Just Work

Citation

Edgar, F. (2007), "Just Work", Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1000-1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480710822481

“Just Work” is an essay authored by Russell Muirhead from Harvard University's Government Department. The book offers a well‐written and comprehensive contemporary view of meaning of work at both the societal and individual level. In this essay “work” is considered as common or social good as well as an internal or individual good.

This essay initially hinges itself around the question “Do we work solely because we have to or is “work” something more?” Muirhead suggests it is the latter, essentially arguing that work is more than an activity we engage in to pay the bills – indeed, he considers work as being something that “both expresses and forms who we are” (p. 13). In other words not only is work an instrumental activity, but it is also a means by which we define and possibly self‐actualise ourselves: Work should be a source of fulfilment for the worker. For this reason Muirhead suggests a fit is required between the type of work we do and who we are. This notion is not new. It is something that academics and practitioners in the field of human resource management (HRM) are very familiar with. Indeed the following view about work today expressed by Muirhead could quite have easily emanated from an HRM text:

… today's world of work demands flexibility in the face of insecurity and change. Faced with the real prospect of changing firms or careers, workers need to consider how the competencies they develop through work form a portfolio that might be marketed elsewhere. Today's workers are called on to relate more immediately to the actual work they do, and to consider how this fits with their aptitudes and purposes. The task today is not so much to fit in as to find work that fits us (p. 38).

Muirhead's notion of “fit”, however, differs from the HRM view of “fit”, which is developed primarily from a managerial or organisational perspective and associated mainly with the HRM functions of employee selection and socialisation. For example Muirhead offers the following conceptualisation of “fit”:

Intuitively fitting work is clear enough: to say “that job is a good fit” signals both that one does it well and that to some degree one thrives in doing it well. Yet doing a job well and thriving in it are very different, and this difference points to two distinct understandings of fit. The first involves processing the aptitudes that enable us to carry out jobs that society needs performed. In this case, what we fit are the tasks that society generates: by virtue of fitting our work, we are useful to others and contribute to the society. All useful work involves some fit between our dispositions, skills, and talents, on the one hand, and the needs and wants of others, on the other. This fit is important, so far as it goes: that work contributes to the common good is a central part of its justice (pp. 48‐49).

But it is always possible that we might do useful work, and even do it well, yet experience it as dull, meaningless, repetitive, or deadening … This concept of fit is more emphatically centred on the individual and involves harmonious alignment between the processes and purposes we engage in at work and something distinctively our own, such as our goals, values, or good development. This tension between serving social needs and serving our own purposes is at the heart of the problem of meaningful work (p. 49).

This perspective, in line with the unitary assumptions that underpin HRM, sees HRM as the means to “fitting” the worker within the organisation – rarely is consideration given to the worker establishing some sort of fit with their work. Muirhead's dual and mutually rewarding conception of “fit” is a refreshing change as was the opportunity to read a book centred around work and its implications for the worker. While HRM might perceive mutuality to exist in employment relationships, Muirhead strongly urges us to view this as a necessity – and this supports recent calls in the HRM literature for more research to include the workers voice on HRM.

In presenting his argument Muirhead draws on theorists from a variety of disciplines, including sociology and economics. In doing so he does not assume the reader is familiar with these works and continually provides brief synopses of central tenets of the theoretical works referred to so that the reader does not get lost in the ensuring discussion. Muirhead also guides the reader with the use of relevant, illustrative examples drawn from the workplace.

The notion of “fit” put forward in this book offers what could be considered an “ideal” conceptualisation of the worker and the worker's ability to have a “choice” in the type of work they do to ensure fulfilment is achieved. However, Muirhead makes it very clear that a situation of “perfect freedom” in relation to choices about work is not an accurate reflection of the reality experienced by most workers. Muirhead's argument for “fit” is located within a framework of justice (i.e. “just work” – “receiving what one ideally deserves” p. 168) in employment. Throughout this essay Muirhead deals with how factors, such as history, have impacted on “just work”. The economic and market context of employment relationships are also factors that are elaborately addressed. While discussion of these issues was necessary to support Muirhead's argument, the continual presentation and re‐presentation of some of these contextual themes throughout the book is a feature that became irritating. In the end Muirhead concludes by seeing an “ideal fit” as something we can work towards, not something that has been achieved or is even necessarily fully achievable. He does suggest however, that badly fitting work can be made better fitting by engaging workers in the work process, through efforts such as employee empowerment and the like.

While many of the issues raised are of importance to HRM practitioners and academics alike, such as emphasising the mutually rewarding nature of work and the importance of justice in employment relationships and the need for a work‐life balance, the book is not easy to read. While some practitioners may struggle with the presentation of the arguments, the book is recommended to HRM academics as it offers some valuable theoretical perspectives and insights on the nature of work and the worker today.