Good
We are coming to some interesting times for us in the world; based on the socio-economic, geo-political and neo-business shifts we’re experiencing.
We’re even questioning what we mean by good.
Good economic policies, good replacements for those economic models that don’t appear to be working well enough to close the gap in wealth distribution and whether even a unequal wealth distribution situation should be a strong feature of a thriving economic model and that it’s good for everyone’s interests to have those who have yachts, and those who’re have nots.
I’ll admit. I’m drawn to some socialist-like ideals of egalitarianism, equality and levelling out. I’m a romantic about a lot of this. Especially when it comes to work. The thing (work) that — and I honestly didn’t plan it this way; it’s just happened - has become a massively critical factor in defining who I am.
Not that I feel naive either. In some areas under-informed. In some ways, idealistic. In part, a dreamer. A dreamer about work, all of it, being good.
Good work formed the recent report by Matthew Taylor, the Chief Executive of the RSA.org in his report to the UK Government. Before we look at good work, let’s look at Matthew’s definition of bad work:
…bad work — insecure, exploitative, controlling — is bad for health and wellbeing, something that generates cost for vulnerable individuals but also for wider society.
So we don’t want more bad work. If you ask me, we’ve got way too much of that. Too much that people have to endure and feel let down by as not fulfilling, but tolerate (mostly).
Most of us need to work to earn money to support our loved ones, ourselves, our causes. Not many of us are independently wealthy enough to do something we might choose to put effort into (but isn’t a job) simply because it’s a passion of ours. Not many that people, despite the wonderful Soren Kierkegaard prose, are comfortable with idleness.

Voltaire would take Soren to task.

And plenty of conspiracy theorists will say to Voltaire, that work is there to keep the masses in some form of dependence to maintain order through that compliance.
Debt — far from the fuel that drives an economy — has become the best form of containment of anyone who might step out of line and cause mischief because of time on their hands. Debt that we now appear to carry around from student to worker to family to some form of retirement plan that keeps us working.
Far from being a gloomy post though, I wanted to challenge the assertion that we don’t need to work.
I believe, like Voltaire, that we do need to be doing something; and that’s called work because we’re using time, expending kilojoules in some form of physical endeavour or using our mind and communicating through gestures, words or writing. It’s the concept of a job that I’m averse to, not work.
I have the view that idleness is bad for our minds, our bodies and our souls and the opposite of what we (as sentient beings) need. I like calmness, the sense of zen and the shift towards more contemplative and reflective practice in our lives. All good to me. You have to work at being calm, reflective and mindful though. It’s just not the sweaty, mentally-fraught sort of work we’re used to now in 2017.
So to be clear, my view is that the opposite of idle isn’t work, it’s overwork.
Too much. Too consuming. Too demanding. Relentless. Not enjoyable. That kind of work is what we come to associate with overwork AND is also bad work.
It may be that people relish the challenge of their work and don’t want to give up the job they have, but if it’s overwork, it’s bad.
I’m not just talking hours put in, I’m suggesting that overwork prohibits other things you as a human being would like to do as well. You suffer compromises on other things you’d like to do because work is so dominant you have to do all you can in your power to keep it under control. It owns you.
Now, I like the work I do. Love it in fact. I do other things, for sure. I spend time doing things that aren’t part of what work is and yet I do work a lot. I do so through choice and not an illusion of choice. I’ve thought into this deeply and I do what I do not out of force, my choice and my need.
I see my work as good. Good for me. I hope others see it as good for them but I know it’s good for me. And my need is important if not paramount. I exist to serve my needs. That’s not being narcissistic, it’s in all of us.
We do what we do, we love who we love, we buy what we buy, we share what we share, we endanger ourselves for others because that services our need.
Now really back to the Taylor review. The rationale behind the review is the assumption that is:
All work in the UK economy should be fair and decent with realistic scope for development and fulfilment.
And then several contributing factors to this statement:
Because, despite the important contribution of the living wage and the benefit system, fairness demands that we ensure people, particularly those on lower incomes, have routes to progress in work, have the opportunity to boost their earning power, and are treated with respect and decency at work.
Because, while having employment is itself vital to people’s health and well-being, the quality of people’s work is also a major factor in helping people to stay healthy and happy, something which benefits them and serves the wider public interest.
Because better designed work that gets the best out of people can make an important contribution to tackling our complex challenge of low productivity.
Because we should, as a matter of principle, want the experience of work to match the aspirations we have for modern citizenship; that people feel they are respected, trusted and enabled and expected to take responsibility.
Because the pace of change in the modern economy, and particularly in technology and the development of new business models, means we need a concerted approach to work which is both up to date and responsive and based on enduring principles of fairness.
I won’t repeat the recommendations that hint towards legislation, executive powers, codes of conduct etc around gig work, platform work, zero-hours work and status of work for tribunal interventions — these are the tangible calls to arrest some of the developments in the working world that have risen to prominence over the last 5 years or so.
I see the call for Good Work as something of meaning; to become a yardstick to measure the value of work beyond the economic factors; to become a rallying call to all in the employing community; to become an aspired state of being in work we do; and so is something I am fully behind.
Not overly legislated but powerful enough that leaders aspire to want to be good, true, just, worthy. And we as workers, consumers and voices of influence can help shape that with our choices of who we work with, buy from, support and endorse.
And some people I’ve come across have made a choice to be a conscious business. Doing good for the people involved (employees of whatever denomination and customers, consumers or users of whatever denomination) whist also being good for society/community they operate in and around and the world.
It’s already been modelled by John Elkington from 1994 as the triple bottom line.

and made famous in a book by John Mackey (Whole Foods) and Raj Sisodia in Conscious Capitalism.

This way of operating for a company (a conscious organisation) is often referred to as the model of how good work can be.
It also gets labelled as cult-like.
So, ok, if you want, I’ll admit it: I belong to the cult of work. In the context of conscious businesses. People who have designed an organisation and its work to be good not just for profit but for the other 2 factors in this trinity of goodness: the planet/place and the community/collective.
I’m good with that. I’m very happy about belonging to the cult of work for good; as that means I’m not in the traps of overwork, not in the over-adoration of brands who are the darling of S&P / FTSE 500s. I’m equally not tolerant of the places that have become the bad work exemplars.
I believe my work, is to help the working proposition for the many be a better one, a good one, a worthy one.
In the Edelman Trust Barometer survey of 2017, 75% of 30,000 people surveyed across 28 countries said they believed business could be a force for good.
B Corporation feels this sense of good.
Meaning Conference feels this sense of good.
WorldBlu feels this sense of good.
Just Capital feels this sense of good.
The Work Foundation feels this sense of good.
The B Team feels this sense of good.
CIPD feels this sense of good.
The Ready feels this sense of good.
I’m with that cult if that’s what it is. And I’m doing all I can to turn that belief that fuels the members of this “cult” into a reality, as my work. My purpose, that serves my need is that. It’s good work for me and it’s good for me this work.
I’m wary of the wily Bertrand Russell, but I genuinely don’t see my work as virtuous, just good.

I wouldn’t say I’m failing this test either.

I think what Bertrand’s talking about here is you project that importance out and expect others to believe that your work is important.
I don’t have that need, I don’t need other’s validation on the sense of importance.
My work is important to me so I’m not in the nervous breakdown warning zone.
I’m good with good work. I’m good with work. Just not as it’s currently being designed, experienced and endured in the majority of cases.
I’m good with those people who work in more conscious businesses that have created the conditions they work in as good.
The cult of good work is my kind of cult.
