6 ms·
Applying that to MH problems we see that people with mood disorders like depression were cocooned away from stress. "Don't go back to work, because you'll trigg
by michaelochurch 14y ago
Applying that to MH problems we see that people with mood disorders like depression were cocooned away from stress. "Don't go back to work, because you'll trigger another episode of illness". But many people want to work. They do not want to live a life on benefits.
I think the problem is that white-collar professional hazing is designed to weed people out. It's built to separate and elevate the uber-reliable (who are often the least creative) above the rest by subjecting people to contrived stresses and subordination. Investment banking analyst programs (120+ hour weeks) are the worst for this, but it's far from limited to one industry. Most companies aren't interested in someone who can't show that he went through 3 years of stressful bullshit and came out a survivor.
If offices start accommodating people with these illnesses, then the whole hazing program has to be thrown out. I would argue that the hazing is not really necessary for most jobs, but my view is a minority position among the people in power. The hazing doesn't only come from above, of course. Subordinates and colleagues can "shit test" (one of many Game-isms that applies to white-collar employment) just as hard as managers. This is why "too nice" managers often end up with young wolf problems, and the eaten are the people who are less able to deal with the inane, nonproductive stress.
I say this as a person of extremely high creative talent with a mild mental illness (panic disorder) that has slowed my career considerably (now, less so, because the therapies work and I'm down to 2-3 serious attacks per year, although I'd have a lot more if I tried to compete on hours). In this corporate uber-reliability game, I'm one of "the weak" and I'm supposed to lose. The fact that I'm extremely strong in other ways (creativity, software, mathematical intuition, writing) is irrelevant to subordinate white-collar positions.
I absolutely agree that we should give these people meaningful creative outlets and allow them to have purposeful lives. No question there. However, this requires dramatically re-defining "Work". It requires eliminating the years-long wringer of nonsensical competition that people have to engage in before they're trusted to do anything real with their time. We have to blast centuries of social behavior, not all of which is the fault of "management", away outright. It's not something that can be done overnight.
- gnaritas 14y agoSeems to me you underestimate the value of reliability and overestimate the value of creativity.
- michaelochurch 14y agoHumans are naturally unreliable. Everyone has a breaking point. If you need reliability, build it into your systems. I agree with you this far: reliability in systems is very valuable. That's a design problem, which requires (a form of) creativity. The difference between the "weak" person who shatters at a 60 hour-per-week effort (over 12 weeks) and the "strong" one who can stretch to 85 is unimportant, because if you're smart, you don't push people to the rightward side of the decline curve unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Reliance on differences is human reliability is like having a 50% faster processer but implementing an O(n^3) algorithm when an O(n) exists. It made sense in a few pre-technological professional contexts, but no more in the typical white-collar world. You want the creative people who'll automate away the need for human reliability, which is limited even in the most stable people.
- gnaritas 14y agoThat is all true, but it doesn't change what I said. And I don't consider a person weak if 60 hour weeks exhaust them, this is called "normal." If your employer pushes more than 40 on a regular basis, find a better job, that one sucks.
- michaelochurch 14y agoWhether a 40- or 60-hour load is a normal person's limit is beside the point. My point is that the white-collar office regime measures people based on their decline curves rather than their performance under good conditions, and that may have worked at one time, but now it selects for the wrong traits and, additionally, makes typical institutional work inhospitable for people like the OP's wife. Obviously, there are exceptions. You want an uber-reliable person for U.S. President. For a software engineer, you care about overall ability and performance, not worst-case.
- mtrimpe 14y agoI knew some truly great programmers who wrote great code most of the year, but occasionally were suddenly absent for a week because the police picked them up dancing naked in a garden. Even though there are many companies who would immediately fire that person; they are missing out on a lot of potential by doing do.