I work for a business publication and every year at our CEO of the Year awards (and our CXO of the Year awards) the male CEOs get up there and thank their wives for all kinds of work they aren’t getting paid for, plus managing their whole lives and families so they don’t have to. And the female CEOs get up there and thank their mentors for believing in them and hiring them into those positions. It’s so strange and unsettling!
My first reaction was something like, “Oh, well, at least they’re appreciating their wives’ labor!” But ugh, that is just so inadequate. And in some ways, worse? These CEOs have actually realized their success depends on that unpaid labor, and are they just okay with that? Do they realize it means anyone who doesn’t have that unpaid labor propping them up likely can’t achieve what they have? Are their wives satisfied with this arrangement?
When I was last on the academic job market, I interviewed at a small liberal arts college where the prospective department was entirely constituted of guys. They taught six classes a year, offered no junior leave, and expected people to publish a book before tenure. I was flabbergasted - but over the course of the day it became clear what was happening. They were all married. They all had wives who worked in the home. They didn't have to cook, clean, shop, raise their children, or run errands. They were entirely free to live a "life of the mind." There was no way that I, as a single woman, could do what they did at work because I would have a whole other series of jobs out of work to simply live a life. I left the campus visit vowing not to take the job even if it was the only job in the world. (Luckily, I found a position elsewhere.) (This department also forgot I needed to get back from campus to the hotel at the end of the day. Truly stunning inability to think things through.)
This is such a satisfying-yet-frustrating essay -- satisfying to read my own ruminations and reflections made coherent, frustrating because I still don't know what the solution really (realistically) is, whether on a systemic or personal level.
I have had so many arguments with friends -- often leftish and progressive-minded people, in many ways -- who vocally advocate for systemic support (of the disabled and ill, of artistic/creative professionals, of caregivers, etc.) but really devalue the labour that would have to go into that systemic support, and dehumanize the actual people who would do that support-labour. These friends will, for example, laud the creative writer whose work is supported by retreats where food and housekeeping are provided... but decry the cost of the retreat, and really have no interest in whether the cooks and housekeepers are making fair wages or being treated well, and they DEFinitely have no interest in a discussion about how the cooking and housekeeping could be as valuable to society (and as skilled! there is no "unskilled labour"!!) as creative writing. It's maddening.
I wish I could find better language for these arguments, and this essay certainly has a lot of that. Maybe I'll just forward this to them, and hope it penetrates better than the points I've been able to express in the moment! 😅
One central source of job creep is the growth of digital channels. We talk a lot about how work never seems to stop because we are constantly attached to our email and various communication channels. But we underappreciate how much the volume of work has multiplied (without the same multiplier in revenue/profits to hire in the same multiple) as a result of moving from being in-person exclusively, to being on multiple digital channels.
To take a mundane example, a retail store used to be focused exclusively on serving customers in the physical store. But for any retail brand today, whether or not you have a brick-and-mortar, you are on web, IG, FB, TikTok, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Google, just to name a few. AHP, you mentioned your own job is creeping in so many directions, and I wonder how much of that is attributable to our consumer expectations of creators and brands to find us on whatever digital channel we are on.
In the end, it feels like our workload is expanding, only to line the pockets of the tech giants.
I'm a retail sales employee. I have FIVE company apps on my phone, including Outlook, Teams and internal corp/HR apps. Is my company paying part of my phone bill? Nope. But I am expected to receive the info the way my company wants to send it to me. And the pressure to become some level of influencer is the way of the future: if we don't want to sound like an MLM on our personal social media, I have co workers trying to start specific channels for that.
This is a really interesting framing. I am now realizing that this is part of the reason why digital theatre is not becoming more integrated in the industry. It does require a whole other skill set that really can't just be forced onto someone else's plate and ultimately most theaters just can't afford to add a whole new department for revenue that isn't an established audience.
In institutional worlds (academia, corporate, non-profit), the term “secretary” was replaced years ago by “administrative assistant” or “admin” for short. This is more reflective of the work that admins do. “Secretary” denoted specific tasks, almost always by a woman for one person; “admin” by any gender for a number of people. Admins definitely deserve more appreciation and support from their departments, beyond candy and lunch one day a year.
I keep thinking of how this is going to worse as the boomer bubble moves out of the workforce and more jobs go unfilled. I manage a small team (6), and had one person just move on to another job. I’m stuck in a “middle management” situation where I am constantly fighting for my team’s balance/workload, but am being told we can’t grow staff (can we just “lean out” the process more instead? Spoiler: we’re not going to lean it out by a whole headcount). Of course, demands to do more more more things continue as well, because SHOCK my team is really talented and good at getting ish done and we want to stay “innovative” and try new things, “Isn’t that fun and fulfilling for people?” (not if you don’t take something else away).
I feel this. I was just laid off from a company where I was in management, and the constant refrain was to do more with less. People quit, positions were not backfilled, and the people remaining became more and more burned out and frustrated as they took on jobs that were not theirs. This hurt our work output and morale was extremely low. And leadership would get frustrated with us that we weren't happy (the toxic positivity from leadership was absolutely astounding) or weren't coming up with "creative solutions" to systemic problems. As our work suffered, it was like a spiral--employees knew they weren't doing their best work, so they felt that somehow they were inherently bad at their jobs, which led to even lower morale. Ultimately, none of it mattered due to financial mismanagement at the top.
Thank you Meg & AVV for naming this so clearly. I left a job I absolutely loved last October because I simply couldn't do {{it all}} any more.
A big part of it was knowing there wasn't a step up job in the organization, I was stuck where I was. But I didn't realize until reading your comments that I *also* felt the pressure of working in a very innovative department where we would never get additional positions to help us carry the load.
All of this is why I work for myself. Sure I'm still circling burnout at the moment as I build the business for long-term sustainability, but at least all my effort is benefitting ME and my household entirely, and not shareholders or a CEO's ridiculous bonus, or even just not setting a bad precedent for the next employee. I can't imagine working for a company like that ever again if I can help it.
After 30+ years in academia I co-sign all of this. My grad school years were during the time when many professors were transitioning to use word processors (not yet computers) for their work, and many still had department secretaries type their letters, manuscripts, and exams. It was possible to phone an office directly but also possible to call a department office and be transferred to a professor’s direct line. By the time I took early retirement at the end of 2020, I had been doing my own typing, correspondence, photocopying, mailing, scheduling, and more for my entire career; and due to budget constraints, my university had removed individual faculty phone lines and told us to use Zoom for calls.
I really wish universities and colleges would follow this advice from AHP: “Instead, each organization has to ask itself: what is the work we want, and need, to do? And if you are utterly unwilling to hire more people to do the amount of work we do, and utterly unwilling to decrease the amount of work you do, then you should be honest with ourselves: you’re fine with the human wreckage, [etc.].”
I worked at a regional comprehensive university that wanted to be all things to all students, offering too many majors and too many departments while reducing teaching personnel and offering fewer tenure-stream lines. When the faculty and a majority of students asked the administration to consider, maybe, perhaps, the school did not need to compete in NCAA division 1 athletics to serve the university mission, the board of trustees deemed it essential. Nobody wins. Not faculty, not staff, and definitely not students.
I think also one effect of this that may end up reinforcing the pattern is that people who don’t have secretaries/admins/support staff early in their careers don’t learn how to use them and then when they move up the ladder and do have access to that kind of staff they don’t use them because it’s a skill they never learned, which probably contributes to disinvestment from that type of job. One of the only executive types I know makes a lot of use of his company’s travel support staff and it’s very helpful to him when, say, a flight is canceled — but it’s his experience that other people at his level don’t think to do so. Which means less work for the travel people which probably means fewer travel people jobs in the long run.
I guess my issue with this is in the 'what to do about it' category. I can talk about and acknowledge all these things but ultimately my life remains the same as a person without the means and power to change it. Therapy didn't help.
This is a small answer, but i think we do have to find a way to live in spite of these huge things that we can't control. I get really fucked up when I think about how little say I have in things that will ultimately matter for the world/human race. as a salve, i try to focus on a few things that really matter to *me*, and make total autonomy a practice.
Writing is my main one. Thinking about traditional publishing was a funnel for more global "i am powerless and the world is going to shit" feelings. So I taught myself how to design text, make PDFs (and bind paper books simply) so that I can write and produce books autonomously. Then I uploaded those PDFs to the Internet Archive, where anyone can find them and read them for free. This practice of book-making is a practice in power.
Eventually I want to do the same with cooking and food (i'm not there yet, but someday!).
Practicing autonomy makes my life feel meaningful and joyful, even if there's not much i can do to stop the world from sucking. The practice also gives me more mental fortitude to put resources and energy toward trying to help---I still want to do whatever it is I can do to make systemic change possible. And I think my small practice *does* stop the world from sucking, at least a little bit. Nowadays we're supposed to care and have an opinion about literally everything, but I think it's OK to have a narrower focus. Where else can it start?
I notice you're an Ask Molly subscriber (me too!). Heather Havrilesky offers some great essays that often touch on this topic in her other project, Ask Polly. Here's one that she reposted from 2014, which should be free-to-read:
This is tonic. Thank you for the diligent intelligence you've given to this problem and for being able to articulate the dysfunction of the 21st century salaried position so clearly. This clarity enables those of us caught in it to fight the tendency to internalize its failures.
This is the one that got me to subscribe! I feel this deeply, and couldn't be more timely, as the first employee survey in my company since 7/20 was just released. I will suggest they read it, lol. The line about people doing their job well, for longer and with creativity, if only they weren't doing three jobs? YES. About companies being honest about the human wreckage and toxicity? YES. I'd love to know our turnover percentage, and that of new employees less than three months especially. When you don't train and don't explain, people don't stay. And management just sets up another job fair: what's that line about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and thinking things will change.
This made me think of another issue, related: the people at the top seem to have zero idea that the “extra” they’re asking for is actually a whole position/whole CAREER people go to school for. “Just hire a great new marketing person.” “Mkay, but do you want them to do strategy, graphic design, content/copy, video, or social?” “Can’t we just find ONE person to do that?” :-|
So much yes to all of this. I left my last position for many of these reasons - positions were eliminated, people left, and the work just kept piling up with no new staff to absorb it. It did feel like a moral failure, like somehow I needed just the right productivity strategy and I'd be able to get it all done. Then constantly beating myself up when I couldn't get it all done, when in reality no human person would ever have been able to accomplish the work of three people with the mental and physical capacity of one person. It still felt like my fault. Leadership was unable/unwilling to truly prioritize the work, and everything was deemed "important." Leaders also led by example, working nights, weekends, never disconnecting - all of that was demonstrated and praised by management.
In my new role, I have one job, with realistic expectations of productivity, and I now struggle to feel like I'm contributing "enough," because for so long I used my ability to weather extreme workload overload as a primary way of demonstrating my value and superior work ethic. Therapy is helping, but it's a long process unraveling all of these ideas I have about how I "should" be at work.
I struggle like some other commenters to understand what the solution should be. When I can, I try to advocate for prioritization of projects not just for me but for my department - I'm privileged to have visibility with senior leaders to be able to do so. I try to lead by example, and set boundaries that are visible to others. Focusing on things that enrich my life outside of work, like volunteering and hobbies, has also been helpful. But all of these "solutions" are so individualized. It's incredibly frustrating to really consider how pervasive this is in our (American) work culture.
Can I turn this in as my public library exit interview next Wednesday?
I work for a business publication and every year at our CEO of the Year awards (and our CXO of the Year awards) the male CEOs get up there and thank their wives for all kinds of work they aren’t getting paid for, plus managing their whole lives and families so they don’t have to. And the female CEOs get up there and thank their mentors for believing in them and hiring them into those positions. It’s so strange and unsettling!
My first reaction was something like, “Oh, well, at least they’re appreciating their wives’ labor!” But ugh, that is just so inadequate. And in some ways, worse? These CEOs have actually realized their success depends on that unpaid labor, and are they just okay with that? Do they realize it means anyone who doesn’t have that unpaid labor propping them up likely can’t achieve what they have? Are their wives satisfied with this arrangement?
So well put. Thank you for articulating. This dichotomy is what drives me in my career!
When I was last on the academic job market, I interviewed at a small liberal arts college where the prospective department was entirely constituted of guys. They taught six classes a year, offered no junior leave, and expected people to publish a book before tenure. I was flabbergasted - but over the course of the day it became clear what was happening. They were all married. They all had wives who worked in the home. They didn't have to cook, clean, shop, raise their children, or run errands. They were entirely free to live a "life of the mind." There was no way that I, as a single woman, could do what they did at work because I would have a whole other series of jobs out of work to simply live a life. I left the campus visit vowing not to take the job even if it was the only job in the world. (Luckily, I found a position elsewhere.) (This department also forgot I needed to get back from campus to the hotel at the end of the day. Truly stunning inability to think things through.)
This is such a satisfying-yet-frustrating essay -- satisfying to read my own ruminations and reflections made coherent, frustrating because I still don't know what the solution really (realistically) is, whether on a systemic or personal level.
I have had so many arguments with friends -- often leftish and progressive-minded people, in many ways -- who vocally advocate for systemic support (of the disabled and ill, of artistic/creative professionals, of caregivers, etc.) but really devalue the labour that would have to go into that systemic support, and dehumanize the actual people who would do that support-labour. These friends will, for example, laud the creative writer whose work is supported by retreats where food and housekeeping are provided... but decry the cost of the retreat, and really have no interest in whether the cooks and housekeepers are making fair wages or being treated well, and they DEFinitely have no interest in a discussion about how the cooking and housekeeping could be as valuable to society (and as skilled! there is no "unskilled labour"!!) as creative writing. It's maddening.
I wish I could find better language for these arguments, and this essay certainly has a lot of that. Maybe I'll just forward this to them, and hope it penetrates better than the points I've been able to express in the moment! 😅
One central source of job creep is the growth of digital channels. We talk a lot about how work never seems to stop because we are constantly attached to our email and various communication channels. But we underappreciate how much the volume of work has multiplied (without the same multiplier in revenue/profits to hire in the same multiple) as a result of moving from being in-person exclusively, to being on multiple digital channels.
To take a mundane example, a retail store used to be focused exclusively on serving customers in the physical store. But for any retail brand today, whether or not you have a brick-and-mortar, you are on web, IG, FB, TikTok, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Google, just to name a few. AHP, you mentioned your own job is creeping in so many directions, and I wonder how much of that is attributable to our consumer expectations of creators and brands to find us on whatever digital channel we are on.
In the end, it feels like our workload is expanding, only to line the pockets of the tech giants.
I'm a retail sales employee. I have FIVE company apps on my phone, including Outlook, Teams and internal corp/HR apps. Is my company paying part of my phone bill? Nope. But I am expected to receive the info the way my company wants to send it to me. And the pressure to become some level of influencer is the way of the future: if we don't want to sound like an MLM on our personal social media, I have co workers trying to start specific channels for that.
This is a really interesting framing. I am now realizing that this is part of the reason why digital theatre is not becoming more integrated in the industry. It does require a whole other skill set that really can't just be forced onto someone else's plate and ultimately most theaters just can't afford to add a whole new department for revenue that isn't an established audience.
In institutional worlds (academia, corporate, non-profit), the term “secretary” was replaced years ago by “administrative assistant” or “admin” for short. This is more reflective of the work that admins do. “Secretary” denoted specific tasks, almost always by a woman for one person; “admin” by any gender for a number of people. Admins definitely deserve more appreciation and support from their departments, beyond candy and lunch one day a year.
I keep thinking of how this is going to worse as the boomer bubble moves out of the workforce and more jobs go unfilled. I manage a small team (6), and had one person just move on to another job. I’m stuck in a “middle management” situation where I am constantly fighting for my team’s balance/workload, but am being told we can’t grow staff (can we just “lean out” the process more instead? Spoiler: we’re not going to lean it out by a whole headcount). Of course, demands to do more more more things continue as well, because SHOCK my team is really talented and good at getting ish done and we want to stay “innovative” and try new things, “Isn’t that fun and fulfilling for people?” (not if you don’t take something else away).
I feel this. I was just laid off from a company where I was in management, and the constant refrain was to do more with less. People quit, positions were not backfilled, and the people remaining became more and more burned out and frustrated as they took on jobs that were not theirs. This hurt our work output and morale was extremely low. And leadership would get frustrated with us that we weren't happy (the toxic positivity from leadership was absolutely astounding) or weren't coming up with "creative solutions" to systemic problems. As our work suffered, it was like a spiral--employees knew they weren't doing their best work, so they felt that somehow they were inherently bad at their jobs, which led to even lower morale. Ultimately, none of it mattered due to financial mismanagement at the top.
Thank you Meg & AVV for naming this so clearly. I left a job I absolutely loved last October because I simply couldn't do {{it all}} any more.
A big part of it was knowing there wasn't a step up job in the organization, I was stuck where I was. But I didn't realize until reading your comments that I *also* felt the pressure of working in a very innovative department where we would never get additional positions to help us carry the load.
Thank you both!
All of this is why I work for myself. Sure I'm still circling burnout at the moment as I build the business for long-term sustainability, but at least all my effort is benefitting ME and my household entirely, and not shareholders or a CEO's ridiculous bonus, or even just not setting a bad precedent for the next employee. I can't imagine working for a company like that ever again if I can help it.
"Who has the time or energy to act, to do something, when you’re working all the time?" Gazillion percent.
After 30+ years in academia I co-sign all of this. My grad school years were during the time when many professors were transitioning to use word processors (not yet computers) for their work, and many still had department secretaries type their letters, manuscripts, and exams. It was possible to phone an office directly but also possible to call a department office and be transferred to a professor’s direct line. By the time I took early retirement at the end of 2020, I had been doing my own typing, correspondence, photocopying, mailing, scheduling, and more for my entire career; and due to budget constraints, my university had removed individual faculty phone lines and told us to use Zoom for calls.
I really wish universities and colleges would follow this advice from AHP: “Instead, each organization has to ask itself: what is the work we want, and need, to do? And if you are utterly unwilling to hire more people to do the amount of work we do, and utterly unwilling to decrease the amount of work you do, then you should be honest with ourselves: you’re fine with the human wreckage, [etc.].”
I worked at a regional comprehensive university that wanted to be all things to all students, offering too many majors and too many departments while reducing teaching personnel and offering fewer tenure-stream lines. When the faculty and a majority of students asked the administration to consider, maybe, perhaps, the school did not need to compete in NCAA division 1 athletics to serve the university mission, the board of trustees deemed it essential. Nobody wins. Not faculty, not staff, and definitely not students.
I think also one effect of this that may end up reinforcing the pattern is that people who don’t have secretaries/admins/support staff early in their careers don’t learn how to use them and then when they move up the ladder and do have access to that kind of staff they don’t use them because it’s a skill they never learned, which probably contributes to disinvestment from that type of job. One of the only executive types I know makes a lot of use of his company’s travel support staff and it’s very helpful to him when, say, a flight is canceled — but it’s his experience that other people at his level don’t think to do so. Which means less work for the travel people which probably means fewer travel people jobs in the long run.
I guess my issue with this is in the 'what to do about it' category. I can talk about and acknowledge all these things but ultimately my life remains the same as a person without the means and power to change it. Therapy didn't help.
This is a small answer, but i think we do have to find a way to live in spite of these huge things that we can't control. I get really fucked up when I think about how little say I have in things that will ultimately matter for the world/human race. as a salve, i try to focus on a few things that really matter to *me*, and make total autonomy a practice.
Writing is my main one. Thinking about traditional publishing was a funnel for more global "i am powerless and the world is going to shit" feelings. So I taught myself how to design text, make PDFs (and bind paper books simply) so that I can write and produce books autonomously. Then I uploaded those PDFs to the Internet Archive, where anyone can find them and read them for free. This practice of book-making is a practice in power.
Eventually I want to do the same with cooking and food (i'm not there yet, but someday!).
Practicing autonomy makes my life feel meaningful and joyful, even if there's not much i can do to stop the world from sucking. The practice also gives me more mental fortitude to put resources and energy toward trying to help---I still want to do whatever it is I can do to make systemic change possible. And I think my small practice *does* stop the world from sucking, at least a little bit. Nowadays we're supposed to care and have an opinion about literally everything, but I think it's OK to have a narrower focus. Where else can it start?
I notice you're an Ask Molly subscriber (me too!). Heather Havrilesky offers some great essays that often touch on this topic in her other project, Ask Polly. Here's one that she reposted from 2014, which should be free-to-read:
https://askpolly.substack.com/p/aging-is-scary-and-life-is-a-struggle?s=r
This is tonic. Thank you for the diligent intelligence you've given to this problem and for being able to articulate the dysfunction of the 21st century salaried position so clearly. This clarity enables those of us caught in it to fight the tendency to internalize its failures.
Oof. So many oofs.
This is the one that got me to subscribe! I feel this deeply, and couldn't be more timely, as the first employee survey in my company since 7/20 was just released. I will suggest they read it, lol. The line about people doing their job well, for longer and with creativity, if only they weren't doing three jobs? YES. About companies being honest about the human wreckage and toxicity? YES. I'd love to know our turnover percentage, and that of new employees less than three months especially. When you don't train and don't explain, people don't stay. And management just sets up another job fair: what's that line about the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and thinking things will change.
This made me think of another issue, related: the people at the top seem to have zero idea that the “extra” they’re asking for is actually a whole position/whole CAREER people go to school for. “Just hire a great new marketing person.” “Mkay, but do you want them to do strategy, graphic design, content/copy, video, or social?” “Can’t we just find ONE person to do that?” :-|
So much yes to all of this. I left my last position for many of these reasons - positions were eliminated, people left, and the work just kept piling up with no new staff to absorb it. It did feel like a moral failure, like somehow I needed just the right productivity strategy and I'd be able to get it all done. Then constantly beating myself up when I couldn't get it all done, when in reality no human person would ever have been able to accomplish the work of three people with the mental and physical capacity of one person. It still felt like my fault. Leadership was unable/unwilling to truly prioritize the work, and everything was deemed "important." Leaders also led by example, working nights, weekends, never disconnecting - all of that was demonstrated and praised by management.
In my new role, I have one job, with realistic expectations of productivity, and I now struggle to feel like I'm contributing "enough," because for so long I used my ability to weather extreme workload overload as a primary way of demonstrating my value and superior work ethic. Therapy is helping, but it's a long process unraveling all of these ideas I have about how I "should" be at work.
I struggle like some other commenters to understand what the solution should be. When I can, I try to advocate for prioritization of projects not just for me but for my department - I'm privileged to have visibility with senior leaders to be able to do so. I try to lead by example, and set boundaries that are visible to others. Focusing on things that enrich my life outside of work, like volunteering and hobbies, has also been helpful. But all of these "solutions" are so individualized. It's incredibly frustrating to really consider how pervasive this is in our (American) work culture.