New Work was coined by Frithjof Bergmann1 around 1980. From his experiences of the decline of the automobile industry in Michigan, USA, he developed a movement that investigated the question of how to achieve a high degree of freedom of action at work. The hypothesis is that through this freedom we can develop into more lively, complete and stronger people.
In the past, in many cases the task to be accomplished was the goal or purpose. People have been used by others, but also by themselves, as a tool, as a means to achieve that end. We, the human beings, submitted ourselves to this. We put ourselves at the service of the work that needed to be done. The New Work is an effort that has been going on for more than 20 years now to reverse this situation. It was not we who were to serve the Work, but the Work was to serve us. 2
Put simply, work should be fun and make sense to us again. Or even better, we actively shape and give meaning to our work. That is actually a banal simple demand. Many of us work 8 – 10 hours on 5 days a week (or more). With so much time in our lives, why not have fun and give meaning to our work? Why not?
In my conversations with others about their work, however, I notice that many (subjectively most) do not have fun for most of their working time. The description of your job does not sound as if you have the feeling that you can make a difference. It sounds exaggerated, more like a chain of obstacles to be overcome, like a hardship to be put behind you. Many of them are also characterized by indifference, some of them seem bitter. In any case, we are far away from having fun and working.
Theory Y
Industrialized work organization has only existed for about 200 years and has developed intensively and globalized. It has intensified urbanization and institutionalized wage dependency. Before that, work was local and small-scale.
Historical development of markets and labor3
It was based on need and partly also on barter. In view of the history of mankind, the wage labor system has thus only existed for a short time. Besides the important advantages, however, disadvantages for working people were also quickly recognized. The trade unions, for example, are a child of industrialization. They are supposed to balance the imbalance of the overpowering owners against the employees.
In 1960 Dougal McGregor raised the question of motivation in relation to work with his theory X vs. theory Y4.
Theory X – man is unwilling
Man has an innate aversion to work and tries to avoid it wherever possible. Because of his dislike of work, he usually has to be forced, directed, guided and punished in order to make a productive contribution to achieving the organization’s goals. He wants to be “taken by the hand” because he is not ambitious enough, prefers routine tasks and strives for security. He shuns any responsibility. Therefore, the manager must specify every step in the process in detail, energetically instruct and lead and strictly control it. Only in this way is efficient work execution possible. Remuneration alone cannot make people make enough effort. This means that external controls and penalties as well as coercion are required in case of violations of the rules. Its behavior is based on the majority opinion.
The assumptions of Theory X essentially correspond to the assumptions of Taylorism.
Theory Y – man is committed
Work is of great importance to people and is an important source of satisfaction, because people are naturally willing to perform and motivated from within. The most important incentives to work are the satisfaction of ego needs and the striving for self-realization. Therefore, conditions must be created that motivate people, for example through more self-determination, larger areas of responsibility, more flexible organizational structures, group and project work, etc. If people identify with the goals of the organization, then external controls are not necessary. Because they will take responsibility and develop their own initiative. Creativity is also encouraged and challenged. Since this person feels committed to the goals of his or her organization, he or she will act in favor of the organization’s goals. Man has a high degree of imagination, judgement and inventiveness to solve organizational problems.
The assumptions of Theory Y essentially correspond to assumptions of the human relations concept. Theory Y corresponds to most corporate mission statements.
I don’t know of anyone today who says he works or manages according to theory X. But why then do most people act according to it? And why are almost all organizations structured according to this principle? It seems that Taylorism5 , which was certainly a good instrument for human progress for many years, is hard to get rid of.
The modern wage labor system
The change from the industrial age to the knowledge age has long been propagated. My first encounter was with sustained interviews with Bill Gates on television, in which he spoke of knowledge workers instead of factory workers. Physical work is shifting more and more to intellectual work through automation, was the core of the poodle. That cannot be denied either. Unfortunately, since then it has not been possible to adapt a corresponding work model to it. Instead, methods from the industrial age have been retained (e.g. hierarchical corporate structures) or transferred (e.g. Toyota Lean Management in the service business).
The large corporations of today are the modern factories of the knowledge society.
They think only of efficiency and effectiveness in making money. As a result, people in these systems are under increasing pressure to perform better and better and find less and less freedom for their needs. It feels like being a cog in a machine.
In addition, there is the continuous reduction of jobs, which increases the insecurity about one’s own job. It is grotesque that especially people are not so important in the knowledge society (“Everybody is replaceable.”), when repetitive work is becoming less and less and the creative abilities are moving into the foreground.
Generation (wh)Y and Z
Generations Y and Z have already recognized that the wage labor system now has more disadvantages than advantages for them. They have exposed the failure of the neo-capitalist mantra “If you are diligent and work hard, you will be rewarded with money and success”. The elderly of Generation Y are not yet in “command centers” of the big companies to significantly change the organizations from the inside out and take refuge, if they can, in alternatives like self-employment. The younger ones of Generation Y and Generation Z go (I suppose because of the lower attachment) other ways and study longer, live longer with their parents, travel the world first or work only the minimum in precarious jobs. They are united by the wish that both work and life must give meaning and fulfillment. The boundaries between professional and private life are disappearing. That is also no problem. There just has to be the real possibility of self-determination about the division and both have to be fun.
Generations Y and Z have already recognized that the wage labor system now has more disadvantages than advantages for them. They have exposed the failure of the neo-capitalist mantra “If you are diligent and work hard, you will be rewarded with money and success”. The elderly of Generation Y are not yet in “command centers” of the big companies to significantly change the organizations from the inside out and take refuge, if they can, in alternatives like self-employment. The younger ones of Generation Y and Generation Z go (I suppose because of the lower attachment) other ways and study longer, live longer with their parents, travel the world first or work only the minimum in precarious jobs. They are united by the wish that both work and life must give meaning and fulfillment. The boundaries between professional and private life are disappearing. That is also no problem. There just has to be the real possibility of self-determination about the division and both have to be fun.
What is the alternative then?
The previous system does not seem to be good enough anymore or does not work for many people. However, the realization alone does not help. Where is the alternative? It actually does not seem to have been finally found or developed yet. However, in recent years, companies such as Buurtzorg, FAVI or Patagonia6 have repeatedly crystallized that are reorganizing the organization and giving employees a greater say and scope for creativity. They are taking a new approach to leadership and letting the teams decide how the work is to be done. As far as the literature shows, this seems to be well received by the employees and also works well. Whether this is already the solution or only further experiments on the way to the alternative is a matter to be explored. They at least confirm Bergmann’s approach that freedom of action makes new and better work possible. New work.
Ressources
1 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frithjof_Bergmann#New_Work
2 Auszug Neue Arbeit, neue Kultur, Bergmann, 2004
3 Organisation für Komplexität, Pfläging, Redline Verlag, 2014
4 Vgl. Personalmanagement Führung Organisation, Kasper/Mayerhofer, Linde Verlag S140ff
5 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorismus
6 Vgl. Reinventing Organizations, Laloux, Vahlen
