The metaphors we use when we talk about work have an impact on how work is designed in organizations. The predominant metaphor is “labor as a resource” as in Human Resources. That metaphor results in those who design how organizations function limiting their conception of workers as a means to an end. There is no question that workers in an organization are the means through which an organization accomplishes its goals. But the metaphor ignores the reality that workers are also an end in themselves, not just a means to an end.
The use of any metaphor is not a conscious intent to explain or to justify actions. Rather the metaphors that guide much of our thinking are so well embedded in our cognition that they no longer even seem to be metaphor, rather they appear to us as just the ways things are. For example, the common metaphor “argument is war” results in us approaching any argument in terms of defending our position and of winning the argument. When a problem arises between two people the “argument as war” metaphor precludes our consideration of collaboration or of considering the other’s perspective.
Similarly, the metaphor of “labor as a resource” results in organizations viewing jobs as a cost that, like the cost of raw materials and tools, should be kept down. With this mindset, cheap labor is viewed as a good thing, much like cheap oil. If human beings are viewed as a resource to organizations they can be treated in the same way as supplies and tools, that is, obtain labor at the least cost and replace or eliminate workers when profit is threatened, with no need to consider the mental health consequences of lay-offs. The metaphor also leads organizations to make no distinction between meaningful work and dehumanizing labor, no need to think about job design to make work more interesting.
When an organizational problem arises that demands change, the typical organizational response is to ask smart people (a consultant or a high-level committee) to think through the problem and the solution; have the people in authority approve the plan; then those in authority instruct their subordinates to execute the plan. The organization sees no need to engage the workers, who will be impacted by the change, in either designing or determining how to implement the change because the workers are viewed as “the means” not the thinkers.
Human beings work to provide sustenance for themselves and their families. They also work because work gives meaning to their lives. Weisbord has written, “Democracy is a tough way to live. With all its flaws, I think it beats the alternatives. I do not wish to have someone else, no matter how educated, well intentioned, wealthy, or wise, decide unilaterally what is best for me. Unless we are deeply involved in our work, we cannot feel good about ourselves. Unless we work with others toward valued goals, we cannot infuse hope and aspiration into our lives. Unless we treat one another as equals, we cannot find dignity, meaning, and community in work. Unless we make our own mistakes, and learn to forgive ourselves, we cannot learn at all. Unless we cooperate we cannot survive.”
Twenty-first century organizations want and need engaged workers, and bemoan the lack of engagement that current surveys report. Organizations ask employees to put their energy, time, and best thinking into the time they spend at work. The metaphor of “labor as a resource” is inconsistent with the push for engagement. If organizations want workers who engage rather than just accept the status quo, then they will have to view workers as humans who have the ability and right to help shape the organization’s actions, goals and direction. As Weisbord’s words explain, engaged workers have a voice in “the end” as in, what that organization does, what it stands for, its culture, and its values.
The two views of “labor as a resource” and “engaged workers” are incompatible. Finding a new metaphor for “labor as a resource” would be a start. Even the current slogan of “our people are our most important asset,” is not much of an improvement. It is not much better to be thought of the same category as capital, buildings, and patents. Until the metaphor that guides our cognition validates workers as “an end” as well as “a means,” engagement is unlikely.