The argument which this book makes (and I’m very much inclined to agree) is that although the competitive economy and flexible working are real and will not go away, pushing people harder and making them unhappy will not actually make a business successful. Many of us are “knowledge workers” — working in an industry where creativity, intelligence and knowledge are your main business (as opposed to manual work). The most important thing for such a company is that it has bright people, and that these people are able to think. If people are unhappy (because their family is far away, they don’t have real friends, they feel they are being squeezed and not rewarded properly, whatever) they can’t concentrate properly, therefore be less productive, and probably the best people will soon leave for somewhere more pleasant. And good people are very hard to replace. Therefore it ought to be in a business’ very best interests to provide an environment which is supportive, friendly, enjoyable etc. Pushing people too hard might give some short-term gains, but is absolutely unsustainable in the longer view.

It probably depends on the industry. Maybe in consultancy people are in fact so replaceable that a high turnover does not matter. But if that is indeed true, I can only conclude that consultancy is essentially of the same nature as unskilled manual labour (except that there are more people with MBAs walking around). Might be the right thing for some people, but not for me!

Of course the socialising outside work which you mention is very important and not something which can be replaced. I just think that the work ought to be fun too, not just the leisure time.

However, surely in the current global economic environment, such teams will inevitably become less and less common - workers are increasingly being forced to act as individuals, with little hope of financial (and other) support from increasingly cash-strapped firms, welfare-resistant governments, distant families, and empty communities. Workers are called on to work on a project basis, and then as soon as a product is launched (the design and construction of a particular car, a software programme, a consultancy exercise, an advert - and note that these are all *growing* industries), the worker leaves the project, is alone, and has to search for participation in a new project. With globalisation forcing firms to be increasingly competitive and to lay off workers with declining productiving, and with globalisation making project-based work more possible (travelling and communicating over long distances), I wonder whether any successful firm can provide such a stable working environment for its employees. Your example of the consultancy firm may be the way forward.

Perhaps an alternative focus might be on the non-workplace institutions (such as unions) which may help workers to both socialise with those who have chosen the same career sector, and to find alternative employment within that sector when the time, inevitably, comes. Firms like Google which appear to provide a supportive environment for its employees only do so as long as those employees are profitable - it is only the support networks of Silicon Valley (or the consultancy sector, or the construction sector, or “adland” in Soho) which can provide real support in uncertain times.