It seems that the work environment is on the cusp of another change. During the pandemic, it was the Great Resignation, where individuals decided that greener pastures were better elsewhere. However, for some, the Great Resignation turned into the Great Regret as they realized the greener pastures were not so green. Those experiencing the “crypto winter” can testify to that.
However, the latest trend which has alarmed managers and executives are individuals who don’t actively quit but instead do the bare minimum to keep their positions. Known as “lying flat” or “quiet quitting”, for some it is an act of rebellion against a system that continues to treat humans as disposable widgets while for others it is an act that could lead to the downfall of civilization.
Why the divergent perspectives? In many respects, it is not only symptomatic of the uncertain future of what work is but what it means for human labor and the recognition that something is changing.
For much of human civilization, we have relied entirely on human capital to drive the advances we have been able to achieve thus far. Whether one references the building of the Pyramids, the painting of the Mona Lisa, or the launch of the Apollo missions, all these civilization building feats leveraged human capital.
Now, however, human advancement is moving from a complete reliance on human labor to something different. What that difference will look like and when a general direction will appear is an open question. It is one that is making humans nervous and justifiably so.
For much of current economic history, we have been driving human capital to be more “machine-like”. Whether it is “management by spreadsheet” or the development of the assembly line, we have continued to drive human capital to be more productive and efficient.
One wonders though if we have reached the pinnacle of human capital productivity improvement. We’ve increasingly seen stories about human capital rebelling against insane productivity targets but the overall concept of “hustle culture”.
While economists and executives have begun to increasingly worry about the lack of productivity improvement, the individuals who are actually doing the work are increasingly wondering what it is all for. Especially as technology continues to replace human capital.
Indeed, this human capital replacement that the economy is experiencing with technology is subtle but is having wider ramifications as indicated with the “lying flat” and “quiet quitting” trends. In many respects, it is the subconscious realization that at the end of the day, no matter how many hours they put in with an employer, they are not only expendable widgets but widgets who will not be able to compete against their replacements. Those replacements aren’t other humans but technology.
As the economic system continues to drive for more productivity and cost efficiencies, many of the individuals doing the work are starting to realize that it is on their backs. Whether it is through keeping staffing levels at bare minimums with very little room for flexibility to an increasing reliance on “unpaid” work from individuals, those same individuals are starting to realize that they aren’t building a future for themselves but working themselves into the oblivion.
So what does this all mean for the economy and for human capital? It means a lot more instability and, perhaps, a realization that today’s relatively static systems need to be much more dynamic.
Whether one talks about the “Great Resignation” or “Lying Flat”, they are all symptomatic of something that has been brewing in the economy for decades. Whether one calls them economic rebels or entrepreneurs, the reality is that there have always been individuals who have realized that the economic system is designed not to inherently benefit the individual but the system itself. As such, for individuals to succeed they need to leverage the system to benefit themselves versus the other way around.
These are dynamic times because the same technology that is making people realize that the system is inherently biased towards itself than the individual is also potentially limiting individuals from escaping the inherent downward spiral we find ourselves in as we compete against technology. The same technology that is enabling more individuals to create their own personal brands and empires to escape the corporate system is the same technology that is making it difficult for some to escape.
Technology is increasingly putting pressure on individuals who are currently most at risk of automation to conform to impossible “automation” standards. One only has to look to highly process-oriented industries to see this trend. Whether it is manufacturing or resource extraction, any industry where individuals still play a critical but declining role in execution are being treated as disposable machines versus human beings. In many respects, it is no wonder that the turnover rates in these industries are at dramatic all time highs.
So what is to be done? For many economists and executives, the belief that a recession will rebalance the scales from the worker to the employer will address the issue, is a fallacy. Yes, it may address the issue short term but long term it does not provide an effective solution.
The reality is that as more people begin to realize that they need to protect their self interest and as the system continues to provide opportunities for individuals to work for themselves versus someone else, the system needs to adapt. What do we mean by adaptation? Adaptation can take many forms but will include the realization that how businesses and societies are run should be predicated on increasing individual dynamism versus stability.
In the past, individuals could count on the “cradle to grave” system to provide a semblance of stability in their personal and professional lives. Individuals could work for one employer and expect to thrive professionally while dabbling in their personal passions. This “cradle to grave” system was predicated on individuals conforming to a relatively narrow set of choices and for many decades it worked.
Today, however, the “cradle to grave” system is no more. While it still exists, it is in decline because of the fact that humans are inherently individualistic and dynamic. Individuals are starting to realize that thanks to societal and technological innovation, they no longer have to select a narrow set of choices but make selections that suit their individual preferences and their individual timelines. At least some segment of the population.
The reality of the situation is that while the individualistic utopia previously mentioned is available for some, it is not available for a significant portion of the global population. There are many who continue to be trapped in the declining “cradle to grave” system not due to their own choice but by their own circumstances.
As economic and societal systems continue to change, we need to ensure that every individual has the ability to pursue interesting and worthwhile opportunities. Indeed, we have an opportunity to reshape economic and societal systems to be more “human” without losing productivity and efficiency. If we do not, we risk societal and economic stagnation.
Leave a Reply