Hip to Be Square?

Self-deprecation can be in our nature. And there is always the draw of a good title. The use of words can bring emotion and reaction. A good tagline can be worth a thousand words sometimes. 

Huey Lewis and the News brought us a mantra about maturity in 1986 with Hip to Be Square, Fore, EMI. The title is such a tagline. The lyrics provide a litany of changes including "I couldn't take the punishment and had to settle down." The expose provides a tale of transitioning from the wild child of the 1960s and 1970s to the reality of the real world. It was an anthem of eschewing one lifestyle and joining the mainstream. They intoned:

But don't you try to fight it, An idea whose time has come

Don't tell me that I'm crazy, Don't tell me I'm nowhere

Take it from me, It's hip to be square

The song also provides support for such radical ideas as eating right and exercising, support for taking care of yourself. Huey and the gang went through my head when I heard of the new "lazy girl" trend in the world of work. It is being promoted on the new harbinger of good and beneficial, Tik Tok. The influencers that brought you Nyquil Chicken, the "pee your pants challenge," the "blackout challenge," and worse, according to the New York Post. That publication, in reflecting on Tik Tok, concludes "Humanity has hit Tok bottom."

The "lazy girl job" was proposed in May 2023. And it is perhaps merely a tagline. For whatever reason, it has resonated and drawn attention. It is seen by some as essentially an extension of Quiet Quitting (September 2022). The point proposed is that everyone should be able to have a great salary, benefits, and not have to work too hard for them. This proposed outcome is not viewed as an anomaly or a fortunate occurrence. It is proposed as achievable and believable for anyone, an everyday opportunity. The Tik Tok trend has evolved from that first video to various folks chiming in with descriptions of their work.

One contributor claims "All she does is 'copy and paste the same emails, take 3-4 calls a day, take my extra long break, take more breaks AND get a nice salary.'" Another poster disagrees with the "lazy" characterization, claiming "I am really over the whole lazy girl job thing because it is not lazy to expect a job like this … There’s nothing wrong with expecting to have a job that pays you well, gives you good work-life balance, and doesn’t overwork you.”

In that, there seems a distinction and perhaps a contradiction. There is a beauty and value in a work-life balance. There is certainly benefit in boundaries that keep the two in a yin and yang with some degree of divided exclusivity and structure. But, there may be bad news ahead for those who are "copy(ing) and past(ing) the same emails" and who list as a work accomplishment tak(ing) 3-4 calls a day." That may be a bridge too far. And having crossed the Rubicon, it is possible that some employees will struggle to find their way back home. 

The original poster (OP) is not necessarily "lazy." The description she provides is that she is no longer "racking up 50-to-60-hour weeks" at work. She asserts that this pace was untenable for her, and that it "eroded both her mental and physical health." That is not generally an appropriate posture to place yourself in long term. Some thrive on those hours, but we are not the rule. The fact is that some jobs will require such commitment. Deciding whether to make it is no different than any other commitment.

The OP focuses instead on what work should be. She stresses a belief that it should be "a positive experience" and that this view is shared by the "Gen Z" and the "millennials." She believes that these balanced (not "lazy") positions should exhibit four characteristics:

1. a sense of safety (no long shifts, arduous commutes, or dangerous working conditions);
2. remote- or hybrid-friendly;
3. a “comfortable” salary; and
4. a healthy work-life balance. 

And within these parameters, she wishes to live her life. She notes that "Everything I’m talking about is considered lazy if you compare it to traditional workplace expectations." And nonetheless, she sees this not only as a potential existence but one that is accepted as normal and productive. This is a far cry from the "type-a" of the 1980s, but perhaps some would not view it as "lazy." That said, the "lazy" tagline is eye-catching and draws us in.

One interesting point is that there is no self-actualization expressed in this list. There is no desire for the work to be engaging, rewarding, or meaningful. There is no expression of a desire to convey value, contribute, or collaborate. There is no expression of community or commitment, goals, objectives, or accomplishment. It is perhaps a worthy goal - taking care of yourself. But these proposed four points perhaps need some augmentation or supplementation?

Eugene Delacroix is credited with saying "We work not only to produce, but to give value to time." Value. It might come in a monetary sense. It might come from accomplishment. It might come from the comfort or benefit it brings to others. Different people may find value in a spectrum of things. But, in the end, there is benefit in finding value. That is not in avoiding effort and eschewing the community.

An attorney, Randall Porcher, recently said similarly that people "need to solve problems, it is what we do." That encompasses invention, organization, management, entrepreneurialism, and so much more. We are perhaps hardwired to take on challenges. Without a doubt, life is full of them, personal and professional.

A career coach quoted in the article is perhaps better at articulating the "lazy" view. She says "The trend . . . reflects . . . the changing desires of professional women specifically." She contends they "want jobs that make them happy, provide a decent income, and allow space for their priorities beyond work." Her perspective does not support the "lazy" label any more than the OP description. Her characterization is not about "lazy," but about balance. 

Despite the "savvy" use of "branding" with "an attention-catching name," the real trend expressed is both balance and "start(ing) a necessary discourse." There is a perception that discussion and perspectives on the demands of the working world are worthy of re-examination and contemplation. One conclusion of the article is that "what a ‘lazy girl job’ actually means is showing up for your work doing it to the best of your ability – because that is literally what you’re being paid for." 

This is a perspective on balance and in that is likely healthy and worthy of conversation. However, it is perhaps worthwhile to also discuss the potentials for achieving goals, finding outcome satisfaction, and reaching self-actualization as Maslow envisioned and described.  

In a broad perspective, is your work role meeting the potentials promised? Is your involvement, activity, and intellect being valued by yourself and others? Are you "doing the job" that you are paid for, and yet finding the time to have a non-work life? Are you finding fulfillment in either or both of the work and non-work lives in which you are engaged? If not, how does one identify, pursue, and achieve such balance? 

I am admittedly not a "girl," "lazy," or an internet influencer. However, in the "Lazy Girl" analysis I find interest. The topics raised are worthy of consideration and conversation. Do I have balance? Is the life I have structured working for me? Those are the two critical questions. If the answers are no, then the third question is seemingly "Why not?" followed by critical analysis of "How do I change it? And, perhaps, how do I do it without Tik Tok (I don't understand social media and perhaps never will).

Maybe this is not all that different from Huey's suggestions? Perhaps there comes a time in life to stop "be(ing) a renegade," and to instead "to settle down." His advice to not "try to fight it" is perhaps sound. Maybe there comes a time in life when you have to look out for your best interest? Perhaps, instead, it is always that time and you must simply reach a point when you realize it?