People in Service of Work or Work in Service of People?

Location: a luxury villa on Hamilton Island. Responsibilities: diving, sailing, travelling around the region, and sharing the experience online. Salary: 150,000 Australian dollars. Position: caretaker of the Great Barrier Reef. In 2009, Tourism Queensland really did advertise such a job, attracting more than 30,000 applicants from around the world. A few years later, on the Greek island of Syros, someone was sought to take care of 55 cats at a local sanctuary. In addition to a salary, the job came with accommodation in a house overlooking the Aegean Sea.

In 2024, as part of a campaign promoting the region, the Tasmanian authorities advertised a whole range of unusual jobs. You could become, for example, a “cave conductor” (using various instruments to explore the acoustics of underground caves) or a professional wombat walker (whose duties included taking the animals for walks and giving them treats). In a completely different setting – from the comfort of your own sofa – it was once possible to work as a “Netflix tagger”. The only task was to watch films and TV shows and assign them relevant categories and tags, helping to build the platform’s recommendation system.

Dream jobs? For many people, probably yes. But seasickness, an allergy to cat hair, or simply a lack of interest in films would be enough to make at least some of these offers lose their appeal. The idea of a perfect job may sound tempting, but it means something different to each of us. For some, it might be a high salary, prestige, and the prospect of rapid promotion; for others, flexible working hours, a sense of stability, good relationships with colleagues, or the certainty that once the laptop is closed, work really is over for the day. After all, you do not need a villa on a tropical island, a sea view, or the company of friendly animals to feel good at work.

So, what makes a workplace work for us? Would the answer to that question have been the same twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago? Over the decades, it is not only the conditions in which we work that have changed, but also our expectations, ambitions, and willingness to make sacrifices for our careers. Much of what was once seen as a sign of commitment and loyalty is now viewed as crossing personal boundaries. So, who should adapt to whom today – people to work, or work to people?

Work Used to Define Us. Today, We Define Work 

For much of the 20th century, work was about far more than simply earning money. It determined social status, structured everyday life, and often became one of the most important parts of a person’s identity. The question “Where do you work?” could tell you quite a lot about someone, especially when the answer remained the same for ten, twenty, or even thirty years. In many countries, a model of career built around a long-term relationship with a single organisation became widespread, while professional perseverance and loyalty were widely respected. Employment was therefore not merely an individual matter, but an important part of the social order.

Commitment to a single employer was also shaped by the broader economic situation. In Poland, during the economic transformation, unemployment rose from virtually zero in the early 1990s to more than 20% in 2002 and 2003. In a reality where losing a job could mean struggling for a long time to find another one, simply having a job became valuable. There was less room to wonder whether a workplace met our needs – what mattered more was having a job at all. This belief became particularly deeply rooted among older generations, who would often remind younger people that “you have to respect your job.”

Today, we increasingly turn that statement around and ask whether our jobs “respect” us too. Globalisation, the growth of knowledge- and service-based economies, digitalisation, successive economic crises, and finally the pandemic have gradually weakened the belief that a career should follow a single, predetermined path. With more options available, it has become easier to judge work not only by whether we have a job at all, but also by the role it plays in our lives. At the same time, technology has made work increasingly difficult to confine to a particular building, set of working hours, or even a single country. What has changed, then, is not only where and how we work, but our relationship with work itself. 

Salary Is No Longer Everything

Not so long ago, the answer to the question of what makes a good job could begin with salary and end there. Today, money remains one of the most important criteria for evaluating a job, but the competition for the top spot has become much tighter. In the Randstad Workmonitor 2025, conducted among more than 26,000 people across 35 countries, work-life balance ranked above salary for the first time in the study’s 22-year history – cited by 83% of respondents, compared with 82% for pay. At the same time, 44% said they had left a job because of a toxic workplace, while 45% had taken action to improve their working conditions. Nearly one in three had left a company because they disagreed with the views or stance of its leadership. Employers are therefore no longer judged solely by the amount that lands in our bank accounts each month. Organisational culture, relationships, management style, and alignment with personal values matter too – factors that are much harder to capture as numbers in an Excel spreadsheet.

A similar picture emerges from the “Happiness of Poles at Work 2023” survey. Although good pay remained the most frequently cited factor contributing to happiness at work (91%), a friendly atmosphere was not far behind (80%), while three-quarters of respondents pointed to opportunities for development and good relationships with their managers. Even more interesting are the answers to the question of what employees would recommend about their current company to others. Colleagues came first (56%), followed by workplace atmosphere (54%), with salary only in third place (50%). In other words, salary may attract us to a company, but the quality of our everyday working lives is largely shaped by the people whose paths we cross along the way.

Higher expectations of employers go hand in hand with a greater willingness to change jobs. According to Gallup, 52% of employees worldwide believe that now is a good time to find a new job where they live. Knowing that we can look for employment elsewhere makes it easier to leave workplaces that no longer suit us. We are also less likely to assume that excessive workloads or an unhealthy atmosphere is simply the price we have to pay for a stable salary. Pay still matters enormously, but we are increasingly considering how work affects other areas of our lives as well. Instead of asking only, “How much will I earn?”, we are also beginning to ask: “At what cost?”

Young and Picky? Or Just Clear About What They Want?

People entering the workforce today have no memory of a world without the internet and have grown up in the shadow of successive crises. For some, their first professional experiences coincided with the pandemic and the rapid rise of artificial intelligence. It is hardly surprising, then, that they do not view careers in the same way as their parents or grandparents did. And they don’t – which, in turn, has helped reinforce widespread stereotypes that young people do not want to work, lack loyalty, and have little ambition. In the latest global Deloitte survey from 2026, just 6% of Gen Z and millennials identified reaching a leadership position as their most important career goal. This does not mean, however, that they are giving up on professional development. 44% of the same respondents prefer to build their careers gradually, while rapid advancement is favoured by 25% of Gen Z and 21% of millennials. One in five would even be willing to take a step down if it helped them find a role that suited them better in the long run.

This caution towards the traditional idea of career progression has some very concrete reasons behind it. Half of Gen Z and nearly as many millennials surveyed by Deloitte cite stress and burnout as barriers that discourage them from taking on leadership positions. Excessive responsibility is mentioned almost as often. Younger employees are not turning away from professional growth; rather, they are looking much more carefully at the price that comes with it. Findings from the previous edition of Deloitte’s survey support this: opportunities to learn and develop new skills ranked among the top three reasons younger generations chose their current employer. 

At the same time, half expected their managers to provide learning opportunities and mentorship, while only 36% said they were receiving them. In a world where specific skills can quickly lose their value, the ability to keep learning and change direction is becoming more important than securing any single position. Younger generations are not so much rejecting the idea of a career as increasingly shaping it according to their own rules – rules that are far more flexible than they were just a decade or so ago. And with Deloitte estimating that Gen Z and millennials will make up around 74% of the global workforce by 2030, companies will have to learn to operate in a reality where a promotion and a higher salary are no longer the answer to every professional need. 

Supporting Employees Doesn’t Mean Pampering Them

Changing attitudes towards careers present employers with a new challenge. It is no longer enough to attract people with an appealing offer – the much harder task is creating conditions that make them want to stay, remain engaged, and perform their jobs well. This does not mean building a workplace free from stress, difficult decisions, or high expectations. A job can set the bar high and demand responsibility while still being supportive of the people doing it. The real dividing line lies between challenges that help us grow and obstacles that an organisation unnecessarily creates for itself. 

One of the foundations of such an environment is psychological safety – the belief that you can ask for help, admit a mistake, challenge an idea, or express your opinion without fear of ridicule or punishment. Its importance is clearly illustrated by research from the American Psychological Association: among employees reporting high levels of psychological safety, as many as 95% felt that they truly belonged at work, compared with 69% among those experiencing low levels of psychological safety. Then there are more down-to-earth considerations: clearly defined responsibilities, genuine influence over how we work, access to the information we need, and an understanding of why we are doing a particular task in the first place.

This is where the direct manager plays a crucial role. Gallup has long indicated that managers account for around 70% of the differences in employee engagement between teams. It is the manager who turns the principles written into company strategies into employees’ everyday experience: setting priorities, assigning tasks, providing feedback, and either responding to problems or ignoring them. This does not mean becoming a therapist, the team’s best friend, or a boss who says yes to every request. Supporting employees is not the same as protecting them from stress, responsibility, or failure.

Organisational psychologist Adam Grant uses the concept of the “discomfort zone” – a space where a certain degree of discomfort becomes not an obstacle, but a condition for learning and growth. This is an important distinction for employers as well. An ambitious task can be motivating, but constant chaos is not; constructive criticism can improve performance, while continually undermining someone’s competence does the opposite; autonomy creates a sense of agency, while being left without support leads to frustration. A supportive work environment should therefore seek a balance between expectations and the resources needed to meet them. Both sides benefit: employees gain the conditions they need to function well and develop, while the organisation gains people who can perform their jobs effectively.

Should a Company Support Its Employees at Any Cost?

The question remains, however, of how far an employer can – and should – go in accommodating employees’ needs. A company does not exist simply to make its employees feel as good as possible – it has goals to achieve, deadlines to meet, customers to serve, and, quite simply, money to make. What is more, individual expectations can sometimes conflict with one another. One person may work best from home, while another needs regular contact with the team; one values a high degree of autonomy, while another expects clear direction and frequent support. It is therefore difficult to create a single model of employment that works equally well for everyone.

Hybrid work is a good example. Research shows that its effectiveness depends not only on individual preferences, but also on the nature of the tasks, team dynamics, customer expectations, and the organisation’s overall strategy. Employers cannot therefore adapt unconditionally to every individual need, just as employees should not unconditionally subordinate their entire lives to work. A far more sensible approach is to find a point where the interests of both sides can meet.

The key, then, is not to lower expectations, but to set them wisely. Companies should clearly define goals and areas of responsibility while giving employees as much freedom as possible in deciding how to achieve them. Instead of monitoring every hour spent in front of a screen, it makes more sense to focus on results wherever the nature of the work allows it. Instead of adding yet another task to an already packed schedule, priorities should be established and it should be made clear what can be set aside. Regular feedback also matters – not only when something goes wrong – as does giving employees the opportunity to flag excessive workloads before they develop into a more serious problem and lead to burnout. Expectations should increase in line with skills, responsibility, and the resources available.

The point is not for employees always to have less to do, but for them to know what they are expected to do, why it matters, and how they will know they have done their job well. An organisation that supports its people does not abandon expectations – quite the opposite: it knows how to communicate them clearly and enforce them consistently. At the same time, it takes responsibility for its side of the bargain: good management, realistic goals, the right tools, and support when it is genuinely needed.

We Need to Know What We Want

A people-friendly job does not have to be a perfect job. In fact, it is difficult to say whether such a thing even exists. Looking after a tropical island, living in a house overlooking the Aegean Sea, or getting paid to watch TV shows may look fantastic in a job ad, but after a few months, these too would become ordinary jobs – complete with routines, responsibilities, and days when we would much rather stay in bed. Perhaps a job with no difficulties at all would not be particularly good for us anyway. After all, we need challenges, a sense of progress, opportunities to test our abilities, and sometimes the satisfaction that comes precisely from having to put some effort into something. The problem begins when a challenge turns into permanent overload and the occasional bad day becomes the norm. So instead of searching for a professional ideal, it may be wiser to look for a job that is simply good enough. One that sometimes leaves us tired, frustrated, or faced with a difficult task, but ultimately gives us more than it takes away. Perhaps that is the most realistic version of a “dream job”.

And if the goal is not to find a workplace without flaws, then some of the responsibility for how we feel at work also lies with us. We cannot control everything, but we can pay closer attention to our own needs and respond when they are no longer being met. From time to time, it is worth asking ourselves what still gives us satisfaction, what has started to bother us, what matters more to us today than it did a few years ago, and what has lost its former importance. Especially since the answers can change along with our circumstances – we look at our careers differently when we are just starting out than we do after a decade or more at work. Not every doubt has to end with an updated CV. Sometimes a conversation about responsibilities, setting a clearer boundary, developing new skills, or trying to change something that has been bothering us for a while may be enough. At other times, we need to recognise that a particular workplace simply no longer suits us – and that we no longer suit it. Work can only truly work for us when we are able to recognise what that means for us – whether we are entering data, delivering parcels, or happen to be taking a wombat for a walk.