Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T09:49:49.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Working against the current: What different groups can teach us about antiwork

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2024

Jacqueline R. Wong*
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
Rebecca M. Brossoit
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA
*
Corresponding author: J. R. Wong; Email: jacqueline.wong@colostate.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Commentaries
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

In their focal article, Alliger and McEachern (Reference Alliger and McEarchern2024) provide a variety of potential research directions related to antiwork, focusing primarily on topics to be studied. We take their suggestions further and propose specific types of workers and organizations that would be worthwhile to study to better understand antiwork ideas and approaches. Specifically, we aim to highlight individuals and groups who are already living and working in ways that align with some antiwork tenets, contrary to our existing society, which takes work, as it currently is, as a given. Many of the groups that we discuss are ones that others in the field of industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology have already identified as being understudied (e.g., Bergman & Jean, Reference Bergman and Jean2016). Thus, we amplify the calls for more diverse and varied samples and more targeted and intentional samples based on research questions (e.g., Fisher & Sandell, Reference Fisher and Sandell2015), and we do so by expanding upon Alliger and McEachern’s call for more research on antiwork.

Unemployed individuals

Related to the proposed research topic of “benefits of not working,” we first suggest that I-O psychologists study people who choose not to work. Much of the existing research on unemployment comes from the field of economics (e.g., Schmitz, Reference Schmitz2011), and the research from I-O is typically focused on predictors of unemployment, how the unemployed search for jobs, and the negative effects of unemployment (e.g., Wanberg, Reference Wanberg2012; Waters & Moore, Reference Waters and Moore2002), which offers a somewhat limited perspective on the experience of unemployment. Another research stream examines the subgroup of people who are “unemployed” by way of retirement, with a primary focus on healthy retirement processes (e.g., Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Chaffee and Sonnega2016; Wang & Shi, Reference Wang and Shi2014; Wang & Shultz, Reference Wang and Shultz2010). We anticipate that studying the “unemployed by choice” group may present challenges, given that most individuals do not have the financial resources to be unemployed, even if they would choose not to work if that option was available to them. We also expect that studying unemployed individuals might be hard to convince I-O psychologists to pursue, given that we tend to focus more on psychology in organizations as opposed to the psychology of working, partially because we have historically been hired by organizations and have focused on topics most relevant to organizations (Baritz, Reference Baritz1960; Gerard, Reference Gerard2017). However, if we want to understand the latter (i.e., the psychology of working), it is important to also study the psychology of not working. Specifically, to study the “benefits of not working”—particularly in contrast to the consequences of halting work later in life (e.g., cognitive decline during the transition to retirement; Fisher et al., Reference Fisher, Stachowski, Infurna, Faul, Grosch and Tetrick2014)—conducting research with unemployed individuals would be a good place to start. It is possible that some of the negative effects associated with retirement occur due to an overemphasis on work throughout one’s life as opposed to the lack of work itself because individuals have relied heavily on work to maintain their cognitive, physical, and social functioning. People who are of working age and choose not to work perhaps derive meaning, skills, and engagement in other domains of life.

Small businesses, democratic organizations, and artists

Next, we echo calls from others in the field to study small businesses and small business owners (e.g., Kurtessis et al., Reference Kurtessis, Waters, Alonso, Jones and Oppler2017; Labedz Jr. & Berry, Reference Labedz and Berry2011). Specifically, individual or partner business owners are often characterized as pursuing a passion and choosing a career path that is uniquely challenging and risky compared to being an employee, which, on the surface, seems to counter the idea that work is inherently coercive. Further, the topics of “managerialism and leadership” as described by Alliger and McEachern (i.e., companies manipulating employees’ attitudes and feelings) would likely show up differently for business owners. When people are their own bosses and can determine their work hours and job tasks independently, they are not exempt from the pressures of a capitalist and hierarchical society, but presumably, the autonomy protects them from some of the coercive forces to which other working people are more subject.

Some work environments can enable their members to carry out some of the values related to antiwork, and small businesses might be able to do so more readily than larger organizations. As mentioned in the focal article, unions, workplace democracy, and worker ownership can provide empowerment for workers and counteract the more hierarchical “managerialism.” Further, other scholars have already called for I-O psychologists to work with and study unions (e.g., Bergman & Jean, Reference Bergman and Jean2016; Zickar, Reference Zickar2004, Reference Zickar, Ed. and he2014). For a slightly different perspective, we highlight one example of a small retail business started by Madeline Pendleton, who regularly shares information about her progressive business operations on social media and through her upcoming book. She acknowledges that being a business owner is contradictory to her socialist beliefs and values, and she details how everyone employed by her company makes the same take-home pay per day (including herself), the standard work week is four days and 28 hours, workers are provided with extensive benefits, including full-coverage healthcare and profit sharing, and decision making occurs democratically. It may be worthwhile for I-O psychologists to consider different methodological approaches, such as case studies, that would allow for an in-depth understanding of how and why small business owners design systems that support equity and well-being for their workers, in line with antiwork values.

Similar to small business owners, individuals who choose a career path in the arts (e.g., artists, musicians, performers) often follow a passion, lack the managerial relationships associated with other types of work, and do so at the risk of financial and job insecurity. In some ways, a career in the arts can be considered with other gig workers or freelancers, who have been studied in I-O psychology (e.g., Cropanzano et al., Reference Cropanzano, Keplinger, Lambert, Caza and Ashford2023), albeit not enough to reflect that 20–30% of the workforce works in gig arrangements (Dua et al., Reference Dua, Ellingrud, Hancock, Luby and Madgavkar2022; Kuhn, Reference Kuhn2016). In other ways, the commitment to creative endeavors for employment (which would otherwise be pursued voluntarily) seems unique compared to other gig work. Artists have often found ways to incorporate elements of antiwork into the way they earn money to function in society, and studying them might help us understand alternative ways of working.

“Quiet quitters” and leavers in the “great resignation”

We also suggest a focus on “quiet quitters” and people who quit jobs during the “Great Resignation,” not to figure out how to prevent such a mindset toward or approach to work (e.g., Formica & Sfodera, Reference Formica and Sfodera2022), but rather to understand how the topics of antiwork arise for people who have questioned the role of work in their lives. One author of this commentary recently conducted a qualitative study with people who had quit jobs during the “Great Resignation,” and a primary theme was that people had deprioritized work in relation to broader life (Wong, Reference Wong2023). Although many of the participants were employed in new positions (i.e., participating in work), they spoke about tenets of antiwork (although not by name), including strong criticisms of capitalism. Thus, studying “quiet quitting” and the “Great Resignation” might provide greater insights into antiwork ideologies (Brossoit & Wong, Reference Brossoit and Wong2023).

We appreciate Alliger and McEachern’s assertion that antiwork offers many important opportunities to I-O psychology. To expand upon what the focal article authors propose studying in this realm, we offer suggestions for whom could be studied to understand how antiwork may already be at play.

References

Alliger, G. M., & McEarchern, P. J. (2024). Antiwork offers many opportunities for I-O psychologists. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 130.Google Scholar
Baritz, L. (1960). The servants of power: A history of the use of social science in American industry. Wesleyan University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11283-000.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. E., & Jean, V. A. (2016). Where have all the “workers” gone? A critical analysis of the unrepresentativeness of our samples relative to the labor market in the industrial-organizational psychology literature Industrial and Organizational, 9(1), 84113. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.70 Google Scholar
Brossoit, R. M., & Wong, J. R. (2023). “Nobody wants to work anymore”: Reflecting on I-O psychology’s values and assumptions through the lens of the antiwork movement. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 60(4). https://www.siop.org/Research-Publications/Items-of-Interest/ArtMID/19366/ArticleID/7461/preview/true Google Scholar
Cropanzano, R., Keplinger, K., Lambert, B. K., Caza, B., & Ashford, S. J. (2023). The organizational psychology of gig work: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108 (3), 492519. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001029 Google Scholar
Dua, A., Ellingrud, K., Hancock, B., Luby, R., & Madgavkar, A. (2022). Freelance, side hustles, and gigs: Many more Americans have become independent workers. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/sustainable-inclusive-growth/future-of-america/freelance-side-hustles-and-gigs-many-more-americans-have-become-independent-workers Google Scholar
Fisher, G. G., Chaffee, D. S., & Sonnega, A. (2016). Retirement timing: A review and recommendations for future research. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2(2), 230261. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw001 Google Scholar
Fisher, G. G., & Sandell, K. (2015). Sampling in industrial-organizational psychology research: Now what? Industrial and Organizational, 8(2), 232237. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.31 Google Scholar
Fisher, G. G., Stachowski, A., Infurna, F. J., Faul, J. D., Grosch, J., & Tetrick, L. E. (2014). Mental work demands, retirement, and longitudinal trajectories of cognitive functioning. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(2), 231242. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035724 Google Scholar
Formica, S., & Sfodera, F. (2022). The Great Resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An overview of current situation and future research directions. ournal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 31(8), 899907. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2136601 Google Scholar
Gerard, N. (2017). Handmaidens to capitalism. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(3), 410414.Google Scholar
Kuhn, K. M. (2016). The rise of the “gig economy” and implications for understanding work and workers. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 9(1), 157162.Google Scholar
Kurtessis, J. N., Waters, S. D., Alonso, A., Jones, J. A., & Oppler, S. H. (2017). Traditional science-practice research in I-O: Are we missing the trees for the forest? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 570576.Google Scholar
Labedz, C. S., & Berry, G. R. (2011). Making sense of small business growth: A right workforce template for growing firms. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 16(2), 6179.Google Scholar
Schmitz, H. (2011). Why are the unemployed in worse health? The causal effect of unemployment on health Labour Economics, 18(1), 7178.Google Scholar
Wanberg, C. R. (2012). The individual experience of unemployment. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 369396.Google Scholar
Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2014). Psychological research on retirement. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 209233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115131 Google Scholar
Wang, M., & Shultz, K. S. (2010). Employee retirement: A review and recommendations for future investigation. Journal of Management, 36(1), 172206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347957 Google Scholar
Waters, L. E., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Self-esteem, appraisal and coping: A comparison of unemployed and re-employed people. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 593604. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.156 Google Scholar
Wong, J. R. (2023). Reflections on turnover amidst turmoil: A qualitative exploration of the “Great Resignation”. Doctoral Dissertation, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
Zickar, M. J. (2004). An analysis of industrial-organizational psychology’s indifference to labor unions in the United States. Human Relations, 57 (2), 145167.Google Scholar
Zickar, M. J. (2014). A more inclusive industrial-organizational psychology. In Ed., D. L. Blustein, & he, T. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of the psychology of working (pp. 218230). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar