1. Work Has Become a Global Health Hazard

After 50 years of “new work” and countless restructurings, agile transformations and yoga classes, we appear to be stuck in a hellish swamp of good intentions: better work remains squarely out of sight…

Our organizations are still more often suffering machines than wellsprings of well-being; mental health in the workplace, according to an ILO survey, has decreased almost everywhere in the world, and correlated physical illnesses like heart attacks are on the rise. In the UK, 74% of the working population profess to be stressed out. Jeff Pfeffer, the American management professor, sums it up: bad jobs are destroying our lives. In the US, “the paycheck” is already the fifth leading cause of death.

And even on the inside, it seems, we are slowly withering away. In vain, we continue to yearn for more meaning at work… A recent McKinsey study found that over 70% of respondents lack deeper significance in their daily work activities. Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini show in Humanocracy that the majority of jobs continues to offer limited opportunities for creativity or personal growth. In addition, more than 50% of people believe that our businesses still pay little attention to the real problems of our planet.

No wonder maybe that despite all the caco-phonic babble about the "New Normal", a global "YOLO” tsunami (“You Only Live Once") is starting to hit our corporations: 35-40% of participants in different studies frustratedly admit to be ready to jump ship on a quest for more meaningful jobs.

Surely, all of this must cause considerable consternation in executive head and home offices: many of the so-called "new work" measures have been implemented, with grand “bravado”, during the pandemic. So, what’s going wrong in corporatelandia?

2. We Are Hostages of Our Own Worldview

Whenever it comes to occupational dissatisfaction, "new work" ideologists and agility consult-ants are never far away. In unison, they often suggest that the problem is mostly in our heads: we are deploying new practices too much as methods and not enough as true cultural change. We must quickly move away, so their credo, from a fixed and towards a growth mind-set. If only we educated employees to act with more autonomy, awareness and mindfulness, and invested in “psychological safety”, the magic flywheel of more participation and productivity would fast be set in motion.

Hence, maybe things aren’t as bad as they look and remedies are close to hand? If only! To put it bluntly, our work still makes people stupid, poor and sick. A pinch of agility is welcome, but hardly sufficient. And let's be honest: most of those well-known and well-meant “transformations” usually have one thing in common: they conveniently avoid touching the worldviews of our companies, power and decision-making structures (and bonuses) of executives, and performance objectives for employees. Unfortunately, as the saying goes: lipstick on a pig seldom makes a prince (or princess).

Quo vadimos? Complexity theory teaches us that we must always start with "the bigger picture" - we can easily get lost in a quandary of partial solutions. When it comes to the so-called "future of work" that means: it might not really be just about working better, but about better work: a brief flashback across history proves insightful -

• In antiquity, physical work was still largely despised as unworthy of human attention. Even Thomas Aquinas preferred “pure” contemplation and God-serving asceticism.
• In the Middle Ages, work served people for the first time - in addition to making a living – as a means for inner growth and the promo-tion of the good and the beautiful, in com-munity and in the name of God. “Work and prayer” were equally important to the Benedictines for achieving inner peace and cherishing the glory of the Lord.
• The Reformation further upgraded work: Protestant work ethics combined the good-ness of man with the success of his work. Those who practiced useful work well and efficiently, served God. Idleness was sin.
• In the 20th century, God was mostly dead and the pursuit of goodness often forgotten. Success at work and prosperity became ends in themselves and the sole purpose of life – in capitalism, people are there for their work, not the other way around. Over 70% of adults today identify with their jobs. Seniority and salary equal self-worth and social merit - we cherish people who work hard and make lots of money. (Or even better, make bags of money without working hard.) Finance rules!

Sadly, the triumphant rise of work throughout the centuries came at a significant price: in a quest for ever higher profits, people were relegated to "resources" - as cost centres in annual budgets and trade goods on global markets. Deeper meaning and the spirit of community were sacrificed on the altars of mammon. Al-ready J. K. Galbraith famously spoke of "private opulence and public squalor" and whilst capital markets boom and bubble, and the wealth of the world’s richest exploded over the past 40 years, salaries of normal workers are drying up.

Worst of all, we turned ourselves into "happy slaves" and on each other: with blind faith in "financial freedom" we have mutated into constantly self-optimising mini capitalists in a constant battle for the best careers.

Meaning is the “difference between making a living and making a life”: only if we are willing to question our deeply-held beliefs – what we value, our identity within society, our principles, and ultimately the purpose of our lives - can we reorient ourselves and our organisations sustainably towards good work.
 
3. It's Not About Work, It's About a Good Life

But what is "good"? Are there any real alternatives to egocentric profit maximization in an age of utilitarian capitalism? Predictably, there are no simple answers.

Already more than two thousand years ago Aristotle wondered what it means to lead a truly "good life”. In essence, he concluded that the ultimate purpose of man is to reach his highest human potential and flourish (“eudaimonia”). A good life means continuously striving for excellence: being healthy, cultivating one's own intellectual and personal qualities, nurturing friend-ships and seeking mutual fulfilment within society. The most important ingredient in Aristotle's character ethics is moral integrity: we can only thrive inasmuch as we develop practical wisdom and act honourably, to fulfil our inner noble self.

And he made it very clear that “good work” is always a goal in itself, as a means to develop our souls and contribute to the common good. Working is not (primarily) about making money or producing goods, but first and foremost about flourishing, about experiencing pure joy, about expressing our essential humanity, about feeling connected. In Aristotle’s worldview, the individual is firmly anchored in society, because only in relation and friendship with others can we happily "become human" and realize our own calling. Individual “wealth for the sake of wealth” is deemed unworthy of man.

4. “Good Organizations” Wanted

Our enterprises embody and exemplify our “worldview of work”: hence, however “agile” our transformations may become, they must ultimately falter if they do not grow human flourishing and well-being – if they don’t make eyes sparkle with joy! Truth is, we don’t need glossy new theories of work – we need “good organizations” that kindle the invaluable spirit of life!

So, what does Aristotle teach us about such “good” organizations? This is the very question we are asking in our new book project (further information and to participate: www.goodorganisations.com). In our belief, companies enable a good life - we define it as "Aliveness" - potentially on three levels:

• Good organisations are a conscious and intentional part of our wider society and embody - as "mini societies" – our shared responsibility for the common good. Companies are “good” because they act honestly and take care of their environment, beyond simply maximizing stakeholder utility, customer satisfaction, or shareholder profits. Being good is their core business and not wannabe philanthropy on the side (Sorry, Mr. Gates!)
• In addition, the organization represents the centre of social life for the members of the organization. Therefore, its highest privilege is to further the mutual development of its members, within the wider business and global community. By nurturing quality relationships, good organizations “create” good people.
• Finally, a good organization is a trustee for the development of the individual, as it creates opportunities to deploy talents and creativity, with pride and dignity in one's own role, whilst contributing to a greater purpose. Thus, organisations can foster the authentic pursuit of a good life.

Clearly, the explicit realignment of corporate purpose is particularly important. Organizations embody "true nobility" through a more holistic goal that anchors every other commitment in the common good. This is neither about balancing "purpose and profit", as often suggested, nor about adding a handful of additional stakeholders or sustainability tick boxes to annual re-ports; and even less about forced compliance with regulatory standards – it is about the earnest pursuit of aliveness and generativity within the entire operational ecosystem. Good companies proudly strive for excellence for the benefit of employees and business partners, society and nature - for example, through careful use of re-sources, "meaningful" products and services, payment of living wages and taxes, and the promotion of suppliers.

Fair (!) profit is at best a subordinate success condition of professional management and primarily serves the viability of the organization. Rather than CSR, we call it “eudaimocracy”: a good life for everyone, including future generations, has absolute primacy.

Such a reformulation of a company's purpose cannot be done without changing the control logic and articles of incorporation – hence, public companies will have a harder time than family businesses or cooperatives. In this context, competition in the market is meant to spur honest self-renewal, in the service of customer and stakeholder, and not predatory positional obstruction.

5. Humanity Always Comes First

Unfortunately, self-indulgent corporate New Year’s resolutions - preferably in glitzy alpine resorts in Switzerland - or fancy PowerPoint mission statements - in Canary Wharf and else-where - won’t suffice. In order to guarantee the development of human life and creativity, good organisations must “operationalise goodness” and, first and foremost, pledge to create true community. They must become architects and craftsmen of “unity in diversity” - consciously promoting quality relationships be-tween members in the organization and beyond, so that individuals can realize their destiny and identity within the community. This requires “virtuous” organising:

• Solidarity, Integrity and Fairness are the basis of joint work. Solidarity implies commitment to reciprocity, resulting in mutual sup-port, shared responsibility and active engagement in the service of the common cause. It promotes inclusion, but does not impose conformity, leaving space for individual freedom. Integrity is wholeness and demands moral courage, to stand up for “what we know is right”, for the good of all. It goes hand in hand with fairness and every-body’s rights to participate in important decisions.

• Growing together and learning from one an-other requires Empathy, Compassion, Help-fulness and Trust. Trust is the most important fertilizer for quality relationships and paves the way for necessary freedom and autonomy. Trust cannot be demanded, but it can be nurtured by the organization. Com-passion ensures the necessary space for trial and error; a critical catalyst for any growth. Understanding, kindness and helpfulness al-low us to respect and promote diversity and form the basis for listening to and learning from one another.

Thus, a strong community becomes the breeding ground for the development of the individual - not only through the expansion of talents and character, and the evolution of personal creativity, but also through the “spiritual” experience of being part of something greater. In addition to the acquisition of knowledge, technical capabilities and social skills, the aim is to pro-mote personal excellence through self-reflection, consciousness and critical thinking. Here, the focus also remains on embeddedness within the community - the possibility to discuss important life topics with others, to co-elevate and co-validate in a movement of learners, and to foster the blossoming of virtues like honour, friendliness, courage, modesty and self-knowledge.

Maybe at this point it is worth adding that an organisation, whilst very prominent, will - and, in fact, should - never be the only community of learning for any of its members. In order to attain a good life, we must not only “rebalance our society”, as Henry Mintzberg proposes, but also, indeed, rebalance ourselves. Rather than just as employee, or solely as consumer, we should actively seek fulfilment and responsibly contribute our unique talents across multiple constituencies. Here, again, a good organisation should stimulate generous reciprocity and benevolent love (“agape”) not only within its own boundaries, but within a wider “civil economy” and global community.

6. Living Organisations Require "Practical Wisdom"

It is obvious that a traditional view of the company as a “profitability-addicted machine” (OMG!) quickly fails us in nurturing true alive-ness. The zestful interactions in a good organization are organic, self-managing and networked - and continuously adapt to internal and external needs. Therefore, we deliberately introduce the metaphor of the "living organization". In such a new paradigm, structures and processes grow dynamically with people in order to support and strengthen creative drive and unblock the pulsing energy of organisational life. In our experience, people naturally flourish when their environment is vitalizing, nourishing and connected to their ecology: ideally, the community pro-motes the individual, and sparks in the individual an earnest desire to grow and contribute to the community.

More than structures, good organizations need continual care and conscious development. We must move away from our traditional efficiency imperative and superficial "fail fast" cultures - towards a "moral" corporate strategy that embraces and fosters a practical ethics of life. Balancing polarities such as stability and change, autonomy and integration, common good and stakeholder interests - in the midst of daily demands in a fast-moving market - is difficult. Good organizations therefore enshrine the necessary capacity to self-reflect in structures and decision-making rules and systematically pro-mote collective learning and practical wisdom (“phronesis”) of all their members. Leadership and management tasks are radically decentralized and employees act contextually with self-determination and mutual trust in teams.

Decisions remain, however, always subsidiary to the common objective, for example by using "sociocratic" decision-making methods. The principle prevails that good action must remain an end in itself: The aim is to increase the vitality of the interconnected ecosystem through positive and regenerative relationships.

What matters most, to be very explicit, are regular and systematic “breathing spaces”. We need to re-learn to stay “on the balcony” and “with the trouble”: fostering the dialogical and deliberate development of the organizational system, as well as conscious inquiry into “our own roles within the organisation”. Rather than rushing faster and faster, our cardinal capacity to deeply reflect - developing collective conscious-ness and sharpening our moral compass - must be regained!

7. The Rocky Road to Humanistic (HR) Management

Cultivating true excellence in an organisation requires conviction, perseverance and a thorough revision of all existing strategies, structures and processes. In essence, it is about im-planting ethical principles irrevocably in the DNA of the company. Undoubtedly, people managers are protagonists in this endeavour as HR processes often become the Achille’s heel of a good organisation (see table).

This is particularly evident when we approach the hotly contested topic of performance management: in its classical version, the objective of all core components – e.g., target setting, feedback, performance evaluation and pay/reward - is to optimise individual performance in alignment with the overall (financial) objectives of the firm. Fundamental distrust in the motivation of employees guides its traditional implementation: for example, incentives are meant to coax unwilling and work-shy employees into giving their best, whilst normal distribution curves and "forced ranking " are sup-posed to encourage tender-hearted supervisors to give their subordinates a proper “annual beating”. Of course, there is infinite evidence that none of it ever worked.

In the fashionable move towards "Agile Performance Management' the process becomes less about control and more about empowerment and continuous adaptation. Therefore, self-management and frequent revision of OKRs move to the forefront. Targets become co-created in regular “sprints”, rather than cascaded annually, and the annual appraisals are complemented by more frequent progress review “stand-ups” and learning-oriented huddles. Generally, evaluation becomes more about teams than individuals. Agility is therefore a step into the right direction: it is more trust-based and enables mutual learning; yet, the fo-cus remains on learning inside the system, rather than learning and development of the system. Needless to say that the process in most cases is still not truly serving the employee, but mainly aims at greater flexibility of the employee to achieve the (same old) company goals. One-way 360-degree feedbacks and toxic ratings and rankings are lingering on.

In good organizations the focus moves even further away from managing the relationship be-tween employees and their immediate tasks (which are self-managed in and by the team) and centres on mutual character development: the main objective is the joint advancement of talent, good judgment, relationships and co-elevation within the community. Instead of specified tasks the focus lies on the members’ personal desire to participate, develop and self-actualise; rather than feedback it enables and nurtures a personal development journey with support from the team, mentors and "fellow travellers"; in lieu of financial incentives, the community recognises the achievement of important development stages and awards the ex-pression of moral virtues. Salary is only a hygiene factor - also because it is impossible to reward generous reciprocity without undermining the noble spirit of solidarity.

All of this will require radical reforms, by making self-managed workspaces far more flexible (building for example on the famous 15% personal development space in 3M or Google’s 20% project). But, above all, it will require a fundamental change in the way we think about work…