This is worth thinking about even if you're self-employed.
After all, you've still got a boss - it's just that the boss is you.
Personally, I know I've found that thinking about how you-the-boss treats you-the-employee is very valuable. Simple things like rewarding yourself for meeting goals, setting reasonable expectations and making sure to stick to holiday commitments can make a huge difference to the self-employment experience.
Even if you're self-employed not just "you" is the boss. Your clients are your bosses. There's not such work where there is no boss at all, unless you find a way where you can only depend on yourself alone.
This is of more than theoretical interest in Denmark (where the study was done), because both public and large private employers have a mandatory health-and-safety oversight process, which needs to be guided by some solid facts about what actually contributes to health and safety. The typical setup is that health/safety statistics from various sources (like the health-care system) are collected and cross-referenced with employment, and if a workplace or department is an outlier on any of those (e.g. significantly above-baseline levels of new mental-health visits), the information is presented to a standing committee made up of both management and employee representatives, which is tasked with investigating why this is the case, and coming up with a plan to address the issue.
That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack. In none of the summaries of the three linked articles do I see that part of the claim documented by their data.
Below are the "results" sections from the summaries of the two non-saliva articles among the 3 referenced in the posted "article".
From "A two-year follow-up study of risk of depression according to work-unit measures of psychological demands and decision latitude."
RESULTS:
The OR for depression according to psychological demands was 1.07 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.42-2.49] for every unit of change on a 5-point scale. The corresponding OR for decision latitude was 1.85 (95% CI 0.55-6.26). No interactive effects of psychological demands and decision latitude were observed.
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that low decision latitude may predict depression, but confidence intervals are wide and findings are also compatible with no increased risk.
From "Work-unit measures of organisational justice and risk of depression--a 2-year cohort study."
RESULTS:
Working in a work unit with low procedural justice (adjusted ORs of 2.50, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.88) and low relational justice (3.14, 95% CI 1.37 to 7.19) predicted onset of depression.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our results indicate that a work environment characterised by low levels of justice is a risk factor for depression.
"That work load should have no effect on risk of depression sounds downright whack."
Then again, two of the summaries you quote actually suggest that things have a lot more to do with office politics and work environment.
Think of it this way: if you've an infinitely long todo list, but no pressure whatsoever ("wake me up as you complete the tasks"), it's just an insurmountable amount of work that you'll grow used to never completing and you'll do as much as you can and be satisfied with yourself.
Now, toss a boss into the equation -- one that tells you to get it all done by yesterday. Or put another way, one that essentially goes: "let me load your backpack with 50kg before I order you to swimm across this river". That can screw you up rather quickly. Especially if that boss's priorities change daily or hourly.
I don't mind the infinitely long to-do list, but I get stressed out by having constantly changing priorities that force me to drop a project before it's done and work on a new one. Long-term strategic projects (which tend to be the most interesting to work on) can get dropped and resumed several times before they get completed, and each time that happens it seems more painful than the last time.
"Surprisingly, the study indicates that a heavy workload has no effect on whether or not employees become depressed.
Instead, it is the work environment and the feeling of being treated unfairly by the management that has the greatest effect on an employee’s mood."
I guess there are many ways to improve the work environment (and many ways not to), but how do you improve fairness. Isn't it too late the moment you recognize unfairness?
I think it is about a boss showing respect for his/her employees, active listening to and consideration for their ideas, and valuing their work. Saying "thank you" goes a long way and costs nothing. Occasionally stopping in the workplace and showing interest in the work helps. They used to call this "management by walking around." Showing value of the group's success at the expense of their own short term gain is a major plus.
Let me illustrate with an example from the best Division director I ever had. He came to us from NIST and valued analytical work, which made him a perfect fit for our materials characterization division. On numerous occasions when we would raise concerns over decisions our client divisions made that we felt hurt the company. He would go (or go with us) to have uncomfortable discussions with clients. On three occasions he made decisions that that adversely affected me and each time I went to him, he listened to my case and changed his decision. He was not afraid to say "no" if one couldn't build a case. The all time winner came when we needed to buy an expensive piece of equipment. At the time, capital would frequently become available near the end of the year because other divisions overestimated their needs. We then had the opportunity to purchase the instrument. This was the first year when management bonuses were tied to budget performance. Signing the order meant forfeiting his bonus. He signed it. That showed me that he valued long term organizational well being over his own short term profit. He made his share of questionable decisions - as all human beings do, but always retained my respect and loyalty.
I suspect that what they call unfairness, I'd call abusive behaviour. Unreasonable, unpredictable, unapproachable, blaming, personalizing, forcing agreement and then holding you ransom to what you agreed, applying a double standard to their own advantage, ignoring, controlling, and snooping.
And this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is why HR is so hot on a positive outlook on life in candidates. Cynicism leads to burnout, burnout leads to turnover, turnover leads to lost profits, and lost profits means suffering.
The cult of cheerful actually has a purpose. No need to improve working conditions when you can choose those candidates from the pool that will put up with the workplace as it is.
Improving conditions is more difficult - it's the supervisors that set the tone, and changing entrenched habits is a hard task.
I am repeating myself a lot saying this, but it's about respect. As manager you take an implied responsibility to be fair, nobody is going to tell you what to do, it's on you. If you recognize unfairness you go ahead and take responsibility, take the losses and compensate the victim.
Unfairness is not hard to detect. Just put yourself in the other person's shoes and see if you would like to be treated this way. Corporate and business ethics are well established with tons of case studies and guidelines, mostly common sense. If only there was somebody to read them.
That's all fine and dandy if the manager is actually fair-minded. If he's more interested in playing politics and executing vendettas then he's part of the problem. And I've found the latter holds true more often than not.
For me the unfairness that matters is how much I'm being paid.
If I'm making significantly less than others who produce the same amount and quality of output that I do, or making less by people who produce less, then I raise it as a point with management.
If nothing is changed when review time rolls around then it's on me to take action and look for another job. If I decide to stay somewhere that I'm unhappy, that's on me too.
As an adult, I'm not going to stand around and whine about unfair conditions. If I perceive a problem, I create a change in my life.
As an adult, I'm not going to stand around and whine about unfair conditions. If I perceive a problem, I create a change in my life.
Last time I checked the recession was still ongoing, and the latest labour survey showed voluntary separations still to be uncommonly low. I'm aware that computing is quite shielded, but the Danish study isn't about you. It includes everyone else, too, and most are in a worse position.
I have a problem with this too. People being paid more in most positions I've been aware of play what seems a confidence lottery. Its not that they're better skilled, they're just better negotiators.
What should differentiate a group of developers with the same job title of say Agile Developer, where there is no junior-mid-senior? A set base pay with bonuses based on performance, or the wild west where 50 yr old Bob who is stuck in 80s programming practices makes more than 24 yr old Jack makes considerably less yet has to be corrected much less?
It's disheartening as hell to realize the person who brings almost no value makes x-5k where x is your salary, with no bonus structure. Developer culture is stupid hard to convince to non developers. In our world, a meritocracy is highly favored. Based on talent not negotiating skills from talentless hacks.
Unfortunately, it's very common to give someone more responsibility without giving them more control, and that can make the person's life much worse than it was before. For example, if you make me a project leader and give me responsibility for the output of an entire team but you don't give me hire/fire authority or a budget to buy the equipment I need, then the only way I can ensure that we make our deadlines is to work ridiculous hours to tie up everyone else's loose ends.
True that, competent management requires attention to the balance of these components in a way that makes people both productive, and happy to be doing their jobs.
Even though my last boss was an alcoholic, he wasn't the cause of the stress I had to endure, he and his brother (who worked as the finance manager) merely exacerbated it. They must have been smoking crack not to notice I had to put up with having "Ah fuck off" shouted at me three or four times a day, along with threats of being punched.
To quit would have been a bad idea. It looks very bad on a CV. In the UK you are told that you shouldn't criticise a former employer, no matter what.
I developed an awful cough due to the amount of ten year old dust lying about (I was once yelled at for "not paying attention", when I had a violent coughing fit that resulted in me having a large amount of phlegm in my mouth. To avoid a situation, I had to swallow it).
The two brothers were smoking inside the building, which is against the law. This was an optometrist's laboratory, with a fair amount of hazardous chemicals stored within the small building. This included white spirit and methanol. I would be asked to close the front entrance for them so the public couldn't look inside.
The company in question also commit product plagiarism, and I was expected to keep quiet about it.
I once got very angry at one of my coworkers for shouting at me, saying that I "don't listen", calling me "very immature", making fun of the clothes that I wear and one threat (this would occur on a daily basis). I got into a lot of trouble about that. The finance manager said that I shouldn't be aggressive at work, because I could be put on some sort of "employment blacklist", which would mean that I would never get a job ever again.
In eight months I estimate I had endured between 800-1200 separate incidents.
Criticism is a form of opinion, merely stating what you have seen is not. Even so, if I had mentioned any of the above in an interview, I would have instantly failed. Employment law in the UK is reasonably good, but can be very poorly implemented.
>To quit would have been a bad idea. It looks very bad on a CV. In the UK you are told that you shouldn't criticise a former employer, no matter what.
I don't think anyone should ever let fear of having a gap in their CV keep them in a job which they would otherwise quit. It should be possible to talk about why you left without being critical (saying you didn't "fit in" would be a non-judgemental way of explaining it). If it looks like you're avoiding being critical a good interviewer will understand and as long as you're honest and can talk about it confidently they'll give more weight to your skills than anything else. It's worth rehearsing answering the question so you can appear confident.
I've had to explain gaps in my CV where I've been unemployed for months (including a year out to work on a side project that went nowhere but which ultimately help me get my previous job as I was able to demonstrate my skill and bring in printed code listings to the interview). I've gradually worked my way up to a job where I've very happy with what I'm working on and have the skills and confidence to know I could get a good job quickly if I ever had to move on.
> The finance manager said that I shouldn't be aggressive at work, because I could be put on some sort of "employment blacklist", which would mean that I would never get a job ever again.
That was almost certainly a lie. They might have complained to an agency if you were working for one but they were probably more afraid of you telling someone about all the bad practice there than you were afraid of them. If this was fairly recent and you think it is still going on you might want to consider finding out if there is any regulator body you could make an (anonymous if you prefer) complaint against them.
I hope you find/have found work and employers that suit your ambitions.
"I don't think anyone should ever let fear of having a gap in their CV keep them in a job which they would otherwise quit."
Of course, the term "fear" should not come up in discussions about work, unless you work in a dangerous job. Funnily enough I currently work part time as a tree_surgeon, one of the most dangerous jobs you can do. Last Christmas I nearly cut my toes off. An odd path for an amateur coder.
"That was almost certainly a lie." It was, I had porky_pies thrown at me left, right and NULL. Unfortunately this happened five years ago and the lush we had for a boss has retired. His pathetic excuse for a son is now running the circus. Back then my parents, friends and doctors simply didn't listen.
The one lesson I learned was a new buzz_phrase: "implicit gamesmanship".
It's perhaps not safe to generalize the results from a study on Danish public workers. Billions work in deeply unfair, disrespectful management structures. Many are very harsh and dehumanizing by western standards. I would be interested to see a broader study to see how culture impacts results.
That's true, this is investigating within a setting that already assumes certain minimum norms on employment conditions. Due to both culture and law, nobody is being pressured into working 50+ hour weeks, so the degree of excessive workload is bounded.
I think this goes a long way to back the current anecdotal theory:
"Stress - The confusion caused when ones mind overrides the body's natural desire to choke the living shit out of some asshole that desperately needs it."
The challenge for founders is that it's more important to be respected than to be liked as the boss.
If you're too strict, employees think you're unfair and they get depressed. If you treat them too leniently and are too friendly, they'll like you but the company's performance will suffer.
The best founders prioritise performance and being respected, but create structure and goals that avoid people feeling like they're being treated unfairly.
After all, you've still got a boss - it's just that the boss is you.
Personally, I know I've found that thinking about how you-the-boss treats you-the-employee is very valuable. Simple things like rewarding yourself for meeting goals, setting reasonable expectations and making sure to stick to holiday commitments can make a huge difference to the self-employment experience.