Much has been said and written on the subject of work. Proof of this are the countless books, essays, articles, theses and research papers. The bodies in charge of regulation and labor legislation, be it secretariats or departments, show their concern to update the principles that govern work.
But so far everything has remained in the letter, and in many countries the actual practice of work has exceeded written legislation, making it a "dead letter." The facts show us that we continue to consider work as a “purely economic activity”, that is, the provision of a service in exchange for a salary.
Where is the consideration of work as a social activity? Can we consider work as a source of self-realization? At first glance these perspectives are impractical, void. A large part of the workforce works out of the need to receive a salary, performing activities that are far from satisfying their personal interests or their desire for fulfillment. Sometimes, we have had to provide our services in an area very different from the one for which we study or in which we want to develop. We have no choice but to "suffer" from work.
On the other hand, there are people who have been fortunate enough to find a workplace where they have the opportunity to develop their talent and satisfy their needs. However, this is relative. After a certain time, the need to find a “better job” reappears.
In my very personal opinion, I have come to the conclusion that the productive period of a satisfied worker in a company is five years, after which the person continues to grow until reaching his level of disability, according to the Peter Principle, reaching a level of parasitic compliance and doing only what is necessary to justify their presence and continue to collect on pay days.
Irremediably, it seems that every worker is eternally condemned to repeat this cycle of novelty at work - development - satisfaction - disenchantment - dissatisfaction - search for better opportunities.
And here the theme centers on the nature of work. If we go back to the origins of the Judeo-Christian tradition, introjected into our religious, social and cultural culture since the Spanish conquest, work is a suffering, a punishment imposed on man for violating a divine law (cf. Gen. 3, 19).
In fact, in many Latin American countries work is viewed as a forcefully imposed burden and a necessary evil. Proof of this is the Mexican saying: "What will the work be like, if they even pay to do it", or the other version: "If the work did not tire, they would not pay to do it". So the conclusion seems to be: I pay you for your fatigue, for your physical effort.
It is difficult to imagine in our civilized and progressive world a sign on the doors of a factory or a notice in the jobs section of a newspaper that says: “People are requested, indistinct sex, 16 to 35 years old, capable of performing a series of consecutive activities that demand physical effort. Pay according to fatigue ”. How many people would apply for this job? This may sound far-fetched, but isn't this the nature of work today? Isn't it a merely economic activity?
Seen from this somewhat radical perspective for some, it is not surprising that both large corporations and workplaces, as well as business consultants and advisers, are eagerly seeking the ideal model of motivation / manipulation that leads their workers to achieve the goals conceived and imposed by a corporate of the organization located perhaps hundreds or thousands of kilometers away from its workplace.
I dare to affirm that the essential problem of the concept and the praxis of work does not lie in its nature, but in the way in which it is designed and structured by the directors, presidents, managers or owners of the sources of work - whatever their nature. size - and by the occasional "dehumanist" consultant.
Fortunately, the concept and structure of work are already changing, not at the initiative of the executives responsible for their direction, but because the way of managing and doing business is changing. Large companies and corporations, paradigms of organizational design, are prone to disappearing under the “dinosaur effect”. The media reports that some of them are in serious trouble for survival (New York Times) while others have declared a war without quarter (Ford - Firestone).
It would be very risky to say that the failures that led to its current state were of quality rather than due to the critical situation of financial markets, mass production systems, unfair competition practices and the effects of globalization. It would be better to attribute the causes of organizational failure to all of these factors rather than to attribute them to the quality of the workforce.
Because for quality problems there are already ISOs and other certification programs whose achievement depends directly on business managers. The other factors are "external" and independent of management control and, therefore, outside its responsibility.
However, admitting quality mistakes is accepting human error. And this, in our high-tech society, is simply unacceptable. Since, the bigger the error, the more responsible is the director of the company. And whoever makes mistakes in the workplace is sacrificed in the name of results, efficiency and productivity.
As I noted earlier, the problem is not the concept or the nature of the work, but the way it is designed. An imposed work system becomes a burden and an affliction for any human being. The solution lies in redefining its nature and redesigning its structure according to development needs and the aspirations of the people in charge of carrying it out.
Although this may sound like a utopia, today's companies are being forced to develop, experiment, implement and improve new organizational models. Humanistic options should not be ruled out.
