for us in the workplace, nor are we quite sure how to define it. Nevertheless, to make us happier and more productive, companies want to monetise happiness using untested research with untested results, and with methods that might actually make us less happy.
If health interventions are not particularly effective, why are firms introducing them?
One of the big trends we’ve seen over the last couple of decades has been the extension of workplace control from the traditional nine-to-five to the 5 am to 9 pm because of smartphones and extended informal working hours. Management wants to understand what’s happening in the rest of their employees’ lives and begin to track and control it. 91ɫƬ is part of that.
So this is all about companies squeezing everything they can from their staff?
That’s one aspect. The second part is a cultural shift – what psychologists or philosophers would call category mistakes. Employers are starting to equate physical fitness with corporate competence. It’s this idea that if you’re slim and running marathons, you’re going to be a fantastic CEO. From 2001 to 2011, the proportion of , and you can be sure those marathons are featuring on their CVs. Give employers a choice of two CEOs with exactly the same skills and they’ll almost always choose the slimmer one. Your hobby can no longer be the community garden or whatever you’ve been doing. You have to be running marathons.
What about the job prospects for the rest of us?
There’s a lot of nervousness around what jobs might be replaced by computers – especially in so-called knowledge work. We have this myth of the knowledge economy that arose following the decline in manufacturing in Western nations. Manufacturing jobs needed to be replaced with something else, so we had the rise of the knowledge worker: insurance jobs, auditing, any job in which intellectual labour replaced physical labour.
But there’s a mismatch in the economy between what is actually needed and what people want from their knowledge job. The reality is that most jobs in these so-called knowledge companies – consultancies and that sort of thing – are routine and boring. You can learn the skills in a few days. You didn’t need to spend years at university. These jobs have been dubbed “bullshit jobs”.
Is that the academic term?
In a sense. In 2013, anthropologist David Graeber wrote a short article titled ““. It struck a nerve and was shared by millions of people around the world. Graeber says a bullshit job is one that the employee thinks is meaningless and the world would be better off if it didn’t exist. Off the back of that article, , in which 37 per cent of respondents said their job did not make a “meaningful contribution to the world”. The article chimed with a lot of people who really think,
Was there a link between the rise of the knowledge economy and the rise of such jobs?
Absolutely. So many knowledge economy jobs are bullshit jobs. And, crucially, these are also the ones that are now being automated away. A estimated that 47 per cent of current jobs in the US are at risk of becoming automated, and most of those likely to be replaced are things like auditing and insurance jobs – classic knowledge roles. The ones that won’t be computerised are jobs like masseuse, life coach and personal trainer.
So that explains this new economy built around self-enhancement, happiness and the body?
Yes, that’s one way of creating new forms of employment when knowledge-economy work is in decline. We are transitioning to the body economy. It’s also simply capitalism: what do you do when all other sources of growth have been exhausted? You turn to people’s private lives and you begin looking into their bodies and psychologies. You turn their minds and bodies into something you can sell.
Another factor here is that the major employment and societal trends we are seeing make people feel very vulnerable, like they lack control. But they still feel they can make a tangible difference to their body. This vulnerability is symptomatic of a collective, culture-wide nervous breakdown.
“When people are asked to attend to their happiness, they just end up feeling more anxious”
Are things at work really that bad?
Think about it. The jobs are disappearing, the ones that are left don’t feel rewarding, and our performance is increasingly being measured using things that aren’t in our job description. And we’re encouraged to constantly monitor our own happiness, by employers asking that question or monitoring it on a regular basis. This actually makes it likely we will start feeling less happy. A lot of the happiness literature has been ignored on this: studies show that when people are asked to attend to their happiness, they just end up feeling more anxious.
Well, I’m a bit depressed now.
Sorry.
Profile
André Spicer is a professor of organisational behaviour at City, University of London’s Cass Business School. His latest book is The Stupidity Paradox: The power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work, co-authored with Mats Alvesson
This article appeared in print under the headline “The road to hell is paved with corporate wellness”