I read this article today on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36195442) and wondered what other colleagues have experienced in their organisations?
I have read about bore out before in the context of motivation theory before, but it is interesting to consider it as a potential area for litigation. The ramifications of a successful case would be significant in the context of many office based roles in this country and globally.
What do we think the responsibility is for an organisation to provide meaningful and stimulating work? Is well-being the sole responsibility of the employer when employees find their role boring or should employees take responsibility for finding roles that suit them? With increasing automation, could bore-out be a thing of the past, or will new way of working make more tasks increasingly restrictive and more susceptible to employee disengagement?
I suspect that this case will be difficult to win for the claimant, but it is interesting to speculate on the potential fallout. I can definitely see an increasnig role for HR in supporting employees with work based counselling and other ways of creating variety and stimulation in the workplace.
I think this topic can probably fit in a few areas so happy for it to be moved if it is deemed more appropriate elsewhere.
I look forward to reading different perspectives!