Introduction
Kaplan et al. (Reference Kaplan, Aitken, Allan, Alliger, Ballard and Zacher2025) offer a series of thought-provoking positions on the evolving nature of work, with one of the most compelling addressing the need to redefine the concept of work itself in light of shifting societal and economic conditions. As technological advancements, automation, and changing cultural norms challenge the traditional role of employment, they raise important questions about labor’s function in individuals’ lives. Specifically, Kaplan et al. suggest that work may need to be reconsidered not merely as a means of survival but also concerning broader questions of personal fulfillment and well-being.
However, despite engaging with these significant issues, Kaplan et al. stop short of directly addressing the concept of a postwork society, which envisions a future where work is no longer the primary means through which individuals secure their livelihood nor is it central to social and economic life (Beverinotti, 2021). In a postwork society, advancements in automation and technology, combined with robust social safety nets such as universal basic income (UBI), would allow individuals to fulfill their basic needs and pursue personal interests, creativity, and community engagement without reliance on traditional employment structures.
Although Kaplan et al. highlight the growing tension between labor’s necessity and its diminishing role in fulfilling human needs, they only touch on the possibility of a society where work is no longer central to economic and social life. This leaves an opening to consider the more radical implications of their argument: What happens when we move beyond redefining work to reducing or eliminating its central role in people’s lives? This commentary will attempt to provide some food for thought on I-O psychology’s role in shaping and facilitating a postwork society, where the discipline can contribute to the transition away from traditional models of work and toward a future centered on human well-being, autonomy, and creativity.
Before diving into the discussion, it is important to address the proverbial elephant in the room. There is, seemingly, an inherent contradiction in discussing I-O psychology’s role in promoting a postwork society. Traditionally, I-O psychology is fundamentally rooted in optimizing workplace performance, improving employee well-being within the context of employment, and helping organizations manage their human resources more effectively. On the surface, advocating for a future where work is no longer a central element of life might seem to run counter to the very goals of the profession (and the goals of those who employ us). After all, the traditional role of an I-O psychologist has been to ensure that workers are both productive and satisfied within existing work structures.
However, this apparent contradiction dissolves when viewed through the lens of postwork philosophy, which advocates for a decoupling of income and survival from labor and emphasizes human well-being, autonomy, and self-actualization as primary goals. In a postwork society, I-O psychologists can play a critical role in redefining the nature of work, helping to facilitate the transition toward systems that prioritize these broader human needs over productivity metrics. This value shift is essential if we are to achieve the future envisioned by Keynes, in which technological advances allow individuals to work fewer hours while still enjoying a high quality of life. In this context, the role of I-O psychology becomes one of helping societies navigate this transition in a way that maximizes human fulfillment rather than simply maintaining the traditional, often harmful, status quo.
In this commentary on Kaplan et al., I will broadly examine what is required to achieve a postwork society and the role I-O psychology can play in reaching this goal. To do so, I will briefly review the critical catalysts for change in labor, followed by an exploration of the conditions necessary to bring about this transformation. Next, I will discuss the contributions that academics, practitioners, and SIOP as a professional organization can make to facilitate this shift. The objective of this commentary is to extend the conversation initiated by Kaplan et al., translating their ideas into actionable steps for those of us who claim to prioritize the self-actualization of the worker as a core value.
Historical context of labor movements
Kaplan et al. highlight the progress made toward supporting workers over time, but I find some explanations for this progress unconvincing. For example, it is suggested that Keynes’ predictions have not yet materialized simply because “not enough time has passed” or that societal change inherently takes time. Although this may be true on the surface, I argue that change is driven by specific events that catalyze shifts in labor dynamics. As I-O psychologists, we understand that events often ignite change (Carter et al., Reference Carter, Carter and DeChurch2018; Morgeson et al., Reference Morgeson, Mitchell and Liu2015; Wiese & Burke, Reference Wiese and Burke2019). Historically, labor movements that have improved workers’ lives have been sparked by moments where employees felt mistreated by those in power. How we define mistreatment at the moment, however, is contingent on the values we uphold at that time—and these values evolve over time. As our collective understanding of fairness and well-being has progressed, so too have the standards by which we measure whether labor conditions are acceptable, which, in turn, fuels movements for change.
In the focal article, Alliger connects human needs to labor through Maslow’s hierarchy and Marxist theory, suggesting that people work to meet basic psychological and physiological needs. Crucially, it is also implied that we, to some extent, define what constitutes “basic” needs for ourselves, as societal values evolve. Building on this, my position is that societal change occurs when labor exploitation infringes upon our ability to meet these basic needs—in whatever way the individuals who are being exploited are defining “basic” at the time. When workers feel that their basic needs are compromised, movements for labor reform are often ignited. As individuals’ expectations of what is considered essential for a decent quality of life shift, it is the violation of these evolving standards that catalyzes collective action and demand for change.
Historical examples of this dynamic can be traced back to antiquity. The Helots in ancient Sparta, for instance, endured harsh exploitation, which eventually led to their rebellion following the 464 BCE earthquake. Their revolt, spurred by severe mistreatment and a lack of basic freedoms, culminated in their exile and relocation to Naupactus, where they were granted more rights and autonomy than they ever had under Spartan control (Luraghi & Alcock, Reference Luraghi and Alcock2003; Talbert, Reference Talbert1989). Similarly, the Ciompi Revolt in 1378 Florence arose from economic inequality and social exclusion. Though ultimately unsuccessful, this revolt was driven by the wool workers’ demands for fairer wages, political representation, and social inclusion, highlighting the tension between labor exploitation and societal values (Ciompi Revolt, 2024; Trexler, Reference Trexler1984).
More modern examples of labor reform can be found in the movements that led to the establishment of the 40-hour workweek and the 8-hour workday. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, laborers in industrialized nations began organizing strikes and protests, demanding fairer working conditions and limits on the length of the workday. Events like the Haymarket Affair of 1886 (see Green, Reference Green2007) and the Pullman Strike of 1894 (see Schneirov et al., Reference Schneirov, Stromquist and Salvatore1999) exemplified how workers, in response to overwork and poor treatment, fought for systemic changes. These efforts eventually led to reforms that enshrined the 8-hour workday and the 40-hour workweek into law, shaping much of the labor protections we see today.
Across history, when labor conditions deteriorate to the point of violating workers’ ability to meet their needs, reform movements emerge. This tension between exploitation and human needs continues to drive societal change, showing how the definition of “basic needs” evolves over time in response to cultural and economic forces. Hence, I believe one reason Keynes’ predictions and the widespread adoption of a postwork mentality have not yet materialized is that we have not collectively redefined higher-order needs (e.g., self-actualization, leisure, and autonomy) as basic. For a postwork society to become a reality, we must fundamentally shift how we define these needs, elevating them to the same level as survival and security. This redefinition of needs is one of the three conditions necessary to achieve a postwork society.
Conditions for change
To achieve a postwork society, there are likely three key necessary conditions: a cultural shift and changing societal values, economic restructuring, and policy and government action. Each plays a critical role in reshaping how we understand work, well-being, and societal success, paving the way for a time when labor is no longer central to our sense of purpose or survival.
Cultural shifts and changing societal values
A key condition for a postwork society is a cultural shift in how we define work and success. In many modern societies, work has long been tied to personal identity, social status, and self-worth (Donkin, Reference Donkin2010)Footnote 1, shaped by cultural values like the Protestant work ethic, which equates hard work with virtue (Bernstein, Reference Bernstein1997). To move toward a postwork future, we must shift away from viewing work as the primary source of fulfillment and instead place greater value on leisure, creativity, community engagement, and personal growth. This shift challenges the notion that constant productivity is the ultimate marker of success, encouraging individuals to pursue meaning outside the confines of traditional employment.
This cultural transformation is closely tied to the evolving definition of basic needs. Historically, survival and security (e.g., shelter, food, and safety) were considered the essential needs to be met. However, in a postwork society, higher-order needs (e.g., self-actualization, autonomy, and psychological well-being) must be redefined as basic. When individuals begin to see these aspects of life as equally essential to their well-being as food or shelter, labor systems that prioritize productivity at the expense of personal fulfillment will no longer be sustainable. A collective shift in societal values, where higher-order needs are viewed as nonnegotiable, will drive the demand for labor reforms that prioritize well-being over work.
Economic restructuring
Economic restructuring is another key condition for a postwork society, particularly through the decoupling of income from employment. Central to this concept is UBI, which guarantees everyone a set income regardless of employment status. UBI provides financial security, allowing people to meet their traditional basic needs without relying on employment. By separating income from labor, UBI frees individuals to pursue creative, educational, or community-focused endeavors, aligning with a society that prioritizes well-being over productivity. Moreover, UBI can act as a safety net for workers displaced by automation and technological advancements.
The successful implementation of UBI and other forms of income redistribution requires a fundamental shift in wealth distribution. As technology, particularly automation and artificial intelligence, increases productivity and reduces human labor needs, the wealth generated from these advancements must be shared more equitably. Without intentional redistribution, the benefits of technological progress risk becoming concentrated in the hands of a few, exacerbating inequality. Progressive taxation on corporations and high-income earners, especially those benefiting from automation, can be a mechanism for funding UBI and ensuring that technological advancements uplift society. By leveraging technology to reduce the need for labor and redistributing wealth, we can create an economic structure that sustains a postwork future.
Policy and government action
Last is the role of policy and government action in reshaping labor and economic systems. One of the main areas for reform is the implementation of living wage regulations that ensure all workers are compensated fairly, regardless of their employment status or the number of hours worked. Whereas UBI addresses financial security for nonworkers, a living wage guarantees that those who engage in work, whether part-time, gig-based, or freelance, can meet their traditional basic needs. These regulations must account for cost-of-living variations across different regions and industries, preventing exploitation in low-wage sectors. Furthermore, governments must incentivize businesses to adopt shorter workweeks and flexible working arrangements, ensuring that productivity gains from automation benefit employers and employees in terms of work–life balance and financial security.
Beyond wage regulation, government investments in social infrastructure are crucial for supporting a postwork society. These investments include universal healthcare, affordable housing, free or low-cost education, and public transportation, all of which reduce individuals’ dependence on employment for survival. These robust social services can alleviate the pressures on individuals to work purely for access to essential resources. Moreover, funding retraining and upskilling programs will help workers displaced by technological advancements transition into new, meaningful roles. A postwork society requires policies that create an environment where individuals can thrive regardless of their employment status, and it is up to governments to lead the way in building the infrastructure and safety nets that make this vision possible.
Although these conditions may seem like an oversimplification (and likely are given their complexity and my background as an I-O psychologist), they offer a solid starting point for understanding what is needed to achieve a postwork society. The cultural shifts, economic restructuring, and policy actions outlined are interdependent, and each poses challenges. However, this framework provides a valuable lens for exploring how we might begin to move toward such a future. More importantly, it highlights the role I-O psychologists can play in facilitating this transition.
The role of I-O psychologists
As noted earlier, there is an apparent contradiction between I-Os and the development of a postwork society. Historically, our discipline not only originated, in part, in the service of these firms, but we have also traditionally been employed by organizations that benefit most from the current system, often prioritizing the organization’s interests over employee well-being. However, this contradiction has diminished as the field has shifted to emphasize well-being and personal fulfillment (e.g., Tay et al., Reference Tay, Batz-Barbarich, Yang and Wiese2023), aligning with a broader societal movement that values individuals beyond their contributions as workers. In the following, I explore how I-O academics, practitioners, and SIOP can contribute to facilitating a postwork society.
Academics
I-O academics play a unique role in advancing the postwork agenda through both research and shaping societal attitudes toward work and well-being. First, we must continue conducting research on subjects related to well-being, nonwork fulfillment, and concepts central to a postwork society (e.g., shorter workweeks and flexible work). However, this research must not exist in isolation. Our top journals should remain open and increasingly accepting of work prioritizing well-being, even when performance is not measured. By encouraging publications that place employee well-being first, we can not only contribute to the academic dialog but also provide organizations with insights on how to restructure work for the future.
To fully explore the complexities of a postwork society, academics must actively engage in interdisciplinary research. Partnering with fields such as economics, sociology, public health, and technology studies will deepen our understanding of the social, economic, and technological shifts needed for this transition. For instance, collaborating with economists could clarify the feasibility of UBI as a replacement for wages, whereas sociologists can help us understand how shifting cultural values redefine work and success. Similarly, public health experts can highlight the long-term benefits of reduced working hours, and technology researchers can assess how automation impacts the decoupling of income from labor. These interdisciplinary collaborations will integrate the psychological aspects of well-being with broader societal and economic frameworks, offering a more complete view of how we can move beyond work-centric models.
Last, pedagogy surrounding postwork philosophy is crucial. Academics should incorporate these principles into their teaching, preparing future I-O psychologists to think critically about well-being, nonwork fulfillment, and the evolving role of work. By introducing students to concepts such as work–life integration and alternative work models, we can prepare the next wave of professionals to champion these ideas both in research and practice.
Practitioners
I-O practitioners play a crucial role in advancing a postwork society by advocating for and implementing evidence-based practices that align with this philosophy. One practical example is the adoption of shortened workweeks. Practitioners can help organizations analyze and test models like the 4-day workweek, providing data on productivity, employee satisfaction, and overall well-being. By prioritizing employee well-being metrics, practitioners can demonstrate that shorter work hours can maintain or even improve productivity, giving organizations the confidence to transition to more flexible, sustainable work structures.
In addition to advocating for these changes, I-O practitioners should also begin to offer services that help companies redesign their work processes to align with postwork principles. This might include consulting on job redesign for more flexibility, advising on performance management systems that focus on outcomes rather than hours worked, or helping implement remote work models that provide employees with greater autonomy. By creating environments that value well-being and nonwork fulfillment, practitioners can guide companies away from rigid, work-centric models and toward ones that promote flexibility and individual growth.
Moreover, promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) is another area where practitioners can contribute. As new work models are developed, it is essential to ensure equitable access to postwork benefits. For instance, flexible work policies should not inadvertently disadvantage certain groups who might face more barriers to accessing these benefits. Practitioners can advocate for inclusive policies that ensure marginalized groups have the same opportunities to benefit from postwork models, ensuring that new work structures reduce, rather than exacerbate, existing inequalities. This would also involve designing inclusive workplaces focusing on psychological safety and equity. This also includes designing inclusive workplaces that emphasize psychological safety, flexibility, and equity, and implementing policies that provide access to nonwork-related benefits (e.g., educational opportunities, community service, and professional development). By aligning DEIA initiatives with postwork principles, practitioners can help create a more inclusive, equitable, and accessible future.
SIOP
SIOP can position itself as a leader in the transition to a postwork society by publishing white papers that offer research-based insights on the benefits of postwork models (e.g., reduced work hours, flexible work arrangements). These papers would serve as resources for policymakers, organizations, and the public, advocating for evidence-based reforms. SIOP can also dedicate themed tracks at its annual conferences to postwork topics, such as the impact of automation, well-being in a postwork world, and future labor structures. These discussions will encourage exchanging ideas and best practices, driving the postwork movement forward. Beyond thought leadership, SIOP can engage in lobbying for legislation that aligns with the topics of these white papers. SIOP can also support policies that ensure workplace protections for part-time employees, paid leave, and healthcare benefits regardless of employment status.
Relatedly, SIOP can further strengthen its advocacy by playing a more active role in partnering with government agencies, think tanks, and nonprofits to promote policies that reflect the psychological benefits of postwork practices. Collaborations with labor departments, advisory boards, and research institutions can drive the development of policies that support innovations (e.g., UBI and social safety nets). Finally, SIOP can support social movements for labor reform by aligning with organizations and initiatives focused on reducing work hours, enhancing worker autonomy, and promoting workplace flexibility. These partnerships can help amplify the message that a postwork society is not only possible but beneficial to both individuals and organizations. Through research, advocacy, and strategic partnerships, SIOP can help pave the way for a future where well-being, autonomy, and personal fulfillment are central to work.
Although these suggestions are ambitious and aspirational, it is important to recognize that this is not an exhaustive action list. The path toward a postwork society will require ongoing innovation, collaboration, and a willingness to challenge the status quo. However, if we, as a profession, are serious about placing well-being as the ultimate criterion and genuinely valuing postwork philosophies, we must begin by walking the talk in our own lives. This means incorporating these principles into not just research and advocacy but also in how we operate as people and professionals, ensuring that we live by the values we aim to promote.
Conclusion
In extending the discussion presented by Kaplan et al., this commentary seeks to broaden the conversation toward the potential of a postwork society and outlines steps that we, as a profession, can take if this is something we genuinely value. By considering the cultural shifts, economic restructuring, and policy actions required to create such a society, we begin to understand the context needed for transitioning away from traditional work structures and toward a future centered on well-being, autonomy, and personal fulfillment. I-O psychologists, whether in academia, practice, or through our professional organization, are well positioned to help guide society through this transition. These suggestions are certainly aspirational and incomplete, but they can still act as an initial framework (or inspiration) for how our profession can align with and promote the ideals of a postwork world. The challenge ahead lies in aligning our daily practices, research, and advocacy with our commitment to prioritizing worker well-being. Embracing these values will likely require professional sacrifices, such as taking personal risks that challenge current economic, work, and reward systems. Yet, isn’t that the point? By striving to live a life that reflects our own self-actualization, we can help others fulfill theirs.
