CHAPTER 1
TRAPPED IN THE CYCLE: THE WOES OF ENFORCED GAMIFICATION

Work life will never return to the pre-pandemic state.

-US Labor Secretary, Marty Walsh1

Sarah's story resonated with me when I met her. She was 27 years old and was a few years deep into her tenure at a bank, occupying the prestigious role of a venture investment analyst. Fresh from university, she had battled her way through an intense selection process, emerging victorious to the applause of envious classmates and the approving nods of relatives. Her first few exhilarating months were marked with a generous sign-on bonus and the novelty of a coveted career.

However, as the novelty faded and the monotonous reality of the job seeped in, the thrill transformed into comfort. Around her second year, Sarah noticed a feeling of confinement creeping in, along with a rising tide of demotivation. She chose to persevere, thinking that opportunities like hers were rare. However, the longer she held on, the more drained she felt.

Pursuing a degree in financial technology to propel her career, Sarah found that things were becoming less than hunky-dory. Negative performance reviews came her way, with her manager criticizing her work for failing to meet the bank's standards. The bank responded by enforcing a mandatory training program and setting stringent performance improvement expectations.

Even though Sarah completed the training program, she felt a significant chunk of her remaining freedom was stripped away. Her role had devolved into mechanically following instructions, devoid of any meaningful contribution. Long working hours, coupled with increased pressure and strict expectations, eventually led her to burn out. Despite her sincere efforts, Sarah found herself staring at an even worse performance rating and her first warning letter. She felt desolate, trapped, and powerless.

Such experiences are not uncommon. Like Sarah, many of us might have felt this way or know someone who has. But how does this happen? The answer lies in the concept of learned helplessness, as per behavioral psychologists. This psychological state was a significant factor in Sarah's situation and is crucial to understand how we can reform the concept of work.

Sarah's predicament is not unique, and its roots can be traced back to the structuring of work during the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century. As artisans and craftsmen surrendered their tools and techniques, power shifted dramatically to the factory owners. Individual craftspeople couldn't compete against industrial machines, forcing them to join the production lines. As factory owners possessed the means of production, their power and influence grew, exacerbating the problem of helplessness among the workers.

You might wonder, why would anyone willingly learn helplessness? It's a legitimate question. Let's delve deeper into what learned helplessness is and how it manifests.

Learned helplessness is a psychological state where individuals believe they cannot change their circumstances, leading them not to attempt escaping adverse situations, erecting imaginary barriers in their minds. This is a neurological response, where individuals cease efforts to modify their environment after repeated failures. Over time, their brain reprograms itself, making it harder for them to escape unpleasant situations in the future.

This concept, coined by psychologist Martin Seligman in the late 1960s following controversial studies involving dogs and electric shocks, describes subjects losing hope when confronted with uncontrollable circumstances. In one such experiment, participants were subjected to loud, unpleasant noises, with a lever that might or might not stop the sounds. Participants who couldn't stop the noise in the first round stopped trying to silence it in the subsequent rounds.

In my research, I have interviewed numerous individuals who expressed feeling trapped in their jobs, despite their commitments and high salaries. Does this sound familiar? We enter our first jobs with a sense of excitement and endless possibilities, fueled by big ambitions and ideas. However, we often find ourselves increasingly stuck, doing tasks that lack passion and purpose. We switch jobs repeatedly, hoping to find that magical place of fulfilling work, only to be reminded by bosses, well-intentioned colleagues, and even our parents that such a place may not exist, and we should simply be grateful for having a job that pays the bills.

Learned helplessness is a challenging mindset to overcome, as it involves changes in the brain's structure and function due to repeated stress and negative experiences. Experiencing helplessness triggers the release of stress hormones, such as cortisol, which gradually damages the hippocampus, the region of the brain responsible for learning and memory. This damage impairs the brain's ability to process and store information, further complicating an already difficult situation. As a result, not only do individuals feel trapped in their own narratives, but they also unintentionally reduce their cognitive abilities, effectively throwing away the key to the door to escape.

Furthermore, repeated stress affects the function of the prefrontal cortex, which plays a crucial role in decision-making and executive control. This can lead to a decreased ability to think critically, solve problems, and make decisions, exacerbating feelings of helplessness. It becomes a futile negative spiral.

You might have come across various versions of the story of two frogs, ending up in a milk jug. The story is that the frog that perseveres in pedaling ends up churning milk into butter and jump out while the other one gives up and perishes. While these stories may not be true, they carry a significant lesson. Placing people or frogs in situations where they feel helpless rarely yields positive outcomes. This raises an important question: is helplessness an inherent and inseparable part of work, or is it a negative by-product of the current mis-structuring of work?

During a conversation about motivation and work with a financial services executive, who managed a leading company in Singapore, I gained valuable insights that changed my perspective. I asked Mike (not his real name) what he believed was the main motivator for work for most executives. I expected him to mention money, and I was partially correct. However, his answer took an interesting and somewhat surprising angle. Mike stated that the main motivation for him and his peers was "not to get fired."

His explanation was pragmatic and brutally honest. He went on to elaborate that he received a top salary for making only two or three decisions per week. The rest of his work was designed to keep him occupied and busy, creating the illusion of productivity. In reality, many company teams, such as finance, were only needed around 30% of the time, while the rest of the time was filled with busy work to prevent boredom. This means that, on average, people spend just one day per week on productive work, while the remaining time is spent on superficial tasks to occupy them. Additionally, there is an expectation that they will be available at all times, in an active standby mode, in case something urgent arises.

Mike's story is not an isolated incident; it is far more prevalent than we imagine. According to David Graeber, the author of Bullshit Jobs: A Theory,2 close to 40% of the work we do is unproductive. Work has an interesting characteristic of expanding to fill all available time, much like gas fills a balloon. Software engineers, for example, often share anecdotes about teams given months to solve a problem, spending time on various busy work and failing to produce results, only to have engineers from a different team solve the problem in just two days of focused effort.

Have you ever questioned the purpose of certain tasks assigned to you? It's no wonder we sometimes feel that the work we do is simply make-work projects to keep us occupied.

When I heard these insights, something clicked in my mind, and the inefficiency and inertia of work began to make sense. If we believe that high salaries incentivize organization leaders to deliver the highest value results, we may have it all wrong. Instead, they often focus on avoiding termination, which can lead to building large, inefficient teams working on complex intertwined projects, making themselves irreplaceable. Inefficiency is hidden behind department doors.

During a discussion with the Asia head of HR for a leading financial services firm, she shared a story about her 25-year-old son who works for a tech company in New York. He purposefully disconnects from work at 6 PM every day to prioritize a balanced life. This was a revelation for the head of HR, as her own evenings and weekends were often consumed by overflow work, an accepted part of corporate life. The expectation is that work does not stop when you leave the office. Working long hours, equated with working "hard," becomes a badge of honor and an expectation perpetuated by many leaders who experienced the same grind in their own careers. It quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with busy work filling any available time.

In her influential TED talk, "Gaming can make a better world," game designer, researcher, and best-selling author Jane McGonigal3 emphasized the potential of games as a tool for positive change and creating a better world. She argued that playing...