It is interesting to note that, although many books are written about work, it is rare to find a clear definition. The word work is used often and in many different ways. The Oxford English Dictionary affords the term considerable space referring to expenditure of effort, striving, exertion of force in overcoming resistance, tasks to be undertaken, achievement, employment, earning money and to have influence or effect – to mention only a few.

The definition of work in the physical sciences is, of course, very clear – work = force × distance. We are concerned with a different form of work. Despite the many social meanings of the term work, we have found it useful to define human work as follows:

Work is the process by which an idea generated by a person becomes evident in the external world and open to recognition. While this undoubtedly requires effort, it is not simply the expenditure of effort. This definition we use is closely related to Jaques’ definition and can be seen as such by reference to Jaques’ explanation in his book A General Theory of Bureaucracy (1976: 100, 113), in which he says ‘The term work refers to activity, to behaviour, to that human activity in which people exercise discretion, make decisions and act so as to transform the external physical and social world in accord with some predetermined goal in order to fulfil some need’: in short, turning intention into reality (Jaques, 1976: 101).

Schutz (1972) also emphasises this transformation when he describes a person as working when that person is trying ‘… to produce an objective output which is the realisation of a subjective project’. One of the authors, Macdonald (1990), wrote about the concept and particularly emphasises the need for recognition of that process in his doctoral thesis: ‘Identity Development of People with Learning Difficulties through the Recognition of Work’. The link with recognition is crucial because this is what provides confirmation from outside the mind of the worker.

As Macdonald wrote, ‘The whole process allows the person to identify themselves as an active agent in the world’ (Macdonald, 1990). Kegan (1982) in The Evolving Self also emphasises this by saying ‘(work) directs us to that most human of regions between an event and a reaction to it … to this zone of mediation where meaning is made’. Sigmund Freud also stressed the importance of work when he stated, ‘no other technique attaches the individual so firmly to reality as laying emphasis on work; for work at least gives a secure place in a portion of reality’.

Like Jaques, Schutz, Kegan and Freud, the authors regard work and the recognition of it as essential to mental health and well-being; it is a fundamental part of our identity. This is in contrast to views of work as labour or toil. For example, Dahrendorf (1985), says that ‘work in the simple everyday sense of the world, has never been regarded as a particularly agreeable dimension of life’. Marx in Das Kapital even argues that freedom begins where work ends; to paraphrase, ‘instead of working, people are free to fish or write poetry as they please’. (An understandable view given the miserable working conditions of the time.)

This perspective of work as a burden has grown up, in our view, because of a separation of the process of articulating intention from the process of transforming reality. There is a qualitatively different experience between realising someone else’s intention and realising one’s own. This is seen, for example, when completing a specifically defined task assigned by someone else for someone else. Similarly, if the intention is mistakenly or deliberately attributed to someone else, then alienation results. This is why it is so important for a leader to engage with team members so that all of the team genuinely share the purpose (intention). They, therefore, identify with the transformation and have the opportunity to gain recognition for their contribution to the result.

To put it very simply, if in performing work:

1. we are prevented from realising our intentions (either by others or ourselves), and/or

2. we do not get recognition for our contribution to the process and result, then

3. we will not only be alienated from our work but our identity will suffer.

Thus work is essential to our well-being. It is potentially a creative expression of ourselves, especially when recognition is given accurately and appropriately. This definition, ‘turning intention into reality’, clearly extends beyond the realm of employment work. We see small children working extremely hard (adults call it play), applying intense concentration and effort, experiencing immense frustration and joyful success – processes we continue throughout our lives if we are to enjoy a positive identity.

While the definition of work goes beyond employment it is also very relevant to it.

Jaques in General Theory of Bureaucracy uses a most helpful diagram, reproduced here as Figure 2.1, to highlight the process of work.

Thus in employment work we have activity that is directed towards achieving a goal which can be specified in advance. This activity will always be bounded by constraints or limits (see Figure 2.2). These can be variously described in terms of the laws of society (written and unwritten), policies of the company, the specific authority of the role and more particularly, the resources available – materials, money, people and time.

Figure 2.1 The Process of Work (after Jaques)

Figure 2.2 Constraints or Limits Bounding Activities

The goal is set in a time context. It is never open-ended or is it merely a wish; there should always be a maximum completion time, which if not achieved devalues the goal. The person carrying out the work must devise a way to achieve the goal within all these constraints.

Human Work and Identity

The construction of a pathway towards the goal is at the heart of work. The person must make decisions and choices, overcoming obstacles presented by the context, while staying within the constraints. It is this decision-making that is essentially human. No two people will ever construct exactly the same pathway or method. The same person will rarely, if ever, construct exactly the same pathway twice, even if the goal is similar and the constraints remain the same.

The pathway is, thus, unique to the individual; it is like a signature and part of our identity. To a casual observer it may appear to be the same either for a number of individuals performing the same task or an individual repeating an activity, but close observation will always reveal some difference, even if very small.

Herein lies the opportunity for improvement. Human beings have a natural drive to improve methods. Think of an occasion when you have attempted a task for the first time. It is almost impossible to prevent reflection on how to do it better next time. Often in the way that we organise work or design and implement systems in organisations, we inhibit this process or even actively try to prevent it. Nonetheless, most people will at least think about improvement even if they cannot act on those ideas. Inhibiting a person’s ideas for improvement not only frustrates the individual, it destroys an opportunity to advance the organisation’s goals.

If we consider work to be a constructive and productive process that contributes to individual well-being, then it is important that the person carrying out the work is able to identify with the goal. This is not to say that the person would carry out this work whether employed or not, but rather to say the person should be able to see the goal as a worthwhile objective that he or she actively wants to achieve. It is the work of the leadership of the organisation to establish this condition.

The person who is to do the work needs also to understand the nature of and reason for the constraints. It is not good enough merely to be informed of them and instructed to achieve the goal. If the person is not aware of why the constraints exist and the nature of them, this lack of knowledge may lead to dangerous or illegal behaviour as the person sees no rationale for a constraint and therefore breaches it in an attempt to reach the goal. A lack of explanation will also lead to alienation and disengagement. We can find this situation in extreme form in forced labour camps and less extremely in poorly led organisations that use the rationale, just do as I say. That statement effectively replaces a person–person relationship with a person–object relationship (see Part 2).

Thus, when tasks are assigned, the leader assigning them should be clear about the context of the work (for example, the overall state of the market or business or the political or societal situation for government agencies or non-profit associations), the purpose, e.g., to satisfy an important potential customer, and the quality requirements of the output (goal) as well as the quantity requirements. In addition, the person performing the task needs to know what resources are available and what limits are operating. Last, but not least, the time to completion must be clear. None of this interferes with the work of determining how the work should be done (as will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 14).

Clearly, some work is more difficult than other work. Some tasks take more time to complete than others. The pathway needed to achieve the goal may be more or less difficult or complex; it may involve more or fewer abstract variables, in other words, elements that cannot be seen or touched. For example, designing a corporate remuneration system is more complex than photocopying a letter; constructing an effective business plan is more complex than cleaning an office, though both are necessary. These differences in complexity of work will be explored in more depth in Chapter 9.

Whatever the complexity, all these activities require work. They are all about turning intention into reality and they all require the person to work out the best way (the how) of achieving the goal. All of these types of work, in their own way, can be satisfying and creative.

The person in the process of working has to determine the relationship between what he or she is doing and the output. Each one of us has to recognise how our current behaviour impacts on, or is more or less likely to produce, the desired result. It is the understanding of this relationship between immediate process and end product that is critical to achieving our intention.

As such, work may involve an understanding of what is primarily a technical process such as aluminium smelting, electrical transmission, dressing a wound, internal combustion in an engine or digital arithmetic in a personal computer. Work may also require an understanding of what is primarily social a process – leading a team, interviewing or recruiting a potential new employee, providing customer service or communicating information. In employment work there is always an interaction between the technical and social processes and between these and the commercial process (see Chapter 3).

Throughout our lives, we continue to learn and refine our understanding of how process relates to outcome. As discussed in Part 2, we need to predict our environment. We also like to feel that we have an influence and effect on the world. It is essential for our sense of identity and mental health.

Importance of the Recognition of Work

The affirmation of our contribution to the process and outcome of work, especially when positive, recognises that we exist and that the output of our thinking has genuine worth; it encourages us to use and develop our capabilities. This is why recognition of work is so important. It is very significant for the leader to accurately recognise the different contributions of team members.

We have all had the experience of our work being wrongly attributed to, or even claimed by, others. We have also had the experience of our work being ignored. These are very demoralising experiences, causing disappointment, anger and resentment, and often a feeling of why bother?

We use the term recognition because it is a neutral term and does not presuppose a successful outcome, unlike reward. It is essential to understand why a process failed to produce the desired result, and this needs to be recognised in order to improve the process we use in the future. Recognition of apparent failure does not necessarily imply the negative aspect of blame as the person may have done everything she or he could or was supposed to do. Without proper recognition there can be very little learning.

Conclusion

We have argued that, while there are many, varied, definitions of work, the authors have found it most useful to define work as turning intention into reality. This is not an idiosyncratic definition; the development of it is consistent with others’ definitions, notably those of Jaques and Schutz. Like Jaques we see work as essential to a valid sense of identity and productive relationship in the world.

Work is essentially about the how. It is concerned with the construction of a method, or pathway, in order to achieve a desired result. Work may differ in complexity but has the common feature of requiring human judgement and decision-making. Work (especially employment or paid work) inevitably involves constructing this pathway within limits. We cannot do whatever we wish. We do not have unlimited resources.

The final essential component of work is the accurate recognition by another or others (for example, team leader, fellow team members) of our contribution. Such recognition encourages us to use our capabilities to our full potential.