Avoiding the anxiety zone

The term 'status' refers to our position in society, or our value to society (de Botton, 2005). That status might spring from a legal, professional, or social base (de Botton, 2005): our 'worth' as an artisan or creator, for example, might over time become iconic; or fade from the social gaze. It is our societies which confer status on desired people - e.g. warriors, priests, or seers - but in the West, we seem to venerate making money (de Botton, 2005). Having high status brings benefits: money; more resources than others; respect; and - potentially - self-importance (de Botton, 2005).

Being viewed as high status may be openly sought - such as in the USA - but may not be sought in all nations (de Botton, 2005). For example, the answer to the question "what do you do?" tends to give us a speedy idea of a person’s societal status (Inkson et al, 2015), yet in a society such as New Zealand, where we have societal values of egalitarianism and equality, the question may be asked and answered simply out of interest.

The idea of status then leads us onto status anxiety (de Botton, 2005). This is the fear that we fail to meet society's standards of success; worrying we will lose social respect if we fall behind what is 'expected' of citizens (de Botton, 2005). Our anxiety can be triggered by job transitions, by over-comparison with others, or through social pressure (de Botton, 2005); either real or imagined.

It seems to me that status anxiety is where we see our self-worth as EXTRINSIC to ourselves, instead of being intrinsic. That perhaps we worry too much about the 'look' of things, and not enough about the content (form over substance). If we are anxious, we tend to be reluctant to try new things; to make suggestions, or to ask those around us for help (Edmonson, 2022). Our anxiety may paralyse us (Edmonson, 2022). This can be compounded if we are working in an environment where we are watched over and tightly controlled; in a climate of negativity (Daft, 2007). In such situations our anxiety may increase, potentially leading to burnout.

There are connections between "status anxiety and job dissatisfaction" where, if "status anxiety reduces" we "could potentially increase job satisfaction and, in turn, employee performance and productivity" (Keshabyan & Day, 2020, p. 9). With more workplace trust, we can move ourselves from the anxiety zone into the learning zone, where we are able to collaborate, to innovate, and to learn by guided trial and error (Edmonson, 2022). We end up in a positive workplace (Daft, 2007).

And a positive workplace works for all of us.

Sam

References:

Daft, R. L. (2007). The Leadership Experience (4th ed.). Thomson South-Western.

de Botton, A. (2005). Status Anxiety. Penguin.

Edmonson, A. C. (2022). Psychological Safety Does Not Equal “Anything Goes”. https://amycedmondson.com/psychological-safety-%e2%89%a0-anything-goes/

Inkson, K., Dries, N., & Arnold, J. (2015). Understanding Careers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Keshabyan, A., & Day, M. V. (2020). Concerned whether you’ll make It in life? Status anxiety uniquely explains job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1523, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01523

read more "Avoiding the anxiety zone"

Working from home

Our traditional working week has come to be seen as being in the 'office' from 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, for a minimum of 40 hours a week. But as nations went into lockdowns around the globe with Covid-19, organisations - both public and private - found ways to maintain services in the face of what was an unprecedented event in our lifetime (Randstad, 2020). We took the office home with us, and worked from there. 

Working from home (WFH) is defined as being the "worker’s own home[...] in which the work is performed. It rules out any non-home-based forms of 'Remote work'"(Holgersen et al., 2021, p. 3). Technology advances - such as Zoom, database access, apps - developed for remote or telework have facilitated more regular WFH arrangements (Karl et al., 2022).

As the pandemic receded, it seems that, for many, our attitude to work has shifted. The space gained during the pandemic meant we had the time to devote to non-financial aspects of our lives, so focused more on family, health and wellbeing (Gee, 2022). And we liked that. With the return to 'normality', our lack of desire for a five day, office-bound working week has not changed. We still desire more flexible work arrangements, with over two thirds (67.8%) of New Zealanders reporting that work location flexibility is important (Randstad, 2023).

There are benefits to be gained from flexible work arrangements. It provides organisations with workplace cover through job-sharing, split shifts, and part-time hours. It allows us more time to look after ourselves and our families, while allowing organisations to gain a wider spread of institutional and cultural knowledge (Noakes, 2022). We save personal cost and time through reduced commuting, while our organisations and society as a whole have the advantage of lower carbon emissions, traffic flows, parking congestion, and road accidents (Beck & Hensher, 2022; Public Service Commission, 2022). We also have lower peak demand for public transport (Public Service Commission, 2024). Staff can fit in personal tasks in breaks when WFH, and experience less stress (Aczel et al., 2021; Beck & Hensher, 2022); which should hopefully mean we have a healthier society overall (MBIE, 2025).

At home, many of us feel more productive due to fewer distractions. We don’t have colleagues swinging by our desks for questions or a chat; so we get more done in less time (Forbes, 2023). We also don't have our managers just popping in to ask us to do additional tasks, leaving us able to focus on our core work. Organisations can lower consumable and energy costs (Noakes, 2021), plus attracting and retaining a more diverse workforce, as - with the tyranny of distance being reduced - the employee pool deepens. Those unable to applied previously for jobs due to location may now apply (Public Service Commission, 2022). If WFH continues, it is conceivable that it may potentially reduce urban sprawl. 

WFH is redefining the traditional 'work day', and the 'working week' due to enabling more of a piece-work approach. Organisations can remain open for longer virtual hours. There are multiple benefits for society through WFH, "improving both wellbeing outcomes for people, and resilience and productivity for our local businesses" (MBIE, 2025).

And all that is something to be celebrated.

Sam

References:

Aczel, B., Kovacs, M., Van Der Lippe, T., & Szaszi, B. (2021). Researchers working from home: Benefits and challenges. PloS One, 16(3), e0249127. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249127

Beck, M. J., & Hensher, D. A. (2022). Working from home in Australia in 2020: Positives, negatives and the potential for future benefits to transport and society. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 158, 271-284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.016

Forbes. (2023, June 10). Navigating the pros and cons of hybrid and remote work. https://www.forbes.com/sites/glebtsipursky/2023/06/10/navigating-the-pros-and-cons-of-hybrid-and-remote-work/

Gee, S. (2022, May 19). Hybrid work lifestyle may be here to stay post-pandemic. Radio New Zealand [RNZ]. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/467412/hybrid-work-lifestyle-may-be-here-to-stay-post-pandemic

Holgersen, H., Jia, Z., & Svenkerud, S. (2021). Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions. Journal for Labour Market Research, 55(1), 4, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.03.016

Karl, K. A., Peluchette, J. V., & Aghakhani, N. (2022). Virtual work meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic: The good, bad, and ugly. Small Group Research, 53(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964211015286

MBIE. (2025). Ngā kōrero ohumahi o tō mātou rohe – Our region’s workforce story. Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/employment-and-skills/regional-skills-leadership-groups/nelson-tasman/regional-workforce-plans/regional-workforce-plan/nga-korero-ohumahi-o-to-matou-rohe-our-regions-workforce-story

Noakes, J. (2022, May). Work from anywhere: Make it work better. Norton Rose Fulbright. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-au/knowledge/publications/6e56c794/work-from-anywhere-make-it-work-better

Public Service Commission. (2022, September 28). Guidance: Hybrid working part 2: Factors to consider when designing a hybrid work environment. https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/guidance/guidance-hybrid-working/hybrid-working-all-the-detail/factors-to-consider-when-designing-a-hybrid-work-environment

Randstad. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on workers and organisations. https://www.randstad.co.nz/s3fs-media/nz/public/migration/nz-documents/covid-19-report-nz-updated.pdf

read more "Working from home"

Herzberg's theory of motivation hygiene

Ah: what a blast from the past this is! Herzberg's theory of Motivation Hygiene or the "Two Factor Theory" (1966). Herzberg himself called the theory "motivation-hygiene", an concept which sprang from his research into mental health (Miner, 2005).

We are used to thinking in pairs: health/illness; mental health/mental illness, like they are two sides of the same thing. Herzberg's idea was that these two pairs might be distinct ideas or processes; not continua; nor toggles. He wondered if the job satisfaction and dissatisfaction might be a similar decoupled thing: two discrete ideas, not a toggle (Miner, 2005). So he researched how we feel about our work, and came up with a list of things contributing to work satisfaction (i.e. motivation factors), and a second, separate list of contributors leading to dissatisfaction (i.e. hygiene factors) (Miner, 2005).

Hygiene factors are "the presence or absence of job dissatisfiers, such as working conditions, pay, company policies, and interpersonal relationships. When hygiene factors are poor, work is dissatisfying" (Daft, 2008, p. 231). Examples of things which turn us off our work might include: a tangle of red tape such as company policies and administration; overly bureaucratic working conditions; poor interpersonal relations; low salary; a job that is low status; poor security; low trust; being micro-managed; or onerous supervision. These are things that we need to consider when we going to change roles: we may be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Motivating factors meet our "high-level needs such as needs for achievement, recognition, responsibility, and opportunity for growth. Herzberg believed that when motivators are present, workers are highly motivated and satisfied" (Daft, 2008, p. 231). Examples of motivators are likely to include: personal achievement; interesting or rewarding work; a sense of responsibility; opportunities for growth and development; the satisfaction of a job well-done; recognition; advancement; recognition of our peers. These are things we consider when we are in the job, or the things we need to think about with our development.

What was really interesting was that Herzberg thought we should organise HR into a Hygiene division to deliver all the tasks and a Motivation division which dealt with all the motivation factors (Miner, 2005). In many ways, this is the difference between HRM and HRD: HRD looks at job design, seeks competencies, provides feedback, organises training, develops culture, and grows employees. Good spotting, Mr Herzberg!

However, we need to remember that both satisfaction and dissatisfaction can exist together. Criticisms of the model are that it is quite method-bound, and that the separation of the satisfaction & dissatisfaction dimensions is arbitrary; they can both occur simultaneously in our work.

Sam

References:

Daft, R. L. (2008). The Leadership Experience. Cengage.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. World Publishing Company.

Miner, J. B. (2005). Chapter 5: Motivation-Hygiene Theory Frederick Herzberg. In Organizational Behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership (pp. 61-93). Routledge.

read more "Herzberg's theory of motivation hygiene"

Working overtime

Participant average weekly work hours (StackOverflow, 2019).

Most people who work on projects will be familiar with being under the pump towards the end of the project when everything is rush-rush-rushing towards delivering before deadline... and avoiding late penalties. Everyone on the team throws all they have at completion, including late nights and weekends, in order to get the job done.

This project focus applies to many fields, including software development where 100 hour weeks is not uncommon (Heath, 6 August 2019).

We know that prolonged overtime makes us less productive. We know that we start to lose our edge if we try to keep working punishing hours without a break. We know that error rates increase the longer we work.

With huge hours, we might also assume that people might start to lose job satisfaction, but that doesn't seem to be so, according to the latest StackOverflow (2019) survey of 90,000 developers. The survey appears to find "no significant spike in job dissatisfaction among devs working 60 hours a week, with satisfaction levels not really dropping off until developers hit 80-hour weeks" (Heath, 6 August 2019).

But there might something more going on behind the prima facie apparent high satisfaction with huge hours. It appears that 52% of developers don't average more than 44 hours each week, and in fact 65% of developers work 44 hours each week or fewer (see accompanying image).

Only 2% of developers work over 70 hours a week, and this tiny group may be skewing the results. Heath (6 August 2019) reports:

Julia Silge, data scientist for Stack Overflow, says a complicating factor in interpreting the data is that "some of the types of developers who work long hours are also among those who earn the most and also have the highest job satisfaction". The Stack Overflow survey found these high earners typically reported being "very or highly satisfied" with their role, as was the case for 77% of senior executives, 70% of engineering managers, 69% of site reliability engineers, 68% of data scientists and 68% of DevOps specialists.

So. Some love the long hours, and their love of their work keeps them engaged.

It is always wise to cross-tab the data :-)


Sam

References:

• Heath, N. (6 August 2019). Are developers honestly happy working 60-hour weeks? Why it's bad news whatever your programming language. Retrieved from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/are-developers-honestly-happy-working-60-hour-weeks-why-its-bad-news-whatever-your-programming-language/
• StackOverflow (2019). Developer Survey. Retrieved from https://stackoverflow.count.co/share/ZoZKhHvXIurDk0WARlhOD

read more "Working overtime"