Working long hours is counterproductive to talent retention - through health reasons

When we hire our team, the idea is that they will, hopefully, be able to contribute to our business for a good long while. Hiring is an investment process through which the employer showcases how much they value their workforce; long and generous holidays, equally generous pays, good family benefits, good career prospects are a part of this "respect package". Social and cultural behaviours (such as varied work ethics) can and do impact not only what the employer offers but also what the potential employees expect; where gender and child care are strictly divided, for instance, men aren't necessarily going to be offered the same offers, as they may not be considered as vital, logical or seductive...or, on the other hand, that will still happen because the employer wishes to be modern, or is aware of a trend in change in thinking within their society. How the economy is standing also impacts what this offer looks like - in worse economies, what can be offered, particularly financially, may be less than desired or even needed. Expectations, also, may change on both sides.

While this "respect package" includes socially beneficent rewards, which can and do have positive impacts on both mental and physical health (eg holidays and good pay can both impact how well we eat and socialise, as well as how well and how often we get to rest), and while we have begun to unravel the impact of burnout, even though we are still failing to apply what we already know in a meaningful manner, purely health-related effects of overwork, in particular if this overwork isn't associated with physical work, are relatively little discussed. But the issues certainly exist; so why do we discuss them so little?

And, even more importantly - given that overwork has social, cultural and ultimately mental health impacts as well even when it is just a physical matter, does the "respect package" truly matter if it is poorly applicable in practice?

Does it, in fact, matter if you have a generous holiday time assigned to you, if you overwork so hard during the rest of the time that those two, three weeks do almost nothing for you to relax and recover? Does the long holiday matter to the child you barely know, whose every stage of life is missed, whose ever important event becomes a regret rather than a memory, even though you might spend two to three weeks of the holiday (once or twice per year) together? I say might because there are several factors that feature in where and how someone spends their holidays...summer camps, grandparent visits and the like may change even that time, resulting in little primary caregiver bonding with the child or children. And how is the respect for your free time outside the holidays...are you being pestered by "urgent" emails and calls that couldn't wait? Do they, in fact, also eat into those weeks of holidays, and do you feel obliged to answer because you have been made aware of how "generous" this "respect package" is?

Can it, in fact, be called that at all? It should be...respect is what drives it...but what is the practical application?

It is important to remember that work has complex social meaning, and that even examining it, let alone dismantling the bad parts, is complicated too. That is why it isn't fair to accuse employers on the whole of being deliberately unfeeling or horrible. In my experience, some employers really are horrible and unfeeling, while others simply do what they have been taught is acceptable, and often have equally poor or even worse record when it comes to their own work hours. There are people who genuinely do not know how to work otherwise, whilst others use their power to treat their employees as things...disposable things at that.

The joke, as it were, is on those latter employers. Retaining talent, while we mostly speak about it in social, behavioural terms (as in, you treat them badly and they will leave the moment they can, and the word will get out, meaning all but the desperate will try to dodge the bullet), actually is a very physical thing too. Losing an employee because they died or had to retire early means that you have lost, permanently, the skills, knowledge and personality of the person - you cannot get it back. And whilst employees are often treated as repeatable and abundant, much like single use coffee cups, we know this isn't the case.

It takes time, effort and funds to create a skillset. It takes that same time, effort and funds to repeat them in another person. At least part of that investment is actually on the employer itself. Therefore, mistreating one's team is the worst idea anyone can have if they want a functional workplace. A high turnover impacts work flow negatively; losing employees to overwork, one way or another, even if it's just about them working at a much diminished capacity, isn't any better.

So what does it take to change this? Well, from the perspective of this anthropologist, there are two main issues to consider, and each needs a slightly different approach.

When it comes to exploitative behaviours, the first and most important step to take is create legislation that bans them, and make sure that complaints are easy to lodge, are thoroughly investigated (both because everyone has a right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, even in work-related crime) and safe to report. In this day and age, such decisions are often politicised, with either side of the political scale deliberately going all out on doing not what is best for the country, but what is the exact opposite of what the other side says. But the reality is that exploitative practices actually do harm the country itself - some crime can be traced down to bad interpersonal and family dynamics, which do have a connection with overwork (think absent, tense, overworked parents and children with no real oversight and care); bad familial dynamics and lack of support for children will impact education and therefore value of future employees that are still in school, in financial (taxes, spending power) as well as talent-related sense; and of course, frequent medical needs associated with overwork, and ultimately the financial impact of early death, poor spending (eg when people do not have time and means to socialise or take a vacation) and, again, higher taxes that are impacted by working full time vs working part time. All this means that it is, bluntly, in any country's best interests to combat exploitative work practices, which means legislation.

On the other side of this are the socio-cultural, often deeply internalised, issues. Those cannot be pushed aside by legislation (though it may help); for one, it would be questionable and cruel to punish people for simply doing what their entire socio-cultural fabric says they should be doing. Instead, I think a dialogue is needed, and it needs to be held at all levels of society...including in schools. All too often, we teach overwork as a value, as a signal of "goodness". What if we discussed it as what it actually is...harmful to health and our social and cultural relations? (If you are wondering where the cultural relations come in, think of an important holiday in your culture...then think of the family member who always missed attending it because they were working. If social relations are spending time with other people, the cultural involve spending that time interacting in culturally, traditionally and religiously significant ways, from extended family lunches to religious observances on regular basis if you practice, to taking a pilgrimage, to going to see an event with your family. We humans interact in ways that are more or less specifically culturally significant within all our social relations, all the time.)

The notion of (over)work as goodness also needs to be re-examined. Being "good" has several interpretations : doing no harm to others; doing culturally and socially permitted things; fitting to an examination of self within the demands of the cultural and social space. And that is before we start looking at how these demands feature in the signals we create through daily life, be it by dress and expression of identity or indeed by adopting a schedule that, however punishing, signals that we are not Other.

Now...apart from the first one (doing no harm), these actions may not necessarily mean that we do not do objectionable things. Engaging in violence where it is culturally and socially permitted is still wrong, but may be accepted and even desirable under circumstances where Othering becomes violent; simply not being a minority (examination of self), a thing we have little power over, can be perceived as crucial, whether or not we also do or do not do violent or perhaps fraudulent things. Goodness, therefore, is a constantly negotiable term, which is why especially minorities at work tend to overwork so much...trying to prove that you are deserving can become an obsession, consciously or subconsciously. (People whose identity doesn't "fit right", also, may be held to unfair and constant scrutiny.)

Instead, maybe it is time to reconsider goodness as the action of not doing harm to others, whether it is physical, emotional or financial...rather than either of the other category, not to mention all the steps we undertake to signal that we aren't Other.

Criminalisation often goes hand in hand with assumption based on the understanding of goodness. Laziness, for instance, is a frequent part of these assumptions; criminals who commit horrific deeds are more "logical" if they seem uninterested in work, cannot keep a job, don't seem to have an interest in normative social connections related to work or otherwise. On the other hand, when they do fit all the possible descriptions of goodness, like being successful or charismatic, we are more likely to declare that we are puzzled by the turn of events than with the other group...there, it is a logical turn of events that has been expected. And these terms are often brought out, explicitly or implicitly, when an employee asks for what they have been promised, or points out that the promises have not been kept, or indeed makes an observation that they are struggling and need what was never even promised, but should have been logical. I would call this not just psychological pressure, but a form of mini-criminalisation, because the employer and employee likely start from the same or similar enough social and cultural fabric, in which accusation of laziness does carry implicit criminality and unworthiness.

These discussions are necessary, even though they are hard. Learning to ask and understanding that being able not to overwork is about saving lives as much as it is about creating a work culture that is cognisant of the value of retaining talent not only through rewards, but also through keeping it alive, well and healthy. And while we tend to, currently, focus predominantly on mental health, it is time to destigmatise the physical part of this too. It's not just whether you eat well and rest well and exercise...it's also about whether or not you have the time and means to do so, as well as simply the chance not to break your health through yet another hour at work.

Bottom line : quantity isn't the same as quality. It's time our work culture began to reflect that.