The Butcher, the Brewer and the Baker

So the other night I decide to challenge a friend to substantiate the merits of the argument "ultimate job satisfaction..." and to my surprise, my friend and I are no longer on speaking terms after this heated exchange. I am ofcourse perplexed by this but at the same time curious.

Is there such a thing as job satisfaction? Can an individual derive satisfaction from what is modern day employment?

I know that I enjoy what I do and that I would love to land in a career that will challenge me accordingly. But don't get it twisted, my motivation is my number one lady and the fact that I want to do right by her. Anyway here is the gist of the exchange:

In answer to the aforestated questions my friend argued that as an employee it is indeed possible to be satisfied with your job. So I asked her, if this is the case, why is it that remuneration is part and parcel of modern day employment? How come people go to work for a salary be it in the commercial sector or the not for profit sector? Why is it that the United Nations as an organisation offers a salary to its core employees? And that working for the UN is actually a middle class job? (This excludes the United Nations Volunteer program, but even they get an good allowances)

Even in the not for profit sector, which she used to underscore her argument, where people volunteer their services for no emolument, is it not the case that they -the volunteer[s] seek other sorts of rewards driven for example by tangible results of the work that they do? If a volunteer does not actually see the results of the work that they are doing can they be satisfied?

It reminds me of my days in high school where we had a student accomodation building that was under construction pre-my arrival and was still incomplete after I left. Can someone tell me whether "constra" was ever finished? The builders and the school administrators were content to see that some building was in progress but beyond that did not care as to the rate of progress. There was no motivation from the stakeholders (builders, school administration, teachers, parents and students etc) to see it completed. There was a level of satisfaction (or contentment) in the the job done but somehow there was always room for more.

Conversely, is it not the case that the more you earn the less motivated you are to work? By this I mean, the remunaration structures in the work place are structured to reflect the level of development of the individual or more specifically the learning curve at any one time in his/her career. But given that careers do tend to peak after a number of years, or that complete apotheosis is attainable in structured employment, is it not the case that paying someone so much to perform in a specific role and beyond will hit a level of diminishing returns? And at this point the amount of money paid out by the employer is no longer a reflection of the level of input from the employee? Hence the reason why people seek to retrain or to retire. And with the advent of the knowledge economy and all it entails, has resulted in the need for highly flexible employees capable of adapting to the dynamism of the environment. The average career now peaks at 5 years and after this point employees tend to feel the need to retrain or move on.

The rise of philanthropy and social obligations is also a direct result of the need to satisfy the elusive concept of job satisfaction. If one was to pick up a job prospectus for companies for example, Accenture or even Ernst & Young, one of the selling points the companies employs is the fact that they will afford all new employees time to pursue individual volunteer work in tandem with conventional employment. This is in a effort to attract the best candidates and also to try and reduce the level of turnover resulting from a lack of satisfaction.

The great ironies is the level of turnover in the investment banking industry one of the best paying if not the best paying industries out there. (To my knowledge it is the best paying but I stand to be corrected.) The field is a high octane environment and the amount of work one puts in is reflected in the size of pay cheque they take home each month. But it has been noted by some observers that increasingly the trend has been to to opt for a different career once at the age of 30 - 35* or even lower.

I do not think that human beings can ever be satisfied specifically in areas of employment. And any satisfaction that has been achieved in a specific role is short term and eventually-in the long term, the individual (employee) will always seek more. It is human nature.

As for my friendship, I can only say that I am sorry for the way in which our exchange played out. I hope that our friendship shall continue to prosper for many more years to come.


*I have tried to reference my source but can't remember where I read it from. Most probably the FT or Economist.If someone can help in finding this, it will be much appreciated.)