Take a moment to reflect on a time this past week where you felt the greatest sense of belonging at work. Where were you, who were you with, and what was going on? See if you can really bring this experience to mind….. Now, recall a time recently when you felt disconnected or uncertain while at work.  Where were you, who were you surrounded by, and what was happening?

We might consider your first image the “inclusionary pressures” of your workplace. That is, the physical, social, and structural aspects of your work that help incorporate your non-work identity (being a mother, a churchgoer, an athlete, a musician, or just a human being) into your day-to-day life.  The second experience you recalled emphasizes the exclusionary pressures, or aspects of work that encourage you to segment out your non-work self (Ramarajan & Reid, 2013). 

The Myth of Separate Worlds tells us that we should, and can, successfully segment our personal life and our professional lives. It tells us that to be truly committed to work is to make it our sole focus, without family or other demands interfering. Anything less than this would be considered lazy. The myth of separate worlds is particularly strong in occupations with staunch professional rites of passage, as in the case of lawyers, architects, physicians, and others. Workers who end up buying into the myth of separate worlds are said to have a Work Devotion Schema (Williams et al., 2016).

The work devotion schema gets a lot wrong. First, we know that work-life conflict is one of the leading sources of occupational stress in the U.S., and that it is virtually impossible to segment our work and personal lives. It is absolutely the case that our psychological needs do not magically disappear while at work, nor can we come home unaffected by our working hours. Indeed, I think of this as the difference between compartmentalization—where we separate contradicting thoughts/feeling in order to get through our days—and dissociation—an extreme psychological defense that involves emotional numbing and considerable cost to the individual.

Second, while individual differences exist in preferences for work-life integration vs. work-life segmentation, research has found strong evidence that congruence between who we are at work and who we are at home, as well as flexibility in moving between home and work, is associated with greater well-being and performance in both domains (Williams et al., 2016).  It is also associated with increased job satisfaction and commitment from employees (Kossek & Ozeki 1998), less frequent absenteeism and intentions to quit, lower attrition, and higher performance and career success across professions (Anderson et al., 2002). 

Despite the fact that the work-devotion schema is thus not only impossible but also highly unproductive from a business perspective, it continues to persist in most working worlds and domains. While its beyond the scope of this blog post, many speculate that the reason the work devotion schema persists is not economic but rather societal, reflecting norms of masculinity and morality. In a nutshell, work becomes wrapped in deeper aspects of the self as fundamentally “good/bad” or “man/woman.” Both of which are false dichotomies in this sense.

One fundamental belief I have as a psychologist is that our worth as a person should never be on the line when it comes to work. There is simply too much at stake when this becomes the case. Knowing that the work-devotion schema actually undermines productivity, rather than bolstering it, can help us to take a step back when we feel we have become totally defined by our profession.

You are more than your work! So much more. Work should always serve you, not the other way around. Far from selfish, making work subservient to you is based on what we know makes the most productive, innovative, and effective workers. Still, getting out from under the work-devotion schema can be tough, especially if it was enshrined in our family values and behaviors. Speaking to a professional can help.