Clock In. Dissociate. Repeat.A Love Letter to Modern Work Culture

Imagine working so hard that you slowly forget who you are outside your job. Sounds dystopian? Funny thing is… a lot of workers are already halfway there. Of course, having a professional side is completely normal. Everyone behaves differently depending on where they are and who they are with. So, the problem actually begins when modern work culture no longer simply asks workers to be professional, but quietly rewards those who know how to suppress exhaustion, detach emotion, and remain productive no matter what is happening in their lives.

Work-Life Balance? Cute.

In the past, employees were tied to rigid 9-5 working hours, spending Monday to Friday in front of their computers. While many companies still follow this standard system, some are now shifting toward more flexible ways of working. This transformation is closely tied to the growing obsession with work-life balance, especially among Gen Z workers, where setting boundaries and protecting mental health are constantly encouraged across social media. In response, many companies now present themselves as more flexible and employee-friendly through flexible working arrangements (FWAs), allowing workers to decide where, when, and sometimes even how they work based on what is considered most convenient for them.

However, the reality isn’t as simple as it seems. Flexible working hours often blur the line between work and personal life, thus making employees feel like they need to always be available (Chung, 2023). From checking emails during dinner, receiving work calls at 10 p.m., to bringing a laptop on vacation just in case an urgent task is given. At first, you would think these habits are normal. Yet, many eventually find themselves wondering, “Why do I still feel so exhausted even when my work is more flexible than ever?” It’s not wrong to think that because supposedly this feeling is linked to the autonomy-control paradox, where flexibility can create the illusion of freedom while workers still feel unable to truly control their time and workload (Boccoli et al., 2024).  

In theory, people simply trade their time and effort to work for a salary. But in practice, many end up sacrificing their personal boundaries, relationships, and well-being in exchange for career growth or maybe to survive under economic pressure (Friedman, 2015). The cost of productivity today is often no longer measured only by how many hours people work, but also by how much of their personal lives they are willing to give up to remain employable and competitive. 

As remote work and digital connectivity continue to blur the boundaries between work and personal life, employees are increasingly expected to remain constantly reachable beyond official working hours. Research by Eurofound (2021) even shows that remote workers in Europe are twice as likely to exceed legal working-hour limits compared to on-site workers. In the end, flexibility may have changed where and when people work, but not the pressure they carry.

Meet the Perfect Employee of the Month 

Probably that is why Severance feels less like a science fiction series and more like a corporate training video from the near future. In the series, employees experience a procedure that separates their work memories from their personal ones. Inside the office, they become “Innies” who exist only to work, while their “Outies” remain completely unaware of what happens during office hours. In other words, the company finally creates the perfect employee. Someone who works endlessly without bringing any inconvenient humanity into the office.

As absurd as it sounds, the idea feels uncomfortably familiar. According to Jan Müller and Heejung Chung (2025), the ideal worker today is no longer simply someone who works hard, but someone who demonstrates complete devotion to work while remaining unaffected by responsibilities outside the office. Perhaps that is why exhaustion has become such a normal part of modern work culture. A global study by Gallup (2023) revealed that a staggering 44% of workers worldwide felt an immense amount of stress during their workday, with millions admitting that they now feel completely emotionally detached from the very jobs they do.

In many ways, this concept represents the modern form of Karl Marx’s Theory of Alienation. Under capitalism, workers gradually lose control over their lives as they are treated less as human beings and more as functional parts of an economic system (Øversveen, 2022). Alienation today no longer happens only through physical labor. It also appears through constant demands, endless availability, and the quiet expectation that workers should always be responsive. Flexible work may have removed the constraints of office walls, but somehow work still manages to follow people into their bedrooms, dinners, weekends, and vacations. Over time, workers may begin to feel emotionally absent from their own lives. They are physically present, yet mentally consumed by deadlines and performance pressures.

This is also what Apriano et al. (2025) describe when discussing how modern workplaces are shaped by efficiency, targets, and visible output rather than meaningful human connection. Drawing from Hartmut Rosa, they explain that workers begin to lose what Rosa calls “resonance,” which is the feeling that work carries human meaning and emotional connection. Eventually, workers may start asking questions that sound simple but feel difficult to answer. “Who am I outside of work?” or “What part of myself am I sacrificing just to stay employable?” Slowly, work stops being just something people do for a living and begins quietly defining who they are outside of it.

Selling Labor or Selling Your Soul?

The heading may sound a little extreme, but if you look back at your own experiences, you might realize how easy it is to slowly give more and more parts of yourself to work. Companies today ask for much more than just your skills or time. At some point, they also begin expecting a piece of your personality. Then, it became normal for workers to always be available, keeping a big smile and a “Happy to help!” attitude in every reply, even when they’re feeling completely burnt out behind the screen. This may seem like part of the job, but economically, it reflects what compensating wage theory has long described, which is that workers often tolerate worse conditions in exchange for higher pay.

Figure 1. Compensating Wage Differentials Curve

Source: Julie Nelson, 2011.

From this graph, we can see the literal price tag we put on our well-being. It shows a trade-off where many workers find themselves choosing a higher “wage premium" in exchange for a high-pressure and high-risk environment rather than accepting “wage sacrifice" for a safer and slower-paced role (Molinaro et al., 2020). In many cases, workers end up trading peace of mind for a slightly higher paycheck, even when the safer option may be what they actually need to stay mentally and physically well. Well, of course, not every worker remains in such an exhausting work environment purely because of ambition or hustle culture. For many, economic pressure makes a permanent connection to work feel less like a choice and more like a survival in life. And the cycle does not just stop there. 

Because the question now is: Why do companies encourage this “always-on” culture? It comes down to a harsh reality in what is often called the Ratchet Effect. When workers work harder than necessary to prove their value or to secure that wage premium, they aren’t just hitting a one-time goal. Unintentionally, they also raise the standard for themselves and everyone else. As recent research on workplace performance shows, the ratchet works by making the current high output the standard for future targets (Hayes, 2024). Since the bar is always rising, the extra mile today becomes the bare minimum tomorrow. 

Naturally, this is a massive win for the employers. They can get a never-ending increase in employee productivity without ever having to pay for it through higher salaries or better benefits. (Fritsch et al., 2025). Meanwhile, workers who fail to keep up with the same pace risk being overlooked or replaced by others who can produce more. Over time, employee value is measured through performance targets, responsiveness, and measurable results rather than long-term well-being or sustainability. Instead of being treated as structural problems, the emotional and physical hidden costs of sustaining this pressure are often reframed as personal responsibilities that workers must learn to manage on their own.

At the same time, work culture often makes collective resistance more difficult. Highly competitive environments encourage workers to focus almost entirely on self-improvement and individual performance, leaving little room for genuine solidarity among themselves. They are often pushed to quietly compete against one another for recognition, job security, and career advancement. As a result, even when burnout and dissatisfaction are experienced by millions of workers, many end up carrying these struggles alone rather than collectively questioning the systems that continue producing them.

Somewhere Between Work and Self

Perhaps the modern workplace never truly asks workers to literally divide their memories and personalities like the employees in Severance. Still, somewhere between endless notifications, emotional performance, and constant productivity, workers have quietly learned how to separate parts of themselves. The problem really is not professionalism, but how modern labor systems increasingly normalize and even reward workers who know how to distance themselves emotionally in order to remain employable and professionally successful. As this cycle continues across workplaces and industries, productivity standards continue to rise while workers’ well-being is slowly pushed aside. Eventually, exhaustion itself stops being treated as a warning sign and instead becomes proof of ambition and one’s worth. In the end, the most disturbing part of Severance is not just the procedure, but how eerily familiar the logic already feels today.

So, congratulations! Your work-life balance request has been professionally ignored.

References

Apriano, A., Asnawi, N., & Hadinata, F. (2025). Moving beyond alienation: The role of collaboration in today’s Indonesia labor environment. Review of Contemporary Philosophy, 24(1), 555–566. https://reviewofconphil.com

Boccoli, G., Tims, M., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2024). The psychological experience of flexibility in the workplace: How psychological job control and boundary control profiles relate to the wellbeing of flexible workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 155, 104059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.104059

Chung, H. (2023). The flexibility paradox: Why flexible working leads to (self-)exploitation. Gender, Work & Organization, 30(5), 1855–1858. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12983

Eurofound. (2021). Right to disconnect: Exploring company practices. Publications Office of the European Union. https://assets.eurofound.europa.eu/f/279033/50e4ba79e7/ef21049en.pdf

Friedman, L. F. (2015, July 15). Why do we work much harder than necessary? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/07/why-do-we-work-much-harder-than-necessary/

Fritsch, N.-S., Wyatt, S., & Liedl, B. (2025). Explaining the autonomy–control–paradox with the rise of remote work. Industrial Relations Journal, 56(6), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/irj.70000

Gallup. (2023, July 24). How to help employees cope with stress. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/509726/help-employees-cope-stress.aspx

Hayes, A. (2024, May 15). Ratchet effect: Definition, how it works, and examples. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ratchet-effect.asp

Molinaro, J., Hasan, M., & Thoryk, J. (2020). Compensating wage differentials. In J. Kane (Ed.), Why Do Wages Differ?. Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/wagedifferentials/chapter/compensating-wage-differentials/

Müller, J., & Chung, H. (2026). From the ideal worker to the inclusive worker: Measuring norm shifts within occupational contexts. Gender, Work & Organization, 33(1), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.70038

Nelson, J. A. (2011). For love or money? Current issues in the economics of care. Journal of Gender Studies (ジェンダー研究), (14), 1–18. https://www2.igs.ocha.ac.jp/en/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/14-Nelson.pdf

Øversveen, E. (2022). Capitalism and alienation: Towards a Marxist theory of alienation for the 21st century. European Journal of Social Theory, 25(3), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310211021579