Britain is facing a crisis at work. People want to work, they want to contribute to society, and they want opportunities to develop their talents. But employers are increasingly denying them the chance to do so.
The latest British Social Attitudes Survey reveals something remarkable. Only 4% of people who could work say they do not want to. Meanwhile, 73% believe their work benefits society. Yet job satisfaction is declining.
Why?
One statistic helps explain what is happening. In 1992, more than 60% of British workers had substantial discretion over how they organised their work. Now that figure is just over 30%.
Employers are taking control away from workers, replacing initiative, creativity and professional judgement with standardised procedures and rigid systems.
At the same time, wages have stagnated, opportunities for promotion have diminished, and people increasingly struggle to fulfil their potential.
This is not just a problem for workers. It is creating an economic crisis. Employers are wasting human talent, undermining productivity and creating frustration instead of fulfilment. And artificial intelligence could make matters considerably worse.
In this video, I explain why Britain's workplaces are failing their employees, why this matters for our economy, and whether we might be approaching a workplace revolt.
Work should serve people, not just employers.
Is your work becoming less fulfilling? Let me know in the comments.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Work is facing a crisis in Britain. Surveys show that people want to work in this country, and they want to advance in their workplaces. They want better pay too. But their satisfaction with work is falling. Workers are increasingly lacking control over their jobs, and opportunities for people to develop their talents at work are disappearing.
Employers are creating frustration instead of fulfilment because of what is called ‘routinisation', which means that tasks in the workplace are being deskilled. So is Britain heading towards a workplace revolt because people have had enough of this trend?
The fact is that people really do want to work. The latest British Social Attitudes Survey shows that only 4% of people who could work in the UK do not want to do so. That does then mean that most of the unemployment in this country is involuntary. And 73% of people do, surprisingly, believe that their work benefits society these days. That is a figure that has increased since 1989. Then it was 54%. So the idea that the quality of people's work has necessarily declined is not maintained by this survey. But why then is job satisfaction declining? That is the challenge that the British workplace is facing.
And job satisfaction has declined broadly since 2015.
Most people want to work fewer hours, and fathers are particularly driving this change. People also want opportunities for promotion and advancement at work, and increasingly, they're being denied these chances.
Employers are not recognising the talents within the people they already employ. And as a consequence, the chance for people to earn more is disappearing because they cannot get the promotions they need in the places where they are, and very often cannot afford the risk of moving employment with everything that goes with it. So what people want are opportunities to fulfil their potential at work, but they're being denied them.
And the reality is that work is also failing people financially. Real earnings have increased since 2015, but in overall terms they have hardly changed since 2008. We've now had living standards stagnating for nearly two decades in the UK, for most people. And workers cannot see routes to sufficient financial reward from work. And nothing seems to be changing.
Unsurprisingly, people are disenchanted as a result. And that, when compounded by the fact that opportunities for promotion appear to be unavailable in so many employments, means that people cannot see a way to improve their positions, and that is causing stress.
And at the core of all of this problem in the workplace is a very surprising statistic. Workers are losing control over their jobs. In 1992, over 60% of people in the UK enjoyed substantial discretion over how they organised their work. Now, barely 30% have that freedom. Most workers once could choose how they would deliver the outcome that their employer wanted in the way that they thought was appropriate. And that suited a great many people, and most especially those who are not neurotypical. But now fewer than one-third have this opportunity.
Those with autism, ADHD, and other neurocomplex conditions are suffering badly as a result. And we are seeing that problem as one of the drivers of the number of people who are now not in employment, education or training, and who are under 25, but many others are also suffering for this reason as well.
There has been a fundamental transformation of employment in the UK. Where once people had to bring their initiative to work, now the demand is that they don't. And this is something that has been widely noted. Employers have deliberately restricted workers' discretion. Standardisation increasingly dictates how tasks are performed, and compliance systems have replaced individual professional judgement. And even senior professional occupations are experiencing this change.
I saw it in the world of academia. I know it is happening in professions like the law and accountancy. It is happening in the civil service. Employers are prioritising consistency over initiative and creativity. And that means that people are losing their autonomy, and this has serious economic consequences.
Workers are losing the opportunity to exercise their judgement. Frustration does then replace enthusiasm, and personal engagement falls away. Initiative disappears when employers discourage independent thinking. Talented people cannot use their abilities to the full. And that is particularly true when they're denied the opportunity to advance within their workplace. And as a consequence, productivity is suffering because employers are suppressing human potential.
This, I think, is an unaddressed issue within the economic conundrum that faces this country. It seems we are definitely creating increasingly unfulfilling jobs, even if people recognise that there is a social use to them. In other words, the late David Graeber's prediction that we would have bullshit jobs in this country is coming true.
These jobs exist, and their economic impact is being seen in low productivity and stagnant wages. People are becoming little more than human automatons even when they're doing something useful. Their abilities are being wasted by rigid systems, and my belief is that artificial intelligence could make this considerably worse.
What happens then when workers finally reject this situation? In my view, work must serve people and not just employers. Everyone deserves sufficient income to live with dignity, and financial security must always replace fear and uncertainty. And that is one of the crises within our economy that we recognise now. But it's also vital that workers have autonomy over how they work.
Opportunities for development and advancement are essential, and fulfilling work should be an economic objective because it is part of the goal of letting somebody fulfil their potential in life. And if you can't fulfil your potential in life, you will be disenchanted, fed up and alienated from the world around you. And that is what we are seeing. People are alienated from the workplace for this reason.
So are we going to be heading for a workplace revolution? People want to work, and they want to contribute, but employers are increasingly denying them meaningful autonomy. Financial rewards and advancement opportunities are inadequate. But there's, in any case, not enough opportunity to deliver meaningful work. And if AI does make this situation worse, will the time have come when workers will demand better control over their working lives? And should enlightened employers be thinking about this and now offering it? Do we need this change?
As far as I'm concerned, this is a big issue for the politics of care and the economics of hope. Many of us spend a great deal of our lives at work. If that work is not fulfilling our potential, it demeans us. My concern is that this is what we are seeing on the basis of this latest British Social Attitudes Survey. The surveys tend to be reliable. They're heavily relied upon for forming policy in government. But the point is: who is going to take action on this one?
Government does not employ most people in this country. I know if you believe the far right, you'd think it did, but that's not true. Only one in six people in the UK work for the government. The rest work in the private sector. And the fact is, when is the private sector going to notice that it is alienating one of its key resources, and that is the people who work for it? When will we get work that is fulfilling and which delivers for the well-being of the people who undertake it? Not everybody wants to be self-employed. They shouldn't have to be for this outcome to be delivered. I am looking for a world where work is meaningful.
That's what I think. What do you think? There is a poll down below. Let us have your comments.
Poll
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
There is a major issue with the quality of management in the UK which is not being addressed.
The other thing is a move towards much ‘flatter’ structures. In the ‘old days’ with more ‘pyramid’ structures there were a lot of for want of a better term ‘corporals and lance corporals’ in the system recognised – and remunerated for their skills and whose opinions carried some weight.
There is as well the impact that technology has had on a lot of this – its now possible to see whats going on in almost real time. By comparison and despite being a well established industry with some decidedly ‘military’ habits the Railways had only a limited grasp of what actually was going on ‘on the ground’ until relatively recently. On the ‘plus’ side that meant massive freedom for front line staff but it can also mean all manner of bad and dangerous habits.
I suggest that the challenge is to strike a new balance so that there is oversight of what needs to be overseen and not overseeing what doesnt need overseeing.
Thank you
I agree with John, but I would also add that regulation doesn’t help. Generally I agree with regulation, but it can cause issues in the workplace, when a business is required not just to comply but also to demonstrate exactly how it complies and to have formal processes that show compliance. It is not good enough for an employee to know what they are supposed to do and do it, or for a manager to be aware that it is being done, they also have to complete paperwork to demonstrate they have done it.
Regulation and compliance is not the problem.
It is lack of imagination for and lack of investment in mechanisms that ensure compliance.
Give people the motivation, skill and tooling and compliance becomes trivial.
Instead of designing workflows that ensure compliance with the least friction, employers tend to bolt it onto existing processes, reulting in compliance becoming a process itself and thus generating extra friction.
Approached the right way, compliance can and does add value. Approached the wrong way it is seen as a cost sink.
I agree with you
Part of the reason for it is that employers think they can save money by cutting back on skills training and apprenticeships, and rely instead on low-skill adherence to a set of rules. A massive mistake that is contributing to widespread societal failures, not just problems for the organisations making these short-sighted choices. It’s hard to overstate the importance of this.
Agreed
Likewise, the govt refused to invest enough in the education and training that are needed if potential employees are to have the requisite skills.
Thanks to all for this important analytical article.
Might this mechanistic dehumanisatuion be a consequence/purpose of Neoliberalism?
Might Neoliberalism, by ever treansferring wealth from the not so wealthy to the already very wealthy, presents a choice to the many between increasing subservience and visible dissent?
Might the agents of Neoliberalism be manipulating “our” society with an alleged democracy which is technical and manipulated and not substantive in actual functions?
This is the inevitable result of the neoliberal process that began with Henry Ford and his production line. If you can standardise a process then you can employ cheaper labour that is not required to think, or use their initiative.
In Henry Ford’s case, when he first introduced the production line he had to hire so many times more employees than was actually needed because the once multi skilled engineers and mechanics found the single job tasks so mundane and unchallenging that the turnover of employees was high. Ironically I think Ford had to pay *more* to retain employees.
It’s no real wonder that job satisfaction is low.
The book, “The case for working with your hands (or why office work is bad for us and fixing things feels good)”, by Matthew Crawford is very good.
Robert M Pirsig in Zen and the art of Motorcycle maintenance also has a lot to say on work, quality etc.
I read Pirsig in the 90s. I think the message hit home.
A very apt article, and very thoughtful I’m musing three questions –
1) how would you stuff a million disabled neets into this situation without creating further crisis ( let alone the non neets as per the government’s plans)
2) no one is talking about the loss of actual roles, take dockyards you had hundreds of roles in one place, many roles menial but were skilled – we literally don’t have the companies left for any other work that menial deskilled work. And if we did no one is bothering to pass on skills. Why is this not being picked up?
3) no one is also picking up how many companies have folded in the last three years – we literally don’t have the number of companies required – and after decades of cuts companies have streamlined staff to the bone,
thinking of ww2 this week, everyone was a cog in the machine yet a very important role and it worked seamlessly. Come the 80s you have UB40 and like my mom in That time was the lost generation (ie slipped through employment cracks). And now we are talking about another lost generation missing out on employment – when will this situational blame be placed on the right direction.
Mostly rhetorical I know but still questions I have and how it just seems like it’s just us in Europe that has this crisis so bad – being led by donkeys springs to mind.
In answer to your questions:
1. You cannot simply force a million disabled young people into jobs that do not exist, particularly when employers are unwilling or unable to accommodate their needs. That is not employment policy. It is coercion. We need appropriate jobs, proper support, workplace adaptations and employers willing to recognise people’s abilities.
2. You are right about the disappearance of skilled and semi-skilled work. We have lost industries that once provided employment, training and opportunities for progression. Meanwhile, employers have cut training and deskilled many remaining jobs. This is a consequence of decades of economic policy that has prioritised short-term profitability over maintaining productive capacity and developing people’s skills. It is the economic policy that needs to change.
3. The loss of businesses and the relentless pressure to reduce staffing are also fundamental problems. You cannot create employment opportunities simply by demanding that people work when the businesses, investment and training needed to employ them are missing.
What connects all three questions is the absence of an industrial strategy and any serious commitment to full employment.
We have allowed the economy to be reorganised around the interests of capital and then blamed those excluded from employment for their predicament.
That is the wrong way round. Government should take responsibility for creating the conditions in which people can contribute, develop their abilities and earn a decent living.
Until it does, we risk creating another lost generation.
I grew up in Sunderland. In the 1950s I would often dash to a vantage point overlooking the River Wear to watch a ship launch. The work was dirty and dangerous, however there was a real sense of camaraderie among the workforce and pride in the town because of the incredible ships the town was renowned for. The same went for coal mining, the other great industry of the town and wider area. I didn’t need a watch as I got an idea of the time from the numerous start and finish buzzers coming from all the shipyards and pits, whose distinctive sounds I recognised. Nowadays most people in Sunderland seem to work in call centres or in the Nissan car factory doing assembly work, all hard against the clock, which must be soul destroying.
I then spent much of my working life in training and development, in particular helping employers provide a more fulfilling workplace. We did some long term, award winning leadership programmes for IBM and OKI, which included delegates planning and running a residential holiday for groups of disabled adults. Sadly these ended when both companies decided to decamp to eastern Europe because of lower wages. Perhaps these Companies will return now that the economies of eastern Europe are matching the UK and the subsequent equalising of pay?
I love Jimmy Nail’s song ‘Big River’.
I know it was the Tyne, not the Tees, but the sentiment was real.
And thanks for sharing.
Perfect example. Shopping at a large diy store for a piece of oak trim, no bar code and in the past the person on the till would have looked the price up, but she said sorry, I now have to get someone from that dept to bring me the code. So she called, and we waited, and eventually someone came and gave her a code, turned on their heel and strode away. The code gave a daft price, she looked at me and then at the figure of the retreating person, looked at me in despair, shrugged and put the sale through. I’d already waited ages so took my purchase.
This sort of thing is so frustrating!
In the early 80’s I was trying to write a unit for the OpenTech, for people maintaining large heating systems. I believed, then and now, that understanding what you are doing is the most efficient way for any job. The people commissioning the unit didn’t agree; they wanted training in simple procedures for a specific system. My unit wasn’t adopted. So the problem in this post isn’t really new, but maybe just more widespread.
The evidence is that the issue is not new: it afflicted one-third (roughly) of employees in 1990. Now it impacts two-thirds.
Marx. Alienation. Plus ça change.
Great article. It’s almost the elephant in the room as its always YOU MUST WORK (without nuance) says the remorseless horrors that run the country without taking into consideration any factors of work life and environment, health of a person.
In a place where I worked you were expected to take multiple roles, didn’t matter if you couldn’t do it, you had to muck in. And it wasn’t a case of ‘we are in this together’ which, I have been in that situation and if there is a good working relationship with the managers – camaraderie forms that gets everyone pulling in the same direction. But these employers, didn’t want to employ people with the skills and expected you to enhance your skill set, regardless wether you could do the job or not oh and if you couldn’t – you know where the exit door is.
I have seen people told ‘get out your comfort zone’ a line that has been deeply twisted over time. You do not ‘get out your comfort zone’ when you are insecure, afraid and have no confidence.
Is is any wonder there is little job satisfaction?
Corey Doctorow has written about this extensively, how technology is used by managers to micromanage and monitor worker behaviour along targets driven lines rather than actually manage a human being. He calls it reverse centaur, where a human must keep up with the machine rather than the machine increasing human productivity. In my opinion it is another product of the rot of the MBA Business school, neoliberal thinking. Barely human shaped holes they try to fit people in to match their models. It’s the same thinking that leads people like Badenoch to think she has found a welfare bill saving but has no idea that costs will just be transferred elsewhere.
Much to agree with
At twenty-three I was responsible for the marketing of a piece of scientific equipment. I arranged my own work schedule and decided my own approach to the task. I had occasional meetings with my sales manager which were along the lines of “how are things?” And then a general sort of chat. Within four years I was a section leader in charge of two products.
That was / is my style
I spent a time in the hotel trade which was and still is bottom line focused. The two hotels i worked at situated at Heathrow and Gatwick had low worker retention rates. The HR guy and I started to organise meetings of the various department to look at the problems and potential solutions. At one meeting the question of why where so many glasses being broken in the dish water brought the response. Because you don’t listen a buy the correct trays for the glasses to go through the dish washer. Problem identified, solution found. Asking the people that do the work seems to me the logical way of finding problems and their solutions. Making little improvements helped many businesses in the past to stay competitive and profitable.
There is a certain satisfaction in suggesting or doing something that helps make a task easier or quicker. Time and motion studies have their place but as a guide not as a rule. Training not for a skill has a wider implication of enlarging ones view point and therefore awareness of potential improvement to the skill and process.
Watching your video I can see that I had worked I the best period from the 1960s to the early 2000s. Jobs were plentiful and found in newspapers. I lived and worked in Glasgow in companies that manufactured products. In the 60s Glasgow had many major companies which had started as family ones. By that time they were mostly listed companies and lack of investment caused them to fall behind. In the 80s when the Thatcher government decided that it was better to play games with money than make things there were many closures. I think the growth of multinationals and moving work to cheaper location has removed manufacturing abroad. My latter work as a software developer seems now to be redundant as AI can do it better.
Thank you for sharing.
I went for improving management in the poll. Not because autonomy doesn’t matter. Because I don’t think it comes back without it. So much discretion’s been taken away that a lot of people won’t remember how to use it, or won’t believe they’re allowed to. Managers need to mentor, coach and back people while they find their feet again, and in my experience plenty of them were never shown how either. I see it all the time in the workplaces I train in, and I’m fed up with it.
Michael Marmot’s famous Whitehall studies of civil servants showed that people in lower grades suffered higher rates of heart disease and mortality, despite the notion that people in higher grades have more ‘stress’. One reason he put forward is that it is lack of control of one’s work that is the bigger contributor to stress.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9242799
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)04244-X/abstract
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study
I entirely agree with him.
We have spoken occasionally, at his initiative.
[…] By Richard Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School and a director of Tax Research LLP. Originally published at Funding the Future […]
I was lucky enough to spend my first 18 years with a company (ICL) who gave me masses of training and all the experience I could take. Most of the rest of my working life was in consultancy including management training. Over the years I saw a steady reduction in training by companies, along with increasingly poorly skilled managers at middle and upper levels. Which of course made them more dependent on consultants.
Thats backed up by the data. U.K. has mediocre management and spends little on their training. Not surprising productivity is poor. Flatter structures with fewer managers and more direct reports. Perversely with less delegation and empowerment as already mentioned. Ever more poorly motivated and skilled people.
Once we had Personnel who had some concern for an organisation’s people. Replaced by Human Resources as people became just another resource, like desks and chairs, to be bought and got rid of as needed. Developing people in an organisation has become rare except in the best organisations.
You explain why training may not happen.
Someone – even the employee – might benefit from it, and in the neoliberal world that would never do. Nothing should happen for anyone but yourself, including the corporation, when the managerial hat is on.