For as long as I can remember, I’ve had an overarching rule for my professional activities: harm none. This is usually pretty simple when working in IT and software – code and file servers don’t generally harm people. Technology is inert (and arguably not defined) until a person uses it causally. Recently, however, a friend of mine asked if I could ever work in national defense with this perspective, which seeded a lively discussion. I determined that I probably could. This article examines that reasoning.
My understanding of work satisfaction stems from my understanding of ethics. I define “right” and “wrong” by causality. If an action I’ve taken, am taking, or plan on taking causes the outcome I desire, it’s “right,” whereas those actions which don’t cause the outcome I desire are “wrong.” This requires a balance, however, between desires for self-service and for social-service. It’s within my ability to give of my time and attention to help those who are less fortunate, but it materially benefits me nothing. I could also break the law for my own gain (for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume disobeying the speed limit to get to work faster,) but though it would benefit me, it would add no value to the societies in which I place the greatest value.
It should be noted that the ethical social satisfaction model presented here applies equally to religious societies (membership in a church,) governmental societies (citizenship in a nation,) academic societies (studies at a university,) and the greater society of the human race.
Any given person typically participates regularly in social interaction as an axiomatic part of being human. These societies can have varying goals such as religious, professional, academic, governmental, or philanthropic, but they are all fundamentally social. For the purposes of this discussion, workplaces, jobs, careers, companies, and corporations will be considered to be human societies with overwhelmingly professional goals. I may personally get to know many of my coworkers, but the basic function of a professional society is to transact business with another society.
The fundamental principle of satisfaction within a society is driven by congruence between self-serving drives and society-serving drives. This includes all drives discussed in previous articles derived from pleasure-seeking and pain-avoidance, builds on “forgoing pleasures for the purpose of getting greater pleasures, and enduring pains for the sake of escaping greater pains,” (Cicero, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, book 1, chapter 10), and biological emergence of basic human behaviors as codified in the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
When studying traditional models of job satisfaction, vectors (axes of measurement or observation) are generally presented by which the overall observation is generated. Herzberg chooses hygiene (status, job security, benefits) and motivation (challenge, recognition, responsibility) as base vectors in his Two Factor Theory; whereas Hackman and Oldham concentrate on skill variety, task significance, task identity, autonomy and feedback in their Job Characteristics Model. All of these vectors, however, can be traced back to biologically emergent traits of humanity, and have analogs as declared human rights corresponding to anthropological universals. These also correlate to Maslowian needs, which may be discussed in a later article here. By expanding this trace to define job satisfaction vectors not present in these theories, however, we can develop a broader picture of those factors needed to find full satisfaction in a professional society:
| Satisfaction Vector | Theory | Anthropological Universal |
|---|---|---|
| Achievement | Two-Factor | Social organization |
| Recognition | Two-Factor | Social organization |
| Growth | Two-Factor | Social organization |
| Interest | Two-Factor | Rationality, Recreation |
| Policy and Administration | Two-Factor | Social organization |
| Supervision | Two-Factor | Communication |
| Working Conditions | Two-Factor | Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Environment |
| Social Relations | Two-Factor | Communication, Social organization |
| Salary | Two-Factor | Food, Clothing, Shelter, and Family |
| Status | Two-Factor | Social organization |
| Job Security | Two-Factor | Food, Clothing, Shelter |
| Skill Variety | Job Characteristics | Recreation |
| Task Significance | Job Characteristics | Rationality |
| Task Identity | Job Characteristics | Communication, Social organization |
| Autonomy | Job Characteristics | Movement |
| Feedback | Job Characteristics | Communication |
| Free Expression | Communications | |
| Ethical Practices | Morality |
As presented, two anthropological universals don’t trace to job satisfaction vectors identified in either of these theories: morality and some aspects of communication. I understand these to relate to freedom of expression and ethical behavior. In workplaces in which I’ve participated, I’ve been more satisfied when I’m allowed to speak freely, without concern for avoiding “taboo” subjects such as politics, religion, and sexuality. This freedom of expression in a professional setting is beginning to be realized by trapezoidal-structured (rather than pyramid-structured) companies in the technical sector, and is making progress in other disciplines of work. In Herzberg terminology, I would consider this a motivation factor, though, in that it’s sine qua non to a satisfactory work environment.
Likewise, when a company’s practices overwhelmingly correlate with my personal code of ethics, I’m considerably more satisfied with my work as a part of that company. Again using Herzberg terminology, I would consider this a “hygiene factor,” however, in that a gross disconnect between my personal code of ethics and the behavior of a company on the whole is enough to cause me to look for work with a different company.
The question asked of me, could I work in national defense and still “harm none,” is answered through this analysis. Assuming the traditional vectors are met, such as sufficient salary, reasonable autonomy, and job security, it would become primarily a question of ethics. With the specific question of national defense, the business purpose needs to be understood: help to protect your country by supplying its military with technology specialized to break things, and either change people’s opinions or kill them, as deemed appropriate by the executive of the state. These tasks overwhelmingly bring harm to life, which is the perceived source of the disconnect.
The answer, though, is again “yes, I could probably do that,” with the assumption that I would improve on existing technologies for the purposes of breaking fewer things or killing fewer people. Conflicts between nations exist, and have always existed (due to economic scarcity ,) and will always exist. If the opportunity were available to me to improve a defense system with the aim of increasing accuracy or precision, I would weigh the options under the same vectors by which I weigh any other position in a professional society. I wouldn’t outright reject it, though, as the behavior of the defense sector overwhelmingly agrees with my personal ethical code, which driven by the societies in which I value participation such as my church, family, state, and nation.
By this model, job satisfaction is maximized when individuals are allowed to exhibit and enjoy the highest number and quality of socially productive human traits.