Extreme work is a topic that possesses stigma surrounding the actual definition. What is considered to be extreme work could be said to be purely subjective, there is always a type of work or a job that people perceive to be more extreme than what they do. One person’s extreme is another persons norm, they coexist in a ‘complex, contested duality’ (Granter and McCann, 2015). This essay shall be exploring extreme work, suggesting reasons why notions of extremity have become intwined with what is viewed to be the norm in organisations. I will subsequently be focusing on how firms have been handling and reacting to the consequences of extreme work on both individuals and the organisations themselves. The definition of ‘extreme’ work is still at large but through the analysis of industries and their extreme practises, it will help the construction of this and an understanding of what extreme work consists of. Lyng’s (1990) theory of edgework will also be touched on, focusing on the nature of risky activities.
In many industries such as banking, perceived as being more intensive, employees are well-paid and are even some of the top 6% of earners in America (Hewlett and Luce, 2006). Despite the working time directive, specifying that employees should work no longer than 48 hours a week (Maximum weekly working hours, no date), Hewlett and Luce’s (2006) data revealed that ’62% of high-earning individuals work more than 50 hours a week, 35% work more than 60 hours a week, and 10% work more than 80 hours a week’. It can be summarised that this apparent exploitation of employees is in fact over-ruled by how the employees feel, many exalted as they enjoy the challenges of work and sense of achievement (Hewlett and Luce 2006) particularly as they are being rewarded. This sense of achievement however, comes at a cost for many employees. Hewlett (2005) found that two-thirds of professionals surveyed suffer from anxiety, insomnia , overeat or are reliant on medications to relieve the various consequences of working long hours , not to mention extreme stress has been associated with psychiatric and physical disorders, low morale, substance abuse, work absence and burnout (Schnurr and Green 2004). Workers in these fast-paced industries have adopted the extreme aspects of the job and moulded it into their view of the norm. Imperative human activities such as eating, sleeping and exercising are all things which these employees are in deficit of, yet consider this to be normal. Long working hours are not something new in defining extreme work, they have remained a stagnant element of the definition since the Industrial Revolution (Hopkins, 1982).
In many firms nowadays the offering to employees has become much higher than previously to keep them working harder than ever; at the Googleplex, employees have access to all-you-can-eat meals all day, swimming pools, hair cuts, massages, doctors , volleyball and bicycles (Levitt, 2012). Firms give employees no excuse to leave work when they provide everything on site, if employees enhance their contribution it can enhance the production process and therefore result in organisational success (Costea et al., 2007). Costea et al., (2007) refer to this trend in the expansion in application of terms such as ‘fun’ and ‘play’ to create a more ‘total experience’ where imagination and spontaneity are the new version of disciplinary formulas. Firms that choose to adopt this extreme work model in terms of long working hours may be competitive in the short term however, not sustainable as employees may need replacing in the long term. Overexerting employees may discourage creativeness, deplete morale whilst resulting in higher levels of employee absenteeism and work place sickness (Granter and McCann, 2015). The example explored in the retail and banking industries conflict in terms of what the employees themselves believe to be extreme work. This could be put down to the fact that ‘extreme jobs’ are no longer a rarity, there has been a massive increase in work pressure for high-caliber professionals, employees are some of the most important assets to firms (Hewlett and Luce, 2006).
Hochschild (1997, cited by Bozkurt, 2015) defines extreme work as something that spills over a ‘ range of temporal, spatial and social boundaries, refusing containment, as evidenced in the growth of corporate overwork cultures’. To ascertain to whether or not work has become extreme it is important to compare different industries. In a study done by Bozkurt (2015), looking into work on a deli counter over the Christmas period, employees found the increase in their working hours extreme, Granter and McCann describe this as the basic activities related to a job becoming ‘magnified and extended’. Poverty is something many supermarket employees face due to their low wages (Cassidy, 2012), resulting in them struggling to survive. Work that does not compensate employees appropriately for their work is evidently not the norm across many industries.
Globalisation has put massive pressure on firms to become more competitive than ever, offering products at rock-bottom prices and consequently paying employees minimal wages. Extreme work, or work that is perceived to be extreme due to it falling outside of the laws, put in place to protect employees, still occur behind closed doors in the UK. ‘Dark factories’ still exist in the UK garment industry where health and safety protocols are ignored, ‘places with blocked fire escapes, old machines and no holiday or sick pay’ (O’Connor, 2018) and employees are paid less than the national minimum wage. In general it is believed that in the UK there are suitable bureaucracies to prevent such exploitation happening but loopholes clearly exist. Defining what the norm is, is critical to the understanding of extreme work but it is difficult. Industries have been adapted, specific terminology altered, to redefine what extreme work is. ‘Enhanced interrogation ’ (Chwastiak, 2015) is a prime example of this. Whilst bureaucracies can prevent extreme work and the consequences of this, despite other critics challenging this viewpoint, Bauman (1989) observed that this ‘bureaucratisation, routinisation and instrumental rationality’ are the driving force behind mainstreaming extreme work. Without bureaucratisation, extreme work cannot be prevented, yet without bureaucratisation, extreme work can’t become the norm. Bureaucratisation has become an excuse for permitting any behaviour potentially deemed by other as being extreme or dangerous. Torture became ‘enhanced interrogation’ and as a result the extreme became the norm, or something that is considered appropriate behaviour.
Although the working time directive applies to many jobs, it does not apply to the armed forces or emergency services, allowing people in these industries to work absurd hours and putting their lives at risk. However, these risks could be said to be a commonly known element of the job that exist before someone signs up for the job. Contrary to the definition of extreme work by Hochschild (1997, cited by Bozkurt, 2015), ‘edgework’ by Lyng (1990), describes the voluntary involvement of people in extreme activities that involve a threat to physical or mental well-being. The failure of such task or sport will result in serious injury or death. This definition strongly resonates with many ‘normal’ jobs, for example many police, firefighters and ambulance workers are injured or are killed on the job, it is in industries such as these where the expectations of the outcome is so widely known that they are not magnified to seem extreme by the everyman. A development of edgework, ‘workplace edgework’ (Milovanovic, 2004) has been coined to define jobs with these elements of extreme risk involved. The context however, is slightly different; in high intensity and high pressure work environments where failure can cost the business, employees feel under intense pressure to succeed. It could be said that just like how the extremity involved with extreme sports helps the sale of it, (Robinson, 2008) the element of risk associated with high intensity jobs helps to recruit employees willing to put themselves through whatever it takes to get a sense of achievement and satisfaction.
Extreme work is not something new, perceptions about the extreme are perpetually being adapted. Bureaucratisation has altered the definition of extreme work, it could be said that the definition is dependant on what governments believe, as the rules they implement has a considerable influence on the ‘norm’. The extreme may not be the element that has changed, rather the norm is. The perception of extreme work has changed perhaps in the movement towards work that causes potentially more emotional or psychological problems rather than more obvious physical injuries. The jobs endured by employees during The Industrial Revolution may seem more shockingly extreme due to the injuries sustained and the poor working conditions compared to the less physically extreme conditions nowadays which are masked by organisations appearing to be in the interests of the employees. Lyng’s edgework is concurrent with all aspects of extreme work and further highlights the motivators of people to partake in such extreme activities.