When hunting for a job, we can face a dilemma: should we pick the one we despise but will pay the bills or pick the dream job we are unlikely to get? And what if you have a long-term health condition or a disability? Our attitude regarding work and our philosophy of life can dictate our choices, but if you're unfortunate to have disability needs, then you have to face an extra dilemma.
Job hunting is one of the most soul-destroying activities out there. It’s a job in and of itself: finding a real offer still open, crafting a tailored CV for every role, writing cover letters, bypassing AI screening, and painstakingly recreating your CV to fit into the company’s form is no small feat. Guiding how we go about finding and keeping a job is our mindset about labour, which plays a role in how we thrive in work and our community. Those who think of work as a mean to get money for sustenance tend to have the ability to separate what they do from who they are, while those who think of work as a mean to contribute to their community usually have a mindset that you are what you do. People usually fall somewhere in between, which exacerbate the following dilemma: should we work “for money” or “for others,” and at what costs? More importantly, are we all equal in this problem or do people with disabilities face a whole other conundrum?
Working for money.
The “work for money” attitude is intertwined with the philosophical view that one Self exists outside of one’s actions or, in other words, the “ I am not what I do” mindset. It is often linked to the perception that there is not enough for everyone to survive and that we must compete over these resources for survival. Because food and shelter are basic physiological needs, and there is a perceived scarcity of resources, one may believe that it’s everyone for themselves when looking for work. Since everyone is assumed to be fighting for scraps, a belief sets: to survive, one must be selfish and be willing to forgo personal values of sharing, generosity and integrity. The assumption is that everyone will be cunning and ruthless, so we are justified in being so ourselves.
Because “beggars can’t be choosers”, the strategy is to apply for as many jobs as possible and take whatever comes your way first. When applying for jobs, the selection is made through an amoral lens whereby, beyond its legality, the ethicality of the role or company is not questioned. Lying may occur on a CV and during interviews by exaggerating skills and achievements or outright inventing abilities, education or past work. In its extreme form, one may choose to scam or work for a scamming company (N.B., victims of modern slavery are excluded since victims can’t choose).
The “work for money” attitude offers great advantages when finding work. Adopting a quantity-over-quality strategy and reducing as many barriers to job selection as possible greatly increases the chances of finding work quickly. This, in turn, leads to faster acquisition of work experience, which consequently increases employability.
Cognitive Dissonance:
Once a job has been secured through means whereby values may have been compromised in exchange for survival, one may experience cognitive dissonance: the discomfort felt whenever values and behaviours aren’t aligned. The abandonment of values during a job search can lead to accepting a work morally misaligned with one’s values. While the job satisfies the needs for shelter and food, it creates another dissonance whereby one abandons their social need for belonging, fulfilment and esteem. To eliminate the discomfort caused by these dissonances, one may shift their attitudes to match their behaviours or change their behaviours to match their values.
Justification: An attitude shift can be seen when people justify working for unethical or amoral companies by adopting the point of view that who you are is separate from what you do. By separating one’s identity from one’s actions, they preserve their integral sense of self with their ethics and virtuous values while continuing to behave in direct contradiction with them. The virtuous self expresses itself outside of work, where the need for social belonging and fulfilment is sought. Work takes around a third of our waking life, so one could easily consider that our true self is expressed during the other two-thirds of our waking hours. By reinforcing this attitude, one can avoid an effortful behavioural change.
Risks of attitude shift: However, this attitude is not without its disadvantages. The danger —which many find themselves in— is to become stuck in a dead-end job. Worse still, being stuck in a job favouring a culture of amorality, whereby morality is not considered when making decisions, and the main concern is legality, can consolidate unethical practices. Here, we are at the risk of repetitive use of justification of immoral practices as a means to solving the cognitive dissonance. As a result, the values meant to be temporarily compromised become a newly adopted fixed mindset, slowly merging with one’s identity. The individual contaminated by the once-rejected unscrupulous values is then at risk of being further morally exploited, of accepting tasks, roles, and job offers that are even less ethical than the ones they have tolerated thus far. In essence, their personal limit to what is acceptable risks being moved further and further away from ethical values.
Protest: Another solution to reduce the discomfort caused by the dissonance is to change one's behaviour. Rather than justify their choice of work, one may show up late to work, do the bare minimum, and show no ambition to improve as a form of protest against their situation. Thus, behaviours become a direct expression of one’s disagreement with the role or company’s values, allowing the person to retain a semblance of coherence between beliefs and actions. By modifying one’s behaviour, one can avoid having to change their attitude and beliefs.
Risks of behavioural shift: Similarly to the attitude shift, this behavioural change needed to reduce inconsistencies between values and actions comes with risks. If one protests through lateness or laziness, one risks losing or damaging valuable labour skills and accumulating poor references. Consequently, chances of better employment are considerably reduced, and the likelihood of being stuck in a vicious cycle of working for a job we despise is increased. Furthermore, this protest behaviour of being the least good worker one can be may jeopardise the desire to belong and be fulfilled at work. One cannot feel like a contributing member of society and believe it by offloading and doing the bare minimum when so many more skills and ideas can be offered. Therefore, one is at risk of compartmentalising one's identity to match one's compartmentalised behaviour. Some individuals may be so split that they feel they are losing themselves.
Working for others.
On the other hand, some people have the “work for others” attitude, which links with the philosophical view that “I am what I do” and that one Self exists through one’s actions. The needs that are prioritised are not physiological but psychological: the desire to belong and to be an esteemed member of society. Here, the perception of scarcity is not that there isn’t enough food for everyone but rather that there isn’t enough space for all of us to be together. Therefore, we must compete for our spot by being the best. To survive socially, one must meet the group’s needs regularly and consistently by contributing in such a way as to become indispensable. The assumption is that everyone is seeking fulfilment and offering their best potential to society, and survival will require to be exceptional compared to others. To become so, one must accept abandoning health and comfort.
The desire is to secure long-term social collaboration. Hence, the strategy is to tailor each application to carefully selected jobs. The goal is to find the best match whereby we can be as fulfilled as possible and thus become as valuable as possible. When applying, the framing of skills is persuasive and enhances one’s unique attributes. One is likely to volunteer or work for free (forgoing financial gains necessary to satisfy basic physiological needs) to gain experience. In extreme cases, people accept unlivable wages in favour of worthy or charitable pursuits.
The “work to collaborate” attitude will considerably boost the chances of being hired during interviews. Adopting a quality-over-quantity strategy increases the chances of finding fulfilling work that we can stay loyal to and that will reciprocate in connections. This, in turn, leads to greater opportunities to live our career ambition and to keep growing in our chosen industry.
Cognitive Dissonance:
In adopting a selective strategy during job hunting, one may face the competitiveness of the labour market, thus realising the contradiction between one’s collaborative values and the need to persuade recruiters of one’s uniqueness to secure the role. Moreover, the unfairness of the situation highlights how one got lucky and was privileged to get their dream job while many others did not. The guilt then directly threatens their belief in belongingness and esteem. Once more, one can change one’s attitude or behaviour to alleviate the discomfort emanating from this predicament.
Justification: By shifting one’s attitude, one can adopt a meritocratic mindset or a superiority complex. By believing that our person is a unique asset necessary to society for its good functioning, we can justify framing ourselves in our cover letters and at work as a superior candidate to others, thus reducing the discomfort between our values and behaviours. One can easily persuade oneself that they deserved the fulfilling role, not due to a combination of luck, privileges and hard work but rather because of their uniqueness, mastery and hard work. Once the egocentric bias has settled in, one can feel part of the community again because they did not betray society’s harmony through unfair advantages. They are like all others: deserving hard workers doing their small part. This attitude modification preserves one’s self-esteem as a contributing member of society and averts the threats to one’s social need for belonging.
Risks of attitude shift: However, this attitude also holds significant disadvantages. By adopting a meritocratic or superior mindset to justify inflating ourselves when applying for our dream jobs, we ran the risk of becoming detached from others and being alienated. They may acquire status within society and be considerable contributors while also becoming rejected in their personhood, for they no longer recognise others’ contributions to society. In its extreme form, meritocracy or a superiority attitude can foster an exaggerated self-love that borders into narcissism. As time passes, the individual may double down on this attitude to vend off social threats and fall into a vicious cycle. The sense of belonging that one longed for is, therefore, at risk of being receded.
Compensation: If belonging and fulfilment are sought directly from work and since work takes only one-third of waking hours, one may try to solve the cognitive dissonance by increasing one's workload. To be the valuable worker they said they were, they must go above and beyond. Dedication to work becomes the salvation needed to reduce the guilt of unfair advantages. As the identity of self stems from what one does, one must work overtime, often unpaid, to ensure that one can be the citizen that helps society rather than hinders it. One can become competitive in one's work and argue to do it for the benefit of the job, the company, or the clients. By shifting the behaviour to match their attitude, one can hold on to their sense of self as an invaluable worker.
Risks of behavioural shift: Here, behaviours meant to be temporarily adopted to justify seeking the dream job become a fixed and accepted truth about one’s person. The philosophy of « I am what I do » is pushed to its extreme, where one becomes engulfed in work as a way of maintaining a personhood. They work tirelessly, sacrificing physical and mental health while presenting their workaholism as something to strive for. They forget how to set boundaries to protect their basic needs as a means of securing their status as valuable members of society. In this position, one is easily financially exploitable, whereby one will trade one’s health for free or little money because of their passion. Their longing for social togetherness and esteem puts them at risk of becoming social martyrs and finding themselves relegated to a place where their physiological needs of shelter and food are compromised.
The goldilocks of attitudes: nuance and adaptation.
So are we doomed to remain in this dilemma forever, forced to choose between working for money or collaborative purposes, risking ourselves becoming cruel or lazy, insufferable or martyrs? If you are not afflicted by a long-term health condition or disability, the answer is no.
Suppose you find yourself in a position where your basic physiological needs aren’t met. In that case, you will be looking for work primarily for money, and that’s reasonable. Help yourself with an attitude shift so long as it is temporary. Choosing to select work without considering the societal and ethical repercussions when you can’t feed yourself is perfectly understandable. Personal limits should be established and never crossed and will differ for each individual depending on one’s moral and ethical compass. Most of us would rather not accept work that scams people (e.g., MLM and pyramid schemes) or breaches human rights (e.g., human trafficking). However, temperament and circumstances may create situations where alternatives don’t seem plausible.
The trick is to maintain the attitude for a short time, no longer than what is absolutely necessary and know when to shift gears. Once you have the not-for-you job and have secured your basics – a roof over your head, enough food and water to carry you to the next day – you can shift to the next strategy of looking for a job that satisfies esteem and belonging. Meanwhile, one must be careful with protesting behaviours. Best to ensure you give your best at work, even if you don’t like it. You can see it as an investment into your career whereby you collect skills, lessons or connections that may serve you later. Instead, protesting through compensatory altruistic behaviours outside of work may resolve the unpleasant paradox that plagues you. Kind gestures or advocacy will not only boost your social needs and self-esteem but will do so without self-sabotaging your future career.
Many will be tempted to wait for physiological comfort to be raised to a satisfactory level before looking to satisfy their next need. Perhaps you live in a damp home, affecting your health, so you believe you should wait to get more money to solve that before you move to a fulfilling role. Often, this strategy keeps people trapped. After work, your energy and resources in seeking a new job are limited and won’t change regardless of what you look for. Hence, seeking another “job for money” replicates your current situation, whereas seeking the “dream job” improves future prospects on both physiological and social needs. Assuming the new dream job salary is the same as the current dead-end job, there is a gain in swapping because the new role satisfies the desire for fulfilment. Once you are in this fulfilling role, progression in your chosen industry will simultaneously increase your physiological and social needs.
If, on the other hand, you long to contribute positively to society because you have been lucky enough that your physiological needs have always been met, then seeking out the perfect job for you straight away makes logical sense. Understandably, you will present yourself as the best choice for that job, but stay grounded and avoid falling into meritocratic justification. Whether you get invited for an interview or are offered a job, remember that at least half is due to luck and privilege. Work towards paying it forward by being generous. If you share some of your advantages, say teaching financial literacy or communication skills, be sure to contextualise it with humility. It is crucial to acknowledge what part was down to work or privilege and be clear that part or all of those skills were obtained out of sheer luck of birthright.
Additionally, to curb the guilt of unfair advantages, workaholism will not do. Instead, use or create opportunities to increase luck or privileges in others, whether by defending someone’s right to access, working against biases or pointing out what favours exploitation in your industry. Your dream job may be in an industry that financially exploits its workers for their passion and creates a trap of you justifying abandoning your health for its sake. Here, you may choose to seek a new role that fulfils all of your needs but beware, don’t give in to the idea that the alternative is a job that is just for money's sake. You can have both! Be patient. Alternatively, if health permits, use the time you would allocate to seeking a new role to reduce exploitative measures in your industry. The latter is quite the activist work and may not be for everyone. Still, if you go that route, you will likely satisfy your collaborative needs and self-esteem.
What about disability?
When job hunting, all of us can face the conundrum of having to choose to sacrifice our moral values or choose to sacrifice our health. For non-disabled people, adapting to the work field may be relatively simple, albeit difficult. But for people with long-term health conditions and disabilities, the details of the dilemma may be much harder to solve. The reality for disabled people is that society is currently built in such a way that a disability becomes a further disadvantage to be exploited.
Health vs health conundrum:
Quantity-over-quality:
The strategy of applying to all the jobs is the privilege of the non-disabled. They assume that it is fast and straightforward precisely because they do not have a disability. Those who do are forced to notice the lack of adjustments during recruitment. If working on a CV or painstakingly copy-pasting our entire CV in one of those supposedly inclusive forms takes the non-disabled person 2 hours, the disabled person may take double or quadruple the time to do so. For instance, blind people may require everything to be read by software, including all the content in drop-down lists, so filling out a form can take them twice as long. For the same jobs out there, non-disabled people apply to at least twice as many roles compared to disabled people. So, with limitations already present, is quantity-over-quality really the best strategy for someone with a disability or long-term health condition?
Low-skills jobs:
The roles that can be applied for with a click online without needing a cover letter or statement are generally in exploitative industries. Usually, they exploit people morally or financially, more or less intently and more or less at a systemic level. Finance and insurance, marketing and advertising, retail and sales, and mining and oil are examples of industries that can put workers at risk of being exploited morally. Meaning they are more likely to act unethically or to abandon previously held ethical values. Creative industries, as well as the medical and charity sectors, are examples of industries that often exploit workers for their passion. Workers are then more likely to work overtime for less pay, even at the risk of their health.
People with disabilities are often considered less employable and thus more likely to find themselves applying for low-skill jobs that recruit anyone. As a result, disabled people are at an even greater disadvantage of exploitation, not necessarily because they will be more exploited during the work itself, but rather because they are less likely to shift and transition to a less exploitative role. Indeed, if a non-disabled person may consider a low-skill job temporary, a mere right-of-passage because they have sufficient energy and resources to seek another job while working, disabled people may not have this privilege. Limitations may create a situation where the person has no remaining resources or energy to seek something better. The reality of remaining stuck in an exploitative role is much greater for one population compared to the other, and so are the consequences. If health would be assumed to decline for a healthy individual stuck in an exploitative environment, then one could assume the decline could be accelerated and intensified for individuals with certain health conditions. Therefore, for some disabled folks, the risk is twofold greater than non-disabled: one risks being stuck in an exploitative role for potentially much longer, and health may decline faster and worse. With the elevated risk of worsening health, is applying for no-skill-required roles really a worthwhile strategy for people with long-term conditions and disabilities?
Quality-over-quantity:
Since health is vital to one’s life, it will seem logical for disabled people to choose the quality strategy. After all, if you have limited resources and can apply to very few jobs compared to non-disabled individuals, then you might as well choose the jobs you apply for wisely and preserve vital energy. Unfortunately, disadvantages lurk everywhere for people with disabilities. If you want to be selective, you must be competitive. How do you compete with a non-disabled person in a society that –while they say they are morally and legally not discriminating against disabled people– doesn’t offer adequate adjustments during recruitment? The mental load and unfair burden placed on disabled people in deciding when to disclose their disability, ask for adjustments, and blindly trust and hope that it won’t be used against them is very energy-draining. Such a burden is additional to the common issues faced by all job seekers, such as motivation depletion and regular disappointments and frustration that accompany the disheartening practice of job hunting. Any energy or resources used to solve another problem, one that non-disabled people do not deal with, is energy removed from taking action towards job seeking. One can find oneself stuck in a loop of depleting morale and worsening health to a greater degree than their non-disabled counterparts.
Passion jobs:
This is the moment when non-disabled people tell you to go freelance, follow your dream, and set up your own business. While it always stems from good intentions, it is also incredibly privileged to project one’s abilities onto another, especially with a poor understanding of that person’s individual health circumstances. The opposite of low-skill jobs is not entrepreneurship. Building a business is not everyone’s passion and is a very demanding role that also demands adjustments. It is not because you would be your own boss that adjustments would be solved. And for the few individuals whose passion is business, our current society still fails to provide the adjustments that disabled people would need to thrive. Many people don’t want to be entrepreneurs, and society should cater for that option. Forcing disabled people into building their businesses because we collectively refuse to include them in current already-existing businesses says a lot about how we isolate that group. Do your own thing and never mind that you want to be part of society and contribute in your own way. So is our last hope, as disabled people, to give up our need for social belonging forever and venture into a job solution with no more guarantee of pay?
Unfortunately, if you have a long-term health condition and disability, you face another layer of dilemma that society turns a blind eye to. It’s a chicken and egg type of conundrum. You want a job to care for your health because you have a disability, but your disability means you can’t apply to all the jobs willy-nilly. If you do, you risk being stuck and getting worse, which will likely lead you back to square one but with even more health needs. You can’t apply to all the quality jobs either because society deems your disability a weakness in the job market and drains you of energy trying to get adjustments, leaving you with the limited prospect of setting up your own business, hoping to belong and with no more guarantee of pay.
No solution but possible alternatives:
If one has a long-term health condition or disability, the prospect of finding work is considerably harder. Not because of your limitations but because of society’s limitations. What is there to do in such a circumstance?
Raise the bar:
However counterintuitive it seems, disabled people must raise their standard of health compared to non-disabled people. Yes, there are limitations to some things we can do, but within the range we can do, we usually have to do more to compensate. Therefore, the standard required for us to be in good health looks different to the needs of non-disabled. There are added clauses and conditions that need to be met for health to be sustained. Needs between the two groups do not compare; hence, they should not be. For instance, someone’s need for belonging may not be a priority if they have good overall health and enough friends and family, but it could be of life and death importance to someone with a mental condition, putting them at risk of suicide if isolated.
Similarly, when looking for work, the standard needed to maintain basic physical and mental health will be incomparable to non-disabled people. There is no need to add shame or guilt for requiring certain types of work to cater to our basic needs. The fact that the pool of jobs that match personal health criteria may be considerably reduced is a representation of our community failing us and not of our incompetency in contributing to society or providing for ourselves. Keep the bar needed for your health high.
When in doubt, alternate:
If you have disabilities that are both physical and mental, and you are oscillating between the two strategies, you may be wondering if you should cater to your physical disabilities first and find a job for money or cater to your mental health first and find a job to be fulfilled. In that case, alternate between each strategy when applying. Apply to one for money, then one for fulfilment and keep switching between the two. It may not increase job offers, but it may well put your anxieties at ease and make you feel like you are trying everything. Remember that either one should reflect your standards of acceptable jobs, even if they are far and few between. Once you secure a job, you can work towards managing all your needs and adopting a new strategy.
Share your truth:
While you seek work, you may likely encounter recruitment barriers that will make you feel rejected, disappointed or outright frustrated because of their discriminatory nature. If you have the energy, share that experience with the recruiter. A quick email to HR to explain how it felt for you to apply and if you have suggestions of adjustments you recommend in the future can have an impact. Most likely, nothing will come of it. Perhaps you will make one person aware of an issue they ignored, and they’ll personally want to find a solution. It can feel like a waste of precious energy, screaming in the void but knowing you're advocating for your peers can also boost your sense of belonging and self-esteem. We might as well do the most of our situations.
Conclusion
In summary, looking for work brings us in front of ourselves and our life philosophies. If we seek work for money, we prioritise physiological needs and adopt a philosophy of “I am what I am”. If we sacrifice personal values to reach our means, we risk moral exploitation and may find ourselves justifying more unethical practices as time passes or embodying the role of a lazy worker. In contrast, seeking work for collaborative purposes may stem from a mentality of “I am what I do” and a desire to satisfy the social needs of belonging. But if we showcase our passion, we may be in danger of being financially exploited and becoming ill through overworking or adopting an entitled outlook on work. However, one can avoid pitfalls by staying adaptable to one's circumstances and avoiding fixating on one attitude. The healthy individual will find balance, not between work and life, but between physiological and psychological needs and knowing when one must be prioritised. That said, people with long-term health conditions and disabilities face another level of difficulty: that of facing an unaware and unaccommodating society. Thus, disabled people are unfairly stuck between choosing a worsening of health by abandoning physiological needs or a worsening of health by sacrificing social needs. As a society, we are responsible for collectively seeking solutions to abolish the added disadvantage. Meanwhile, disabled people must not compare their jobs’ requirements with those of non-disabled people and raise their standards. They also, if energy permits, are encouraged to share, at any opportunity, the silent discrimination they face from recruiters and whoever is willing to hear in the hope that we will be heard and considered.
Biography:
Comments