Damianus Abun
(The whole paper will be published in the Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities)
Introduction
To understand work ethics, one should know the philosophy of work. Without a proper understanding of the concept
of work, one will only understand the moral norms of work which lead us to
bias. Work ethics is a secular concept and has no association with any
religious belief or norms. The purpose of this paper is to explain the philosophy
of work and the concept of work ethics and its dimensions. After reading it,
one must understand that work is our nature and a way of perfecting ourselves
and it is not only a means for getting a paycheck.
The
Philosophy of Work.
The concept of work ethics can be understood well after one understands
the philosophy of work. Because work ethics is about one’s attitude toward work
and therefore it is closely related to the philosophy of work. It concerns how we should look at or view
work. Therefore, in this part, we are looking at the definition of work and how
different philosophers view work. Dictionaries may provide us with a glimpse of
the meaning of work which we will connect later to the philosophy of work
according to different philosophers. Dictionary.com which originated from
Oxford Languages define work as “activity involving mental or physical effort done to achieve
a purpose or result". The same definition is also found in the Free
Dictionary which defines work as "physical or mental effort or activity
directed toward the production or accomplishment of something. These
definitions present the nature of work which is not only a physical activity
but also a mental activity which includes works that do not demand physical movement
but involve only mental activities that lead toward certain objectives or
results. This definition is also found in Britannica's (2023) concept of work.
It emphasizes physical and mental activity that should bring change as its
objective, to attain something that one desires (Britannica, 2020). All
definitions of work do not identify specifically what the purposes of work are
which allows us the freedom to review different ideas from authors and
philosophers about the purpose of work.
Concerning the
purpose of work, different authors and philosophers offer different views.
Plato's concept of work can provide us with a glimpse that opens our views
about the significance of work, how people should work and why they work. Plato
classified the citizens based on their natural character and assigned work
according to their natural capabilities to contribute to the welfare of the
city-state (Cholbi, 2022). All citizens have to work to support the city-state.
From Plato's way of assigning work to people according to their natural
capabilities, one can have an idea about the nature of humans and the
importance of work. By nature, human beings are workers, they are born to work
and based on Plato's view of work, as cited by Cholbi (2022), the purpose of
work is for the improvement of social and personal life or the perfection of
the self. His view indicates that all members of the city-state must work to
contribute not only to the betterment of society as a whole but it is also to
the betterment of life as a person. Reading the concept of Plato, one can
immediately interpret that the work is an instrument for social change and an
individual's life change. Through work, a person contributes something good to
society's development and also through work, a person can make their life
better and more meaningful (Ward & King, 2017). The concept provides us
with the idea that work has dual functions for the self and others or society. However, this concept is challenged by
totalitarianism and capitalism. According to totalitarianism, the purpose of
work is for the good of the community or state and in the case of capitalism,
it is for private gain, therefore one can have a choice to work or not to work
as pointed out by Little, (1948) and not for the perfection of the self. From
these two views, the existence of a person is measured in terms of his/her
contribution to the community or state and how much wealth he/she accumulates.
Under the concept of totalitarianism and capitalism, a worker is a slave to the
community or society and a wage slave because work is considered a way to
obtain a means of life. As Richard (1998) pointed out many people have seen
work as an occupation, a means to gain their livelihood and this concept has
been dominating the concept of the market economy.
The confusing view of work results in unnatural working conditions and
job dissatisfaction. A wrong philosophy of work views work as a means of
getting a paycheck, getting more wealth and helping society or family. Schwartz
(2022) pointed out that work as a means of getting money is false because this
idea leads us to get the wrong notion about why people attend to their work.
Management has been possessed by this wrong idea that employees show up for
work when they are paid. This wrong idea is the reason why so many
organizations continue to treat their employees as if they are motivated solely
by paycheck (Nesterak, 2022). Resolving the different views of work, Little,
(1948) offers an original view of work. He defines work in two senses which we
are going to adapt in this paper. In a narrow sense, work is manual labour and
in a broader sense, work is a deliberate production by man to change matter for
man. Manual labour or any kind of actual operation on a matter is work since it
is directly a change of matter. By working, one generates goods, be it material
objects or experiences and state of mind (Cholbi, 2022) that others can value
and enjoy in their own right. Thus, in many cases, a person or a worker is
compensated not for the performance of labour as such but because their labour
contributes to the production of goods that have objective value (Cholbi,
2022). This concept suggests that work involves, not only physical work but
also the mental effort that directs those who change matter or who produce goods
that are valued by others.
Concerning the purpose of work, Little (1948) pointed out that it is not
only for the good of the community or state and not only for obtaining wages
for a living but work is for the perfection of the self because, by nature, man
is intended to be a worker as part of his natural purpose (Little, 1948) and
therefore life without work is against human nature and a man by his/her nature
is a worker and is his/her purpose and through work, man perfects his nature by
doing some of the visible good in the material world. These concepts emphasize
the point that work is a central life interest (Sharma and Rai, 2015). Thus,
work is good in itself to the worker since it is his/her purpose to perfect
himself/herself and not for the good of others or money and thus, he/she should
be content with his/her achievement by doing a good job, even if he/she is not
rewarded or praised because work is own reward.
The concept of work as presented by Little (1948) is contradictory to
the contemporary concept of work. The contemporary view of work is always
related to employment, as a means to get a paycheck through their labour. The
current concepts of work undermine other kinds of work which are not always
related to paycheck. Little (1948) provides us with a broader view of work
because it opens our minds that work should not always be associated with
employment to gain money for a living. Many people out there are not working
for a paycheck and not for others or the community but they work for
themselves. The value of work does not depend on its exchange value which
depends on the appreciation of others and the money he/she receives in exchange
for her/his work. If the value of work depends on its exchange value, then work
becomes a burden and consequently, the worker does not enjoy doing it (Cholbi,
2022). If this is the case, then the value of work is determined by external
value and has no intrinsic value. Aristotle as cited by Clark
(2017) pointed out that the value of work is related to human rationality and
work is an exercise of human rationality, in the sense that a human perfects
himself/herself through work. Work is the realization of our nature as rational
beings because, through work, human beings develop and exercise their rational
power ((Elster
1989, Sayers 2005).
The Concept of Work Ethics
Understanding the philosophy of work helps us understand work ethics.
Philosophically, work is a physical and mental effort and it is not an
obligation to society and an instrument to earn a living but it is a means for
self-perfection. Based on philosophy, man, and work are not separated but work
is an integral part of man because work itself is the nature of man. By nature,
man is intended to be a worker as part of his/her natural purpose (Little,
1948). Work should not be associated with employment and a means of making a
living because it is the life of man. Emanating from the basic philosophical
view of work, work ethics have been defined differently by different
researchers with different emphases. Bazzy (2018) views work ethics as “an
individual’s attitude toward work and effortful activities”. This definition
does not indicate what the attitudes toward work are and what the purpose of
effortful activities is. This confusion can be explained by Bouma, (1973), and
Nelson, (1973) as they define work ethics as “a belief in the value and
importance of work for its own sake”. Based on this definition, the purpose of
work is for its own sake and not for any other things because work is an
essential part of human existence. This definition is consistent with the
philosophy of work that work is natural and part of human nature. While
Lessnoff (1994) considers work ethic as “a complete and relentless devotion to
one’s economic role on earth”. Following
his definition, it appears that work is a fulfilment of the “homo economicus”
(economic man) nature of human beings (Petrovic, 2008). Homo economicus theory
suggests that man is a rational being who makes a decision and pursues wealth
for his/her self-interest (Efeoğlu & Çalışkan, 2018). In other words, economic
production is the determining factor of man or society (Petrovic, 2008). This
concept may not be necessarily in contradiction with the philosophy of work as
a part of human nature and a means for self-perfection because the purpose of
rational power is to change matter into goods that have objective value (Cholbi, 2022). This concept explains that man is a creative being and
able to realize his/nature as a rational being through his/her creativity,
activity or work (Petrovic, 2008).
Related to the effect of work ethics on outcomes, many studies have been
conducted. Bazzy (2016) pointed out that work ethic particularly hard work is
associated with success. This was already pointed out by an earlier study by Mudrack (1997)
which concluded that individuals who hold strong work ethics tend to be more
committed, satisfied and engaged in their jobs. This result is similar to the
research finding of Marri, et al (2012) which measures the effect of work
ethics on organizational commitment and turnover intention. The study found
that work ethics are significantly correlated with organizational commitment
and turnover intention. The same result is also found in the studies of Ud Din,
et al (2019), Athar, et al (2016), Udin, et al (2022), Aflah, et al. (2021),
Salahuddin (2011) and Salahudin, et al. (2016) which work ethic affects job
performance, job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The confusions between the philosophy of work and work ethics result in
the confusion of dimensions of work ethics to be measured. Concerning the
measurement of work ethics, there have been conflicts among researchers. The
conflicts were about the dimensions of work ethics whether it is a
multidimensional construct or a single-dimensional construct. Miller (2002)
argues that work ethics is a multidimensional construct which is composed of
several dimensions namely work-related activity, attitudes and beliefs, and
motivation which is reflected in behaviour. According to him, work ethics does
not refer to a particular job and behaviour and does not reflect any religious
beliefs and values because it is purely secular. Bazzy (2018) also considers
work ethics to be a multidimensional construct that consists of two dimensions
which are hard work and self-reliance. Van Ness, et
al. (2010) further view work ethics as a multidimensional construct which
includes seven dimensions: self-reliance, morality/ethics, leisure, hard work,
the centrality of work, waste of time, and delay of gratification. However, Sharma and Rai (2015) rejected the multidimensional measures of
work ethics on the basis that these dimensions were not going through a
rigorous assessment of the validity and they were based only on the Protestant
work ethics construct which is against the philosophy of work ethics to be
secular and free of religious beliefs and such was the basis for them to
construct their scale to measure the work ethics and their study concluded that
work ethic is a single – dimensional construct or uni-dimensional construct
which is composed of three components which are work centrality, moral
approach to work and intrinsic work motivation. According to them, though they
seem to be three dimensions, they are treated under a single dimension which is
called the work ethics dimension which contains the attitude toward work, the
moral attitude toward work and the motivation of work. Sharma and Rai (2015)
successfully constructed the 10-item work ethics scale and passed through
convergent and discriminant validity.
In the current study, we are adopting the single-dimensional construct of Sharma and Rai (2015) because the construct is in line with the philosophy of work in which the focus is the attitude toward work and we are using the 10 Work Ethics Scale of Sharma and Rai (2015) because the scale has been going through validity testing and free of religious bias.
Conclusion
Work is not
only one way of contributing value to the state or community, and a
means for getting a paycheck, but work is for the perfection of the self because,
by nature, man is intended to be a worker as part of his natural purpose
(Little, 1948) and therefore life without work is against human nature and a
man by his/her nature is a worker and is his/her purpose and through work, man
perfects his nature by doing some of the visible good in the material world. Work ethics is about one's attitude toward the work.
References.
Arieli, S., Sagive, L. & Roccas, S. (2018). Values
at Work: The Impact of Personal Values in Organizations. Applied Psychology,
69(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12181
Aristotle.
(1941). Politics (B. Jowett, Trans.). In R. McKeon (Ed.). The Basic
Works of Aristotle, 1114-1316. Random House.
Bazzy, J.D. (2018b). Work Ethic Dimensions as Predictors of Ego
Depletion. Current Psychology, 37, 198–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9503-6
Cholbi, M. (2022). Philosophical Approaches to Work and Labor.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/work-labor/
Clark, S. (2017). Good Work. Journal of
Applied Philosophy, 34, 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12137
Elster, J. (1989). Self-realisation
in Work and Politics. In J. Elster
and K.O. Moene (eds.), Alternatives to Capitalism. Cambridge
University Press, 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052500000327
Leo XIII (1891). Encyclical-Letter
“Rerum Novarum”. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va
Little,
A. (1948). The Philosophy of Work. The Irish Monthly, 76(896),
56–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20515765
Marri, M.Y.K.; Sadozai, A. M.;
Zaman, H. M. F. & Ramay, M.I. (2012). The Impact of Islamic
Work Ethics on
Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: A Study of Agriculture Sector
of Pakistan. International Journal of
Business and Behavioral Sciences, 2(12) 32-45
Miller, M.J.,
Woehr, D.J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The
meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a
multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(3),
451–489. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1838
Mudrack, P. E.
(1997). Protestant work-ethic
dimensions and work orientations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 23(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00041-X
Nesterak, E. (2022). Incorrect
Ideas About "Why We Work" Warp Our Organizations…And Our Views of
Human Nature. Behavioural Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/
Richard. A. (1998). Work, philosophy of. Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/work-philosophy-of/v-1. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-S068-1
Salahudin, S.N., Baharudin, S.S.,
& Safizal, M. (2016). The
Effect of Islamic Work Ethics on Organizational Commitment. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 582-590.
https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00071-X
Sayers, A. (2005). Class, Moral Worth and
Recognition. Sociology, 39(5), 947–963. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038505058376
Schwartz, B. (2022). Why We Work.
Simon & Schuster, Inc
Schwartz, A. (1982).
Meaningful work. Ethics 92 (4), 634-646.
Sharma, B. R., & Rai, S. (2015). A Study to Develop an Instrument to Measure
Work Ethic. Global Business Review, 16(2),
244–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914564417
Sharma, B. R., & Rai, S. (2015). A Study to Develop an Instrument to Measure Work Ethic. Global Business Review, 16(2),
244–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150914564417
Ud Din, M., Khan, F., Khan, U., Kadarningsih, A.,
& Darmi, S. (2019). The Effect of
Islamic Work Ethics on the Job Performance: Mediating Role of Intrinsic
Motivation. International Journal of Islamic
Business Ethics 4(2), 676.
https://doi.org/10.30659/ijibe.4.2.676-688
Udin, U., Dananjoyo, R., Shaikh, M., & Vio Linarta, D. (2022). Islamic Work Ethics, Affective Commitment,
and Employee’s Performance in Family Business: Testing Their Relationships. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221085263
Van Ness, R.K., Melinsky, K., Buff, C. & Seifert,
C.F. (2010). Work Ethic: Do New
Employees Mean New Work Values? Journal
of Managerial Issues, 22 (1), 10-34.