People are often taught to think about work in terms of income, productivity, and professional advancement. However, those measurements do not necessarily capture whether work feels meaningful or contributes anything valuable to society. In The Instinct of Workmanship and the Irksomeness of Labor, Veblen (1898) challenges the assumption that people naturally dislike work. Instead, he argues that people are inclined toward purposeful activity and meaningful accomplishment, while their frustration with labor often develops from the cultural conditions surrounding it. His argument remains relevant because contemporary organizations frequently prioritize profitability and conformity over social value, even though economic success and meaningful contribution do not have to be mutually exclusive.
Veblen (1898) rejects the traditional economic assumption that people want the rewards of work but naturally dislike the effort required to obtain them. He argues that people generally want to accomplish useful goals and take pride in producing something worthwhile. This instinct of workmanship is not simply a desire to stay busy or work harder. It reflects the desire to achieve a meaningful outcome and see that one’s efforts serve a purpose. People can tolerate considerable effort when they believe their work matters. The problem arises when labor becomes associated with low social status, powerlessness, or activities that appear disconnected from any meaningful contribution.
According to Veblen (1898), the irksomeness of labor develops partly through social hierarchies that treat some forms of work as inferior while rewarding prestige, competition, and visible displays of success. In this context, people may come to value the appearance of status more than the actual usefulness of their contributions. His language and assumptions reflect the limitations of the period in which he wrote, particularly its patriarchal perspectives. Nevertheless, his central distinction remains important: People do not necessarily reject work itself; they reject work that feels degrading, pointless, or disconnected from what they value.
I see these dynamics in an economy that often treats profitability as the primary measure of whether something is useful. Many jobs focus on creating commodities, increasing convenience, improving efficiency, or generating additional revenue. These objectives are not automatically harmful, but they can become limiting when they are treated as more important than human well-being or meaningful contribution. Something can generate substantial profit without producing much social value, while another activity can improve people’s lives without being easily monetized. The problem emerges when market value becomes the only recognized form of value.
My educational background provides a personal example. I have studied women’s studies, political science, psychology, philosophy, and political psychology, and I am currently pursuing organizational leadership. People often respond to degrees like these by asking, “What are you going to do with that?” The question usually assumes that education is only worthwhile if it leads directly to a clearly defined job or financial return. However, these disciplines have expanded how I think, communicate, understand other people, and relate to the world. They have also given me greater range in my professional life. Their value cannot be reduced to whether each degree translates neatly into a particular job title.
This narrow understanding of value is reinforced by cultural conformity. People are often expected to follow a familiar sequence: attend school, go to college, find a job, and continue pursuing whichever opportunities appear socially acceptable. Career decisions may also be influenced by family expectations, professional networks, or the availability of opportunities. Although these choices are shaped by real economic and social constraints, they can discourage people from asking whether their work aligns with their values or contributes to the kind of life they want to build.
Organizations experience similar pressures. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that organizations frequently adopt comparable structures and practices because of external demands, imitation, and shared professional norms. These mechanisms encourage conformity even when a particular practice does not improve outcomes. An organization might implement new technology, standardized reporting, or employee-monitoring systems because competitors do the same or because those practices appear legitimate. What concerns me is how little room this leaves for experimentation and for questioning whether these practices actually create meaningful work.
Nielsen’s (1980) review of Richard Edwards’s work further illustrates how organizational control can become embedded in technology and formal procedures. Employees may appear productive according to organizational metrics while feeling disconnected from the actual purpose of their work. In these environments, the problem is not that employees are unwilling to contribute. Rather, the organization defines contribution so narrowly that revenue, visibility, and measurable output become more important than judgment, creativity, or human impact.
I have experienced this difference directly in my professional life. I have worked in roles where the primary objective was increasing the bottom line, with little attention to whether the work created meaningful benefits beyond financial performance. Those environments felt draining because it was difficult to connect my efforts to a broader purpose. In contrast, my current work allows me to experience what feels like the best of both worlds. Revenue remains an important organizational goal, but so does empowering others and creating meaningful experiences. That combination demonstrates that financial success and social value do not have to compete.
Ultimately, Veblen’s ideas have not disappeared. They remain visible whenever people question whether their work contributes to something beyond profit, productivity, or social expectations. As automation and artificial intelligence continue reshaping organizational life, the challenge will not simply be making work more efficient. It will be ensuring that efficiency does not replace purpose. Organizations can pursue economic success while also creating meaningful experiences, supporting human development, and contributing to the common good. Doing so requires a willingness to challenge conformity and recognize that the value of work extends beyond what can be capitalized.
References
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Nielsen, R. P. (1980). [Review of the book Contested terrain: The transformation of the workplace in the twentieth century, by R. Edwards]. The Academy of Management Review, 5(4), 625–627.
Veblen, T. (1898). The instinct of workmanship and the irksomeness of labor. American Journal of Sociology, 4(2), 187–201.