Work is an integral part of every adult Singaporean’s life, and ours as well as EVCC members. But many folks are not happy nor engaged at work.
Surveys (eg., Gallop 12 surveys in 2011 and 2015) have shown that up to 91% of Singaporeans, across all walks of life and occupations, are either “not engaged” or “actively disengaged”, the latter includes spreading negative comments about the work or organization, or actively sabotaging the company. Many are thinking about leaving their jobs for other possibilities, thinking the “grass is always greener on the other side (or is it?)”. Only 9% are engaged, which means they are emotionally invested in their work and organization, and will go the extra mile to further interests of their organization. This is the lowest percentage in Asia (average of 14%), and speaks to the sense of alienation that many workers in Singapore feel about work.
Work is so integral to our lives, and yet many of us in Singapore are not happy. As Christian Catholics, it is probably important that we understand what the church is saying about work and it’s place in our lives. Some thoughts and perspectives will be shared on this, and much of it is taken from the “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Chapter 6” titled “Human work”. Some reflections will also be made with regard to the “Creighton” online spiritual retreat we have started.
Some Perspectives for reflection
What does the church then say about work? I will layer on some the Church’s thinking onto three reflections shared at a recent meeting of HR leaders in the commercial world. The topic was “Singaporean mind-sets about work – what is shifting?” Nothing special about that, except that the reflections, while seemingly secular in language and framing, possibly speak about the inner yearnings and movements in the hearts of workers in Singapore, and maybe, just maybe also speaks to the movement of the Spirit in the world.
First possible shift – Pragmatism to Purpose
Singaporean mind-set is dominantly pragmatic. It stems from our short history as a nation, where survival, making the most of limited resources, need to prove oneself, meritocracy, achievement etc etc, become the goal-posts of success. So, being an artist or social worker is never going to provoke the same positive reactions as being a lawyer or a doctor, at least in our parents’ time. Even now, as a parent, I baulk when my daughter says she wants to be an artist, and I instinctively ask myself “Can earn a living or not?” even though I laugh about it afterwards. However, I think this mind-set is shifting. It is slowly shifting from pragmatism to a yearning for purpose in one’s life, and specifically in one’s work. There are many examples around us, including fresh grads willing to take 70-80% downside of what their peers are getting just to work in the social service sector; 49-year old mid-career changes, including an investment banker who is willing to forgo his $400K per year income to build jobs for the disabled at a fraction of his previous income; and even mega-businesses like Unilever, with their “Sustainable Living” Plan, which is taking on huge costs increases just to ensure that Unilever only sources raw materials from suppliers which are environmentally sustainable, and who don’t leave a destructive resourcing footprint in its wake. The younger people are especially concerned with this, and many want to join companies which are doing just this.
So if the secular world is moving more to purpose, what about us as Christians or Catholics? What then is our purpose in our work? Do we even see a purpose? Or is work just a humdrum Mon-Fri occurrence, so that we can enjoy the weekend? Or just to pay the mortgage and bills? Nothing wrong with these responsibilities in themselves, but is there something more?
In week 3 of the Creighton Retreat, St Ignatius of Loyola offers us a perspective on the purpose of our life (not just work), which is to know, love and serve our Living God, and in so doing to save our own souls. He then adds that all of creation is given to us to help us fulfil this purpose. I cannot imagine that creation is only about rainbows, the forests, or animals etc. Work is probably a key part of creation or created things, and hence is possibly also a means to loving and serving God. Work can thus be seen as “salvific”, if seen in the right light.
The Compendium of social doctrines of church offers further insight, and builds on St Ignatius’ thinking. In para 255 (quoted entire passage), “the Old Testament presents God as the omnipotent Creator (cf. Gen 2:2; Job 38-41; Ps104; Ps 147) who fashions man in his image and invites him to work the soil (cf. Gen 2:5-6),and cultivate and care for the garden of Eden in which he has placed him (cf. Gen 2:15). To the first human couple God entrusts the task of subduing the earth and exercising dominion over every living creature (cf. Gen 1:28). The dominion exercised by man over other living creatures, however, is not to be despotic or reckless; on the contrary he is to “cultivate and care for” (Gen 2:15) the goods created by God. These goods were not created by man, but have been received by him as a precious gift that the Creator has placed under his responsibility. Cultivating the earth means not abandoning it to itself; exercising dominion over it means taking care of it, as a wise king cares for his people and a shepherd his sheep.”
In para 263, (quoted entire passage) “Work represents a fundamental dimension of human existence as participation not only in the act of creation but also in that of redemption. Those who put up with the difficult rigours of work in union with Jesus cooperate, in a certain sense, with the Son of God in his work of redemption and show that they are disciples of Christ bearing his cross, every day, in the activity they are called to do. In this perspective, work can be considered a means of sanctification and an enlivening of earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ.[576] Understood in this way, work is an expression of man’s full humanity, in his historical condition and his eschatological orientation. Man’s free and responsible action reveals his intimate relationship with the Creator and his creative power. At the same time, it is a daily aid in combating the disfigurement of sin, even when it is by the sweat of his brow that man earns his bread”.
In simpler words, work becomes a means of co-creation with God, and we are CO-CREATORS of God’s Kingdom with HIM. AND as co-creators, we are ourselves redeemed! At this point however, the cynic in all of us will say “How can ah? How can I be a co-creator of God’s Kingdom in my current job? How can I see a purpose? My job all about making money, or selling semi-conductor chips, or financial instruments; not about making sure kids are protected from abuse! It’s a dog-eat-dog world where I am. Politics left right and centre, everyone wants some turf or self-interest, my boss is crap and gives me a hard time every day. My pay sucks! And the litany of complaints or sorrows, valid they may be, can go on and on and on.
Here the compendium offers further insight. It speaks about the difference between the objective view of work, versus the subjective view. The objective view of work refers to the activity of the work, including what the work is all about, and also possibly also the political, contextual issues like bosses or pay, environment etc etc. This, we cannot change or cannot hope to change much, and we all know how much we can wish our demon bosses change, but they never do. What seems to be more important, and which we have stronger control over, is the subjective view of work. To put it simply, it refers to how we see the work, and this is critical to being a co-creator of God’s Kingdom. Please read the compendium yourself, especially paras 270-271.
Our subjective view of our work is critical to us being co-creators of God’s Kingdom.
In terms of how we can or should see work, three things strike me.
One, every job has its inherent dignity. At its basic level, it means that even having a job is a blessing in itself. We take being employed for granted as our Singapore unemployment rate is low, at 2-3 percent! And many of us tend to be ok in terms of education, so we have choices. But in Greece for example, unemployment is bordering on the catastrophic. Fresh grads have been out of jobs for 10 or more years, and have lost their skill and motivation to work. They become the lost generation of workers. Pope Francis in a recent audience in Dallas, spoke about this unemployment epidemic growing in the world, where fathers have lost the ability to provide for their family and put bread on the table. He also speaks about the negative impact that this has on these fathers, i.e. the empty hole inside. He calls on governments to do all they can to provide basic employment for all its citizens, as a basic right.
Second, every job has inherent dignity, regardless of whether it’s a big or small job, glamorous or seemingly mundane, commercial or in the social services. And if we can see this, then every job offers the worker an opportunity to reflect that dignity, regardless of what the work activity is, or whether the boss is crap or not. An example was shared about the hospital ward attendant who won an award from a local hospital. She was not a neurosurgeon or cardiac specialist, but was lauded because she did the small things, with great love (akin to St Therese of Lisieux), like always smiling at patients, pushing their beds with great care so as not to jolt or frighten them, and cleaning away water on floors when it was wet, making sure everyone was safe. When asked why she said “every patient who comes here is frightened, I just want to do my part, even though small, in making sure they are not so frightened. Again, small acts with great love.
Third, and perhaps most relevant to us in EVCC, is that every job has opportunity to bear witness. We do this in the words we use with co-workers, in the way we conduct our performance appraisals, in the way we make decisions, or in the way we stand up for doing the right thing. This is wayfaring, and needs to be intentional, as every moment has immense potential to be a moment of witness. I gave the example of when I had to write to the President of a MNC I was in, on not cutting the 13th Month salary (AWC) of workers in Singapore, which is not compulsory. Yet, some senior leaders were getting their bonuses and benefits, while it was the workers who had slogged like crazy the whole year just to get where we were. It was our HR VP who asked a few of us HR Leaders to write and advise the President NOT to cut the AWC, and explain why. BUT he left it to us whether we did it or not. I wrote it but before I pressed the send button, I was fearful because I also didn’t know whether the other leaders would do so. What happens if I am the only one! So, I had to ask myself one simple question: is this the right thing to do? And the clear answer was yes… at most I find another job. I sent the email. I didn’t get fired and we got half our 13th month bonus.
So, being a witness may mean sometimes making tough choices, and being a witness for doing the right thing. And it’s tough. It’s either we serve God (be a co-creator and witness for him at work) or we serve mammon (fearing for our jobs, or wanting to hold onto materialism, fame, favour). We cannot serve 2 masters. A key inner disposition for being able to do this (see Creighton week 4), may be what St Ignatius calls having a balanced indifference to created things. That means we are willing to let go of created things if they do not help us fulfil our purpose of serving God, like in this example my job with this MNC. Or even if the job can help us fulfil our purpose, we also do not make them gods or idols in themselves.
The other implication is that we do not have to change jobs to find that purpose for our work, if that’s something we are looking for. Every job has potential opportunities for loving and serving God where we are, and maybe it’s those tough places that need God and us even more. Our little sharing group talked about how Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh, which was a tough tough place, so he ran away. But God, through a whale, spat him back onto Nineveh, because he wanted Jonah to speak His words there, and to maybe even do the small things with great love. Should we change jobs? Should we stay? It all depends on what God is saying, telling us.
Second possible shift – Performing to the Performer (whole person) OR from work to the worker
Singapore has a very “performing” mind-set, or at very least, a need to be seen to be performing. It may be because we are asked to jump through hoops since we were young, to excel or try to excel in every stage of life, from PSLE, University, to now as working adult, in the possible hope of getting some recognition or affirmation that we are alright/that we are someone, and at a deeper level worthy to be accepted or loved (echoes of Creighton week 1 ). Growing up, performing and hence affirmation was reflected in what school or class we were in. Now, it’s possibly what car or house we own, or what position we hold in our work-place. “We are what we perform or achieve” seems to be the belief here, and our sense of self-worth or identity seems to be tied very much to this. I recall the story of Punchinello the puppet, who didn’t have many badges of honour, so he felt very sad, until he realised his maker loved and accepted him as he is.
But I think people are tired of jumping through hoops. The SDP, in 2011, tabled a motion to discuss in Parliament the topic of Singapore’s achievement, ie, why we have achieved much Prosperity and Progress as enshrined in our national pledge, but how come nothing concrete yet on Happiness? Happiness was the first pillar of achievement we set out to achieve way back in 1965 – go through your pledge and you suddenly realize it’s there! And then there is the whole discourse on the happiness index, which Bhutan has but we can only talk about. I also shared the story of one of my young psychologist in my workplace. I was doing a skip level interview with her about her work, and perhaps it was because I am her second level boss, she basically shared that everything was going super-well, almost perfect, a-ok! But I knew as a young psychologist, she cannot possibly be a-ok. I was struggling like crazy as a young psych many years ago, pretending half the time I knew what I was doing. So I said to her “Karen (pseudonym), you don’t have to be perfect”. And when I said that, that conversation changed from perhaps a moment of proverbial “bullshit” to one of honesty. Later that afternoon, she came to thank me, as when I told her she didn’t need to be perfect, that gave her a lot of freedom inside.
What then do workers want more of now? Is that why many Singaporeans are so unhappy or disengaged at work? I think what they want is more of this freedom “Karen” is referring to, which is the permission or freedom to be who they are at the workplace, and not just be seen as just performance or work output that is so expected of all. There seems to be a shift or at least a yearning (often unsaid) to be seen as a whole person – someone not just with strengths and accomplishments, hitting targets or KPIs; but also someone who has areas for development and may need more support, someone who is also a father who travels a lot, a mother with young kids at home, a daughter looking after aged parents, or someone who may be unsuited or uninterested in the job one has now, and may need guidance to find another one whether within or outside the current organization. So, there seems to be shift from Performing to the performer (or whole person), from just a major pre-occupation with work (and outcomes, KPI’s, results), to a more holistic consideration of the worker – i.e., from work to the worker.
Work is for the benefit of the worker, and not the worker for the work.
The church interestingly teaches the same, in that it emphasises not just the dignity of the work, but the dignity of the worker (see compendium paras 270 onwards). The worker, in the church’s eyes, should be front and centre as a key focus for all work activity, almost as if work is for the benefit of the worker, and not the worker for the work – which is the more capitalistic notion nowadays. It doesn’t mean that the organization shouldn’t expect good performance or that we should just mollycoddle all our employees. I think it means we should still all try our best and call out clear outcomes, but the approach is likely different. It may be more about helping each worker become his or her best, in the way that best fits each person, and not just focus in on end results. And isn’t that what good management or leadership is all about?
The implications of this are clear. One, those of us who are managers should lead our teams in ways which honour the dignity that is in each worker and help each to express that dignity and to contribute in the best way one can. We should not just focus in on final targets or KPI’s, and see each person as a digit or human resource to be used, manipulated or even exploited, to fulfil one’s own targets and desired bonuses. Performance may be less than stellar as a whole in the short term (e.g, quarterly shareholder value), but the long-game is sometimes more important, as you probably will retain and grow such talent, and move them from the “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” categories, to someone who is more engaged, emotionally invested, and supportive of the team’s work for the long-haul. The invitation seems to be there to also view our colleagues, co-workers, or if I dare say, our own bosses (??) in the same way. They too are persons who have the right to dignity, who have their own issues, strengths and weaknesses, as well as need for support and respect.
More importantly, shouldn’t we extend this same kindness to ourselves as well? We are and should NOT be defined by what we achieve. We are much more than that, and the invitation of the last couple of weeks of Creighton also appears to be to let go of this belief. Again, we should try our best in any task or job, but at same time adopt a “damn if I do, damn if I don’t” way of thinking, i.e., it doesn’t matter if I do well in this job/task or not, I can let it go and not allow it to run (or ruin) my life. This again is the balanced indifference that St Ignatius is proposing, or maybe the freedom that the young psychologist Karen alludes to.
I think of Jesus, and the way he treated the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The two disciples, by all reckoning, could be seen to have failed all the KPIs, results, or outcomes that were expected of them. They fled Jerusalem after Jesus was crucified and headed for Emmaus which was seven miles away, leaving behind the three Mary’s and John who stayed with Jesus at the foot of the cross, and also the other disciples. As they were walking, they were probably sad, but also complaining about how disappointed that the king they thought they had, was put to death and humiliated. They may also have been disappointed that they could not get the positions of honour they thought they were going to get, once Jesus ascended the throne ( I’m guessing here). Yet, Jesus seemed to look past all of this. Instead, He “walked along-side them”, asked them “what are you talking about?”, listened to them, “explained the scriptures to them about all that concerned himself”, “stayed with them” and “broke bread” with them. They finally recognised him in the breaking of bread, and he disappeared. They then remarked “were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” In the end, the two disciples returned back to Jerusalem and were reunited with the other disciples and others with them. Jesus restored back to them their true identify and back into community. He gave them back the dignity he saw in them from the beginning, seeing in them the whole person rather than just the results. I think also of Mary and Martha. Martha was fretting about many things to take care of her guest Jesus, but Mary “chose the better way” by sitting and talking with Jesus. We are not solely what we do or achieve.
Third possible shift – from competition to connection or community
Our workplace is competitive. Limited resources, limited rewards and promotion roles, bonus amounts, management mindshare, rare occasions of verbal praise and acknowledgement, all make it a zero-sum game where if one wins, another potentially loses. So, the daily hunger games begin. However, I sense that people are also tired of this, and there seems to be a yearning for some form of connection or community at work. This is more so with the younger ones I think. While they know they have to compete for fame and fortune, or climb up the career ladder, I think part of them also wants community, given many may not get as much of it at home given the long hours worked. That’s why I am not surprised when I see my young psychologists staying back late in the office or going out to karaoke or concerts on Friday nights, just to chit-chat or catch up.
I’m not exactly sure what the church teaching on work says about competition per se, as it doesn’t directly address it. However, I do know that God’s kingdom cannot possibly be about competition, and the nature of God seems more about relationships and community. We viewed a video titled “What makes a good life? : Lessons from the longest study on happiness” by Harvard University. This study spanned 75 years and looked at the factors that make for happiness and health in a group of 700 plus American men, that were followed from 19 years of age, over 75 years. Go to website. What it found was not money, fame or fortune that made people happy, but relationships.
Human work has an intrinsic social dimension. A person’s work is naturally connected with that of other people.
The invitation in the video is thus to lean-in into relationships, more so with family, close friends, and especially one’s spouse. But I think the invitation here is also to lean-in into building relationships and community in the workplace, given we spend so many years of our lives there. And the invitation seems to be also about helping to build the kingdom of God for others, and with others. The compendium para 273 does say : “Human work also has an intrinsic social dimension. A person’s work, in fact, is naturally connected with that of other people. Today, “more than ever, work is work with others and work for others. It is a matter of doing something for someone else”[589]. The fruits of work offer occasions for exchange, relationship and encounter. Work, therefore, cannot be properly evaluated if its social nature is not taken into account: “For man’s productive effort cannot yield its fruits unless a truly social and organic body exists, unless a social and juridical order watches over the exercise of work, unless the various occupations, being interdependent, cooperate with and mutually complete one another, and, what is still more important, unless mind, material things, and work combine and form as it were a single whole. Therefore, where the social and individual nature of work is neglected, it will be impossible to evaluate work justly and pay it according to justice”.
The idea of work for others continues in Para 274 of the Compendium, where it says that work is not only just for one’s own family but for the broader society. Food for thought : “Work is also “an obligation, that is to say, a duty on the part of man”[591]. Man must work, both because the Creator has commanded it and in order to respond to the need to maintain and develop his own humanity. Work is presented as a moral obligation with respect to one’s neighbour, which in the first place is one’s own family, but also the society to which one belongs, the nation of which one is son or daughter, the entire human family of which one is member. We are heirs of the work of generations and at the same time shapers of the future of all who will live after us”.
Final reflections
So the mind-set shifts or yearnings in our workforce could be summarised as :
- From pragmatism to purpose
- From performing to performer (whole person), from work to dignity of the worker
- From competition to connection or community
These are just my reflections, and I hope I am not too biased by my own Catholic up-bringing. There has been some reaction from the HR leaders and secular world on these thoughts, and many of them expected. Many have agreed with them and call it the humanistic view of work. Others, however, see it as softening of expectations or too much focus on the person to the detriment of results. Some also lamented that if our Singaporean workforce is as such, it may also not be a good thing for corporations as it means we may not run or change as fast as is needed. I am wary of this as it may mean less keenness for hiring Singaporean workers. But I think it needed to be said.
By PTAN
Note : I did not share the Faith-based thinking with this crowd, only the shifts 1-3 above, with my explanations and stories in secular terms. But interesting to also see that these perceived shifts, with some agreement on the part of some HR leaders and readers, are also reflected in parts of what the church teaches about the place of work in our lives, and how we need to approach work. I personally believe that the Spirit is moving in the working world, and maybe this is what work and holiness may be about – that is, being “In the world, but not of the world” and being the leaven or yeast within. I sincerely belief we can plug into the Spirit on this, as we respond.