So is a theory about human nature a discovery, or is it an invention? I believe that often, it is more invention than discovery. I think that ideas, like Adam Smith's, about what motivates people to work have shaped the nature of the workplace. I think they have shaped the workplace in directions that are unfortunate. What this means is that instead of walking around thinking that well, work just is what it is, and we have to deal with it, we should be asking whether the way work is is the way it should be. My answer to that question is an unequivocal no.
In Barry Schwartz's work "Why We Work," he explores the distinction between theories about human nature as discoveries versus inventions. He leans toward the idea that these theories are more inventions, suggesting that they reflect our constructed beliefs rather than inherent truths. This perspective highlights how conceptualizations of motivation, such as those proposed by Adam Smith, have significantly influenced workplace dynamics.
Schwartz argues that these influential ideas have led to unfortunate developments in the nature of work. Instead of accepting the current state of work as unchangeable, he encourages us to critically assess whether the existing structures truly benefit us. He firmly believes that the way work is currently organized is not the ideal and challenges us to rethink the purpose and design of our working lives.
