What Is Work Doing to Us?

We have spent decades asking what organizations need from human beings. We have become extraordinarily sophisticated at measuring productivity, performance, engagement, efficiency, retention, innovation, and growth. Entire disciplines have developed around understanding how to recruit people, motivate them, organize them, develop their talents, improve their performance, and keep them from leaving. We know how to measure what employees produce, how effectively teams collaborate, how customers behave, and whether workplace cultures are helping or hindering the objectives of the business.

We have spent far less time asking a different question:

What is participation in our organizations doing to the human beings inside them?

This is not simply about whether people enjoy their jobs. It is not reducible to job satisfaction, employee engagement, compensation, work-life balance, or even mental health. All of those things matter, and many employers have made meaningful progress in taking some of them more seriously. What interests me reaches beneath them. It concerns what happens to a person’s relationship with their own life when they spend a substantial portion of that life inside a particular economic and organizational system.

Work is one of the primary environments in which modern human beings experience existence. It organizes our days and claims enormous portions of our attention. It influences where we live, how we understand success, who we spend time with, what possibilities are available to us, and how much control we have over our lives.

Our occupations become part of our identities, and workplaces often become communities of a kind. Salaries affect security and freedom, while professional standing can shape status and self-perception. The rhythms and demands of work do not remain contained within the hours we are employed. They enter our bodies, relationships, homes, weekends, sleep, and even our imaginations of the future.

For this reason, organizational life cannot be separated neatly from the question of human flourishing. We do not cease being existential creatures when we arrive at work. We bring with us the same human needs and vulnerabilities that accompany us everywhere else: the need for meaning and belonging, the desire for agency, and the struggle to know who we are and whether our lives matter. We also bring our awareness that time is finite, our difficulty living with uncertainty, and our need for a trustworthy relationship with ourselves, other people, and reality.

Yet the dominant economic imagination has often treated human beings much more narrowly. The language itself tells part of the story. People become labor, talent, headcount, human capital, human resources, full-time equivalents. None of these terms is necessarily malicious. Businesses need categories and shorthand in order to function at scale. But abstractions have consequences when we forget what has been abstracted. A human resource is still a human life.

This tension has become difficult to ignore. Many organizations now invest heavily in employee wellbeing. Companies offer mental-health benefits, wellness initiatives, flexible schedules, mindfulness programs, generous leave policies, coaching, professional development, employee resource groups, and initiatives designed to increase psychological safety. These developments represent a genuine improvement over workplace cultures in which the inner lives of employees were considered irrelevant to the employer.

Still, something remains unresolved.

A person can have access to therapy through an employee assistance program and spend every working day feeling that their contribution has no meaning. Someone can practice mindfulness before entering an organization where they are afraid to tell the truth. An employee can have unlimited vacation while belonging to a culture that quietly punishes anyone who actually disconnects.

A company can celebrate authenticity while rewarding conformity. It can proclaim a compelling purpose while employees experience their own work as disconnected from it. It can speak constantly about its people being a family while making decisions that remind everyone exactly where power resides.

None of this means wellbeing initiatives are useless. It means they are being asked to solve problems that originate at a deeper level.

There is a significant difference between helping human beings cope successfully within an organizational environment and asking whether the environment itself supports a healthy relationship with being alive.

The first approach focuses primarily on the individual. How can this person become more resilient, manage stress, establish better boundaries, improve emotional regulation, avoid burnout, or find greater satisfaction in their work? The second turns toward the organization and asks what kinds of human experience its structures, incentives, values, hierarchies, expectations, and culture are continually producing.

This distinction is important to note because wellbeing can easily become another form of adaptation. If a workplace generates chronic anxiety, alienation, powerlessness, or self-betrayal, teaching people to manage those experiences more effectively does not necessarily address their source. Sometimes the problem is not that human beings have failed to develop sufficient resilience for the system. Sometimes the system is asking human beings to become resilient to conditions they should not have to normalize.

This is where the conversation about work needs to deepen.

The central question is no longer simply whether an organization is successful, whether its employees are satisfied, or whether its workplace policies are progressive. We also need to ask what participation in it requires of a person at the level of their humanity.

They may be required to silence parts of themselves, perform acceptable identities, surrender agency, compartmentalize their lives, or become someone they do not recognize in order to belong. Over time, this can shape their sense of meaning, their relationship with truth, and their ability to trust their own perceptions. It can alter their experience of belonging and dignity, their understanding of who they are, and their relationship with time and purpose.

These concerns point toward a dimension of organizational life that our existing language for workplace wellbeing does not fully capture. They lead into the territory I have come to describe as Existential Health.

And they bring us to a question that could change how we think about business itself:

What does participation in this organization do to a person’s relationship with being alive?

Existential Health begins with a simple recognition: human health involves more than keeping the body alive, maintaining psychological functioning, and sustaining healthy social relationships.

Human beings also have to find ways of living with the fact of existence itself. We have to navigate meaning and meaninglessness, identity and change, belonging and estrangement, agency and limitation, uncertainty and the desire for certainty. We live with the knowledge that our time is finite. We have to determine what matters without ever possessing complete information, construct lives without knowing exactly how those lives will unfold, and maintain some workable relationship with a reality that does not always conform to our expectations or desires.

I use the term Existential Health to describe the quality of our relationship with these fundamental conditions of being alive. It concerns how we relate to meaning, purpose, identity, mortality, belonging, agency, uncertainty, relationship, and reality itself.

Existential health does not mean that a person has resolved these dimensions of life or arrived at permanent clarity about them. A healthy relationship with existence includes the ability to live meaningfully without requiring life to become fully explainable, to experience belonging without surrendering oneself, to exercise agency while acknowledging genuine limits, to endure uncertainty without manufacturing false certainty, and to remain in contact with reality even when reality disrupts the stories through which we have organized our lives.

These concerns are often associated with philosophy, spirituality, therapy, or moments of personal crisis. We tend to notice them when someone experiences bereavement, leaves a religion, confronts mortality, goes through a divorce, loses a sense of identity, or reaches a point when the life they have constructed no longer feels like their own.

But this dimension of life does not emerge only during exceptional moments. It is present all the time, including during the hours we spend answering emails, sitting in meetings, managing employees, serving customers, negotiating contracts, making presentations, building products, meeting deadlines, and trying to earn a living.

Work is therefore not merely an economic activity laid on top of an otherwise separate human life. It is one of the places where our relationship with being alive is continually formed.

Consider identity. One of the first questions people often ask when meeting someone is, “What do you do?” The answer is rarely interpreted as a simple description of how a person earns money. Occupation carries signals about education, status, competence, values, lifestyle, social location, and achievement.

But this dimension of life does not emerge only during exceptional moments. It is present all the time, including during the hours we spend answering emails, sitting in meetings, managing employees, serving customers, negotiating contracts, making presentations, building products, meeting deadlines, and trying to earn a living.

The same is true of belonging. Workplaces are among the primary communities of adult life. People spend years alongside colleagues, develop friendships, share difficulties, celebrate accomplishments, experience conflict, establish rituals, absorb a common vocabulary, and participate in a collective story about who “we” are.

Organizations do not merely employ people. They create social worlds. Those worlds can offer meaningful connection, but they can also establish conditions of belonging that require conformity. When acceptance depends upon performing the right enthusiasm, suppressing disagreement, adopting the institution’s interpretation of reality, or sacrificing important parts of oneself, belonging begins to carry a human cost.

Agency is shaped there as well. Workplaces teach people what kinds of choices they are permitted to make, whose judgment counts, when they are allowed to speak, what happens when they challenge authority, and whether their perception of a problem will be taken seriously.

Over years, these experiences influence more than professional behavior. A person repeatedly rewarded for compliance and penalized for independent judgment can gradually lose confidence in their own discernment. Someone working inside an environment where obvious problems cannot safely be named learns to separate what they perceive from what they are permitted to acknowledge.

This is one reason organizational culture reaches much deeper than perks, policies, slogans, or employee satisfaction. Every organization creates an implicit human environment. Through its incentives, hierarchies, language, stories, rituals, expectations, and distribution of power, it communicates ideas about what a person is worth, what success means, whose voice matters, what can be questioned, what must remain unspoken, and what someone must become in order to thrive there.

These environments are, in this sense, meaning-making systems.

They tell stories about why the work matters, creating narratives of progress, competition, innovation, service, disruption, excellence, growth, or impact. Within these narratives are heroes and failures, measures by which people learn whether they are succeeding, and systems that distribute recognition and status. Certain sacrifices become admirable, while certain boundaries are interpreted as evidence of insufficient commitment.

Even the vocabulary of the workplace can shape how employees understand their own experiences. Sometimes these stories genuinely connect people with meaningful participation in something larger than themselves. At other times, they provide a sophisticated language for disguising extraction.

The distinction cannot be determined by examining the mission statement.

A company can declare that its people are its greatest asset while routinely treating them as expendable. It may proclaim a social purpose while creating internal conditions of fear, celebrate innovation while punishing dissent, or describe employees as empowered while concentrating meaningful decisions within a small circle of authority. Even the invitation to “bring your whole self to work” can conceal an unspoken condition: only certain parts of that self are actually welcome.

The existential question cuts through the rhetoric because it focuses on lived experience. It asks what happens to people through sustained participation in the system.

People may become more capable of meaningful agency, or learn to distrust their own judgment. Belonging can enlarge them or require conformity and self-erasure. Work can connect them with something genuinely worthwhile, or organizational purpose can remain little more than leadership language. Healthy cultures allow inconvenient realities, uncertainty, failure, limits, and mistakes to be acknowledged. Unhealthy ones reward conformity, performance, and the gradual reduction of human beings to useful abstractions.

These are not peripheral questions about employee experience. They concern the kind of relationship with life that an organization is helping to cultivate.

This also changes the way we understand responsibility for human flourishing. No employer can provide meaning for another human being, guarantee a person’s sense of purpose, resolve the uncertainty of existence, or manufacture belonging on demand. Nor should employers assume responsibility for the total wellbeing of their employees. That would give organizations an authority over human life they should not possess. Existential Health is fundamentally incompatible with the idea that institutions should become the ultimate source of identity, meaning, belonging, or purpose for the people within them.

The responsibility is more modest and, in another sense, more demanding. Organizations can examine whether the conditions they create support or undermine people’s ability to remain authors and participants in their own lives. They can ask whether their structures unnecessarily diminish agency, distort reality, demand self-betrayal, manufacture dependence, or turn belonging into a reward for conformity. They can consider whether the pursuit of their objectives requires forms of human adaptation that gradually separate people from themselves.

Once we begin asking these questions, another possibility comes into view. We have long understood that economic systems can extract natural resources from ecosystems and labor from human bodies. We are increasingly aware that modern economies also extract attention, emotion, creativity, personal data, and psychological energy.

There is another form of extraction we have barely learned to name.

It is possible for an organization to extract something from the human experience of being alive itself.

Extraction is one of the defining logics of the modern economy.

For centuries, economic development has depended upon taking something that exists in the world and converting it into something that can produce value. Forests become timber. Mountains yield minerals. Rivers generate energy. Land becomes property. Human effort becomes labor. Time becomes productivity. Attention generates advertising revenue. Behavior becomes data. Creativity becomes intellectual property.

Increasingly, almost anything that can be identified, measured, captured, or monetized can be incorporated into an economic system designed to produce growth.

The consequences of this logic are clear. Environmental movements have forced us to confront what happens when natural systems are treated as though their only significance lies in what can be extracted from them. A forest cannot be understood solely as a supply of lumber. Soil cannot be treated indefinitely as a medium for maximizing agricultural output. An ocean cannot absorb unlimited waste simply because the consequences remain temporarily invisible. Living systems have limits, relationships, rhythms, and conditions necessary for regeneration. When extraction exceeds those conditions, the system eventually deteriorates.

Something similar happens with human beings.

The history of work is filled with obvious forms of human extraction. Industrialization converted enormous quantities of human time and physical energy into productive capacity. Workers were frequently treated as interchangeable components within larger systems of production. Labor movements emerged partly because the human body could not indefinitely absorb the demands placed upon it. Limits had to be established around hours, safety, compensation, rest, childhood labor, and conditions of employment because markets left entirely to their own logic had little reason to recognize those limits.

Many contemporary workplaces bear little resemblance to the factories of the nineteenth century, but extraction did not disappear. It became more sophisticated. Modern businesses do not need only our physical labor. They need our attention, creativity, emotional intelligence, adaptability, enthusiasm, relationships, personalities, ideas, and capacity for innovation. Knowledge economies depend upon dimensions of human beings that cannot be separated neatly from the self. The worker who once sold physical labor for a defined number of hours is increasingly invited to bring passion, authenticity, imagination, purpose, and even identity into the organization.

This development has created opportunities for work to become more human, creative, participatory, and meaningful. It has also created new possibilities for extraction.

When an organization asks for someone’s physical labor, the transaction is relatively visible. When it asks for their enthusiasm, identity, emotional availability, creativity, personal relationships, sense of purpose, and constant attention, the boundaries become less clear.

Technology has intensified this ambiguity. The demands of employment can follow people into bedrooms, vacations, family dinners, early mornings, and late nights. The device that connects us with friends also connects us with employers. The boundary between professional and personal life has become porous enough that many people are never entirely certain when they are off.

Time is only part of what is being claimed. Modern organizations frequently seek emotional and psychological investment as well. Employees are encouraged to identify with the mission, embody the values, believe in the vision, care deeply about the customer, participate enthusiastically in the culture, and experience their contribution as an expression of personal purpose.

Again, none of these things is inherently harmful. Meaningful work can be one of the great sources of satisfaction in human life. Shared purpose can generate extraordinary creativity and solidarity. The problem emerges when the language of meaning and belonging becomes a mechanism through which an organization gains increasing access to the person.

This is where I think we need another category: existential extraction.

Existential extraction occurs when an organization consumes dimensions of human life that it does not adequately recognize, replenish, or respect. It happens when participation in a system consistently requires people to surrender portions of their agency, identity, attention, relationships, integrity, belonging, or finite time in ways that diminish their ability to inhabit their own lives.

This does not require an obviously abusive workplace. Existential extraction can occur inside companies with attractive offices, progressive values, competitive salaries, generous benefits, and sophisticated wellbeing programs. An employee can be highly compensated while becoming increasingly estranged from their own life.

A company can score well on engagement surveys while cultivating a culture in which people have learned that advancement depends upon suppressing what they actually think. It can offer unlimited vacation while creating expectations that make genuine disengagement psychologically impossible. People can love their colleagues, believe in the mission, and still discover that their lives have slowly reorganized themselves around the needs of the institution.

The clearest forms of existential extraction appear wherever organizational participation requires chronic self-abandonment. A person knows something is wrong but learns not to say it. Limits are repeatedly violated because the culture equates exhaustion with commitment. A professional persona can become so complete that someone can no longer distinguish what they actually value from what the organization rewards.

Leaders may become incapable of acknowledging uncertainty because authority within the culture depends upon appearing certain. And people remain in roles that have become intolerable because leaving would mean losing income, community, status, identity, and the story through which they understand their lives.

None of these experiences can be adequately described as low employee engagement.

They concern the relationship between a human being and their own existence.

The issue becomes especially complicated when organizations present themselves as communities of meaning. Businesses increasingly speak the language once associated with religious, civic, and communal institutions. They have missions, values, rituals, origin stories, communities, leadership philosophies, social causes, and declarations of purpose. Employees are invited not merely to work for the company but to believe in what it stands for. In societies where traditional institutions of belonging have weakened, the workplace can become one of the few remaining places where adults experience collective identity and shared purpose.

There is genuine possibility in this development, but there is also danger. No business should have to carry the entire weight of a human life.

When employment becomes the primary source of identity, community, meaning, status, and purpose, the relationship between employee and organization becomes profoundly unequal. Losing a job can then mean far more than losing income. It can mean losing one’s community, identity, daily structure, sense of significance, and place in the world at the same moment. What looked like extraordinary commitment can reveal itself as a form of profound dependence.

An existentially healthy organization would not seek this kind of dependence. It would recognize that people need lives larger than their employment. It would understand that a human being who has relationships, commitments, identities, interests, communities, and sources of meaning beyond their job is not a less committed employee. They are a less colonized human being.

This is one place where the language of “bringing your whole self to work” deserves greater scrutiny. The sentiment emerged for understandable reasons. People should not have to erase their identities, hide important dimensions of themselves, or adopt dehumanizing professional masks in order to participate fully.

But respecting the whole person is different from claiming access to the whole person. A healthy workplace does not require every dimension of someone’s humanity to become material for the employer. Privacy, separateness, boundaries, and a life that does not belong to the employer are also expressions of human dignity.

The deeper problem with extraction is not simply that too much is taken. It is that the thing being extracted from gradually loses the conditions necessary for its own flourishing.

We already understand this principle ecologically. A regenerative forest cannot be treated as an infinite inventory of trees. Its health depends upon relationships among soil, water, climate, fungi, animals, vegetation, decay, and renewal. Preserving the forest requires attention to the living system from which economic value is being derived.

Human beings are also living systems, embedded within relationships, communities, bodies, histories, places, and finite spans of time. Our ability to contribute creativity, attention, judgment, care, and effort depends upon conditions that organizations do not create and cannot own. Families and communities sustain them, as do rest, friendship, and meaningful participation outside work. Solitude, play, nature, art, citizenship, spirituality, and countless other dimensions of human life contribute to their flourishing without producing any measurable corporate return.

A business that consumes these conditions faster than they can regenerate is not simply demanding. It is existentially extractive.

This is why the growing conversation about regenerative business matters. It represents a significant shift in imagination. Instead of asking only how organizations can reduce the damage they cause, regenerative thinking asks whether economic activity can contribute to the flourishing of the living systems upon which it depends.

That question should not stop at the boundary of the human person.

For much of the modern history of business, success was defined primarily through economic performance. A company’s responsibility was to create products and services, compete effectively, generate profits, increase shareholder value, and comply with the laws governing its activity.

Social and environmental consequences were frequently treated as external to the central purpose of the enterprise. If those consequences required attention, they belonged to governments, charities, regulators, or the personal philanthropy of individuals after economic value had already been created.

That understanding of business has been under pressure for decades. Climate change, ecological degradation, widening inequality, global supply chains, changing expectations about work, and greater public visibility into corporate behavior have made it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that economic activity happens separately from the social and ecological systems that make it possible.

Every business exists inside a web of relationships. It depends upon workers, communities, infrastructure, political stability, functioning ecosystems, public institutions, customers, suppliers, and generations of accumulated human knowledge. The corporation has never been an isolated economic machine. It has always been a participant in living systems.

Several movements have emerged from this recognition. Stakeholder approaches to capitalism have challenged the assumption that shareholders are the only constituency whose interests deserve serious consideration. Conscious Capitalism has emphasized higher purpose, stakeholder orientation, values-driven leadership, and organizational culture.

The B Corp movement has sought to embed social and environmental responsibility more deeply within how companies define and measure their impact. Regenerative business has pushed the conversation beyond reducing harm toward a more demanding possibility: economic activity that contributes to the renewal and flourishing of the systems upon which it depends.

These movements differ in important ways, and none should be collapsed into the others. They also contain internal debates, limitations, and tensions that deserve serious examination. What they share is a widening of the moral imagination of business. The question is no longer only whether a company is profitable or even whether it obeys the law. We are increasingly willing to ask what kind of participant the organization is in the larger systems of life.

The progression from extractive to sustainable to regenerative thinking represents an especially important shift. An extractive system asks how much value can be taken. A sustainable system asks how economic activity can continue without exhausting the conditions upon which it depends. Regenerative thinking asks something more ambitious: how participation in a system might contribute to that system’s capacity for ongoing life and flourishing.

This shift has profound implications. If an ecosystem is understood as living rather than merely useful, the goal cannot be reduced to extracting resources more efficiently. If a community is understood as more than a labor pool or consumer market, corporate responsibility cannot be satisfied entirely through jobs, transactions, or charitable contributions. The quality of the relationships created through economic activity becomes part of the measure of whether that activity is healthy.

The same principle needs to be applied more fully to human beings.

Business conversations about regeneration often include people, but the human dimension can remain surprisingly underdeveloped. Social impact might be measured through wages, benefits, diversity, workplace safety, community investment, or employment practices. These are important indicators, and material conditions cannot be bypassed in favor of more abstract conversations about meaning and purpose.

A worker struggling to pay rent does not need an employer to explain the meaning of their labor instead of paying a living wage. Any serious account of human flourishing has to begin by respecting material reality.

But human beings cannot be reduced to their material conditions either.

A person can be economically secure and existentially depleted. They may have excellent healthcare, generous paid leave, a retirement plan, professional development opportunities, and a beautifully designed workplace while experiencing profound alienation from their own life. Even fair treatment according to every formal policy does not prevent a culture from steadily eroding agency, self-trust, meaning, or belonging. Someone can work for an organization committed to environmental regeneration while experiencing their own humanity as another resource being consumed in pursuit of the mission.

This is where Existential Health can extend the regenerative conversation.

If regenerative business asks whether an organization leaves ecological and social systems more capable of flourishing, Existential Health introduces another question:

Does participation in this organization leave human beings more capable of inhabiting their lives?

The wording matters. The question is not whether the company makes employees happy. Happiness is neither an organizational responsibility nor an adequate measure of human flourishing. It is not whether people experience constant fulfillment in their jobs. Work contains frustration, boredom, conflict, disappointment, difficult decisions, and periods of intense effort. An existentially healthy workplace would not eliminate these realities, any more than a healthy human life eliminates grief, uncertainty, limitation, or struggle.

The question concerns what kind of relationship with life the organization makes possible.

Participation should strengthen people’s capacity for meaningful agency while allowing them to remain connected with their own judgment within collective decisions. Disagreement should not threaten basic belonging, and uncomfortable realities should be speakable before they become crises. Human limits need to be recognized as features of existence rather than obstacles to productivity that must continually be overcome.

An existentially healthy organization also respects that employees belong to families, communities, places, and lives extending far beyond their professional identities. Success should not require chronic self-abandonment.

These questions shift regeneration from something a business does out there to something that must also be considered within the human system of the enterprise itself.

There is an uncomfortable contradiction when a company seeks to regenerate ecosystems while depleting the people doing the work. It can champion social impact while creating an internal culture governed by fear. A company can adopt an inspiring purpose while leaving employees with little meaningful agency over how that purpose is pursued. Sustainability can become a stated value while the pace and expectations of work remain humanly unsustainable.

The contradiction does not invalidate the larger movement toward responsible business. It reveals the next layer of the work.

Regeneration cannot ultimately mean preserving every system except the human beings inside it.

This also guards against a mistake that frequently appears in conversations about purpose-driven work. As organizations become more interested in meaning, there is a temptation to assume that companies should provide employees with a sense of purpose. That ambition sounds humane, but it can quickly become paternalistic. A business should not become the author of a person’s meaning. It should not define the ultimate purpose of someone’s life, become their primary source of belonging, or expect employees to organize their identities around a corporate mission.

The goal is not to replace the impersonal corporation with an organization that occupies even more territory inside the human self.

A regenerative approach to human beings would move in the opposite direction. It would respect their authorship. It would create conditions in which people can participate meaningfully without surrendering the larger ownership of their lives. It would understand that employment is one important dimension of human existence rather than the organizing center around which every other dimension must revolve.

This is why the relationship between Existential Health and movements such as regenerative business, Conscious Capitalism, stakeholder governance, and the B Corp movement interests me. I do not see the field as a replacement for these approaches, nor do I think they should be absorbed into a single philosophy. They are working on different dimensions of a larger transition in how we understand economic life.

The contribution of Existential Health is to insist that the human consequences of business extend beyond compensation, benefits, satisfaction, engagement, and even psychological wellbeing. Organizations participate in shaping how people experience agency, identity, meaning, belonging, uncertainty, limitation, truth, and the finite time of their lives.

Once that becomes visible, the horizon of responsible business changes.

The question is no longer only whether a business can become environmentally sustainable, socially responsible, consciously led, or economically regenerative. We also have to ask whether the organization itself can become a place in which participation does not require people to become less present to their own existence.

That brings us to a possibility for which we do not yet have much language: the existentially healthy organization.

What would it mean for an organization to be existentially healthy?

The question needs to be approached carefully because it would be easy to turn Existential Health into another corporate ideal, certification standard, leadership methodology, or set of practices imposed from above. Businesses have no shortage of frameworks promising better cultures, stronger engagement, greater purpose, more resilient employees, and more effective leaders. Some have produced genuine improvements. Others have become new vocabulary layered over structures that remain essentially unchanged.

The approach begins somewhere different. It does not ask employers to manufacture flourishing for their employees. It asks them to become more conscious of the human conditions their structures and cultures create.

An existentially healthy organization would begin by recognizing the limits of its authority over a human life. Employment creates a legitimate relationship of mutual responsibility. Businesses have objectives to accomplish, customers to serve, standards to uphold, resources to manage, and decisions to make. People accept responsibilities when they enter those relationships.

This does not require abandoning hierarchy, performance expectations, accountability, competition, profit, or difficult decisions. A business that cannot remain economically viable cannot provide meaningful work to anyone for very long.

The deeper question is what the organization believes it is entitled to require from the people participating in it.

A healthy workplace would not confuse commitment with possession. It would not assume that because it purchases someone’s labor it has purchased unlimited access to their attention, emotional energy, identity, or time. It would recognize that employees arrive with lives already underway and leave each day for worlds that matter independently of the company.

They are parents, partners, friends, neighbors, citizens, artists, caregivers, community members, seekers, wanderers, and people whose interior lives exceed anything visible on a company chart. Their value does not begin when they become productive, and it does not disappear when their employment ends.

This sounds obvious until we consider how easily workplace cultures communicate the opposite.

A culture that rewards permanent availability teaches people that their time belongs to the organization, while treating dissent as disloyalty makes belonging conditional upon agreement. Celebrating overwork turns human limits into personal deficiencies. Leaders who cannot admit uncertainty teach everyone beneath them to perform certainty, and quietly removing those who name inconvenient realities teaches the people who remain to distrust what they see. None of these lessons appears in the employee handbook, but institutions teach them every day.

This is why existential health cannot be reduced to stated values. It has to be examined through the lived experience produced by the system.

One important dimension is agency. Human beings need to experience themselves as participants in their lives rather than merely as objects being acted upon. This does not mean everyone gets to make every decision or that organizational authority disappears. It means people retain meaningful opportunities to exercise judgment, make choices, influence the conditions affecting their work, raise concerns, and participate in decisions appropriate to their roles.

When every important choice is made elsewhere and employees are expected simply to comply, something more than motivation is lost. People begin learning that their own perception and judgment do not matter.

A second dimension is belonging. Organizations understandably want cohesive cultures, but cohesion can be created in very different ways. One form of belonging says, in effect, You belong here because you have learned how to be like us. Another creates enough relational security for difference, disagreement, complexity, and change. The first produces conformity and calls it culture. The second allows people to participate in a shared undertaking without requiring them to surrender themselves to it.

This distinction becomes especially important in organizations with powerful missions. The more morally significant the work appears, the easier it becomes to treat disagreement as betrayal. People can tolerate extraordinary demands when they believe the cause justifies them. Leaders can excuse unhealthy practices because the mission is important.

Employees can ignore their own limits because other people are depending upon them. Institutions devoted to changing the world are no more immune to existential extraction than companies devoted to maximizing profit. In some cases, purpose makes extraction easier to rationalize.

An existentially healthy organization would therefore treat self-authorship as something to protect rather than overcome. It would not attempt to become the central interpretive authority in the lives of its employees. People would be allowed to maintain a relationship with their own values, perceptions, convictions, and questions. It could articulate a clear mission and ask people to work toward it without demanding that the mission become the ultimate source of their identity or meaning.

There is another dimension that receives far less attention in conversations about workplace wellbeing: reality contact.

Every organization develops stories about itself. It has explanations for why it succeeds, why it fails, what customers want, how healthy the culture is, what competitors are doing, why employees leave, whether leaders are effective, and what the future will require. Some of these stories are accurate. Others become increasingly detached from what people inside actually experience.

The danger begins when protecting the story becomes more important than encountering reality.

This can happen in obvious ways through dishonesty, but more often it happens gradually. Bad news gets softened as it moves upward. Employees learn which subjects produce defensiveness. Leaders become surrounded by people skilled at anticipating what they want to hear. Metrics are selected because they confirm existing assumptions. Problems are reframed as communication issues. Departing employees become poor cultural fits. Failed strategies become execution problems. The organization can remain highly functional while accumulating a widening distance between its official account of itself and the reality experienced by the people inside it.

A different posture is required. A healthy organization would cultivate the capacity to encounter reality without immediately defending itself against what reality reveals. Leaders would need to tolerate information that threatens their assumptions. Employees would need enough security to name what they perceive. Failure would have to become something that can be examined rather than concealed. Uncertainty would need to be acknowledged when certainty is unavailable.

This is not simply a matter of creating psychological safety. It is a matter of maintaining a trustworthy relationship with reality.

Organizations that lose that relationship eventually pay a price. Sometimes the consequences are financial. Sometimes they appear as ethical scandals, failed strategies, toxic cultures, employee departures, customer distrust, or institutional collapse. Long before those consequences become visible, people inside often already know something is wrong. The question is whether the system allows that knowledge to become speakable.

An existentially healthy organization would also develop a different relationship with human limits. Much of modern business culture has been built around overcoming limitations: faster growth, greater efficiency, higher output, continuous optimization, endless scalability. There is enormous creative power in the human capacity to transcend previous limits. But living systems also depend upon limits.

Bodies require sleep. Attention fatigues. Relationships require time. Creativity needs space. Grief cannot always be scheduled around quarterly objectives. Children become ill. Parents age. Human beings experience periods when their productive capacity changes because they are living actual lives.

A culture that treats these realities as unfortunate interruptions to productivity gradually asks people to behave as though they were machines with inconvenient biological attachments.

Existential Health does not romanticize limitation or oppose ambition. It recognizes finitude as one of the basic conditions of human existence. Our time, energy, attention, and lives are limited. The fact that we cannot do everything is part of what gives our choices significance. An organization that respects human limits is not lowering its standards. It is designing its expectations around the kind of beings human beings actually are.

Meaning also belongs within this conversation, though not in the way corporate discussions of purpose sometimes imply. Meaning cannot simply be installed through a mission statement. People experience meaning when they can perceive a worthwhile relationship between their participation and something they genuinely value. For one person that might involve contributing to an important social mission. For another it might be craftsmanship, solving difficult problems, supporting a family, serving customers well, creating beauty, building relationships, earning financial security, or participating competently in work worth doing.

An existentially healthy organization would not dictate which of these forms of meaning is legitimate. It would create enough honesty around work for people to discover what their participation actually means to them.

Taken together, these ideas suggest that existential health in the workplace is less about making it inspirational and more about making it humanly inhabitable. The aim is not an environment in which everyone feels fulfilled, agrees with leadership, loves their job, or discovers their life’s purpose through employment. Such expectations would simply create another impossible performance.

The aim is an organization in which people can work without having to progressively disappear from their own lives.

That means protecting agency without abandoning accountability, creating belonging without demanding conformity, pursuing purpose without colonizing meaning, exercising authority without requiring submission, acknowledging limits without abandoning aspiration, and maintaining enough contact with reality that truth does not become a threat.

A business organized around these principles would still face conflict, competition, failure, economic pressure, layoffs, difficult personalities, strategic mistakes, and painful decisions. Existential health does not create a world without difficulty. It changes the conditions under which difficulty is encountered.

What matters, then, is not whether an organization can make human existence comfortable, but whether people can remain meaningfully present to their own lives while participating in it.

There is a tendency to imagine the relationship between people and organizations as moving primarily in one direction. Individuals enter the workplace carrying personalities, skills, values, ambitions, vulnerabilities, histories, and habits. Institutions then attempt to assemble these different people into a functioning system. We talk about hiring the right people, finding cultural fit, developing talent, managing performance, and building effective teams. The assumption beneath much of this language is that people shape the systems they inhabit.

They do. But organizations also shape people.

Spend ten years inside any institution and it will leave traces. We learn what receives attention and what can safely be ignored. We discover how authority operates, whether disagreement is costly, what kind of person advances, and what kind disappears. We learn which emotions can be shown, which questions can be asked, and which truths are better left unspoken. We develop habits of speech, attention, interpretation, and self-presentation that allow us to function within the environment. Eventually, many of these adaptations stop feeling like adaptations at all. They become part of who we are.

This is not unique to business. Families shape people. Religions shape people. Schools, governments, militaries, communities, technologies, and cultures shape people. Human beings are profoundly relational creatures whose identities develop through participation in social worlds. There is no completely autonomous self standing outside these influences. We become ourselves partly through what we participate in.

That reality gives institutions a form of power that is easy to underestimate. A business does more than produce goods, deliver services, generate profits, or pursue a mission. It also produces patterns of human experience. Every organization is, intentionally or otherwise, a human-forming environment.

This raises a question that belongs alongside every other measure of organizational impact:

What kinds of human beings are our organizations helping to produce?

A workplace organized around chronic urgency will form people differently from one capable of distinguishing what is genuinely urgent from what merely feels important. A culture governed by fear will produce different habits of perception and behavior from one in which difficult truths can be spoken.

An organization that rewards relentless self-promotion will shape people differently from one that recognizes collaboration and contribution. A workplace in which every hour must demonstrate measurable productivity will influence how people experience time differently from one that recognizes reflection, conversation, experimentation, and rest as necessary dimensions of worthwhile work.

These effects do not remain at the office.

Someone who spends years learning that vulnerability is dangerous does not necessarily recover openness when they walk through their front door. A person conditioned to experience every unproductive moment as wasted time can find it difficult to sit with a child, walk without a destination, care for an aging parent, or spend an afternoon doing something whose value cannot be measured. Someone whose professional environment continually ties worth to achievement can carry that equation into relationships, parenting, aging, illness, and retirement. The habits required to survive one world can quietly become the habits through which we inhabit every world.

This is one reason the future of work is ultimately a question about more than work.

Business is one of the most powerful institutions shaping contemporary human life. Large corporations command resources greater than those available to many governments. Digital platforms influence attention, relationships, consumption, communication, and identity across national boundaries. Employers determine the daily conditions under which billions of people spend enormous portions of their finite lives. The values embedded in these systems do not remain contained within the marketplace. They migrate into culture.

As efficiency becomes the dominant organizational value, human beings begin evaluating their own lives by the same standard. Optimization turns the self into another project requiring continual improvement, while growth as the assumed measure of health makes enough increasingly difficult to recognize. Once everything valuable must demonstrate a measurable return, activities that matter precisely because they resist measurement begin to appear indulgent or unnecessary.

The language of the economy becomes the language through which people understand themselves.

We speak of investing in relationships, managing our time, building our personal brand, increasing our value, optimizing our routines, leveraging our networks, and achieving returns on our education. None of these expressions is catastrophic by itself. Language travels naturally between domains. But taken together, they reveal how thoroughly economic assumptions can become assumptions about human life itself. The person gradually comes to understand the self as an enterprise.

This is where the question of human flourishing reaches beyond organizational culture into the larger economic imagination.

A society cannot indefinitely organize itself around the maximization of production and consumption without influencing what its members believe a human life is for. If our primary institutions reward speed, accumulation, competition, visibility, productivity, and growth, those values will inevitably participate in shaping our identities and desires.

People will struggle to know when they have done enough because the systems surrounding them have no concept of enough. They will struggle to experience rest without guilt because rest interrupts production. They will struggle to value forms of life that generate no economic return because they have learned, often without realizing it, to associate value with usefulness.

The answer is not to reject markets, ambition, enterprise, profit, competition, or economic growth as inherently dehumanizing. Business has generated extraordinary human benefits. Markets have coordinated human activity at remarkable scales. Companies create useful products, solve problems, employ people, generate wealth, develop technologies, and make forms of life possible that previous generations could scarcely imagine. Any serious critique of business has to account for what business does well rather than reducing capitalism to its failures.

The task is more difficult than condemnation. It is reconstruction.

We need economic institutions capable of generating prosperity without treating the conditions of human flourishing as expendable inputs. Organizations can pursue excellence without making productivity the measure of a person’s worth, and leaders can exercise genuine authority without becoming the authors of other people’s reality. Strong cultures need not turn belonging into conformity. The aim should be forms of work that invite meaningful contribution while respecting the fact that a human life is always larger than its economic usefulness.

This is where Existential Health belongs in the emerging conversation about conscious, responsible, and regenerative business. Its contribution is not a new strategy for making employees more productive. If the wellbeing of human beings becomes valuable to organizations primarily because healthier employees produce better financial results, we will have reproduced the logic we were attempting to question. Human flourishing will once again have become an instrument for something else.

The order matters.

Human beings do not exist for organizations. Organizations exist because human beings create them to accomplish purposes that human beings consider worthwhile. Economies are human constructions embedded within the larger living world. Profit is necessary for the continuity of a business, but continuity is not an ultimate justification for existence. Growth can serve life, but life does not exist to serve growth.

Once we recover that order, a different vision of business becomes possible.

The company of the future could be evaluated not only by the wealth it generates, the products it creates, the customers it serves, or the environmental footprint it leaves behind. We could also examine the human consequences of participating in it.

We could ask whether people leave their years inside an organization with greater or lesser agency, whether they have learned to trust or silence their perceptions, whether their relationships with time and limitation have become healthier or more distorted, whether belonging has enlarged or diminished them, and whether their work has allowed them to participate in something worthwhile without requiring them to surrender ownership of their lives.

This does not give us a simple scorecard. Human beings are too complicated for that, and organizations should be cautious about claiming the authority to assess the existential health of individual employees. The more important task is to examine conditions: the kind of human environment they create, the behaviors they reward, the forms of selfhood they encourage, and what they teach people about authority, worth, success, failure, belonging, limits, and truth. Most importantly, we should pay attention to who people must become in order to succeed there.

That takes us beyond employee wellbeing.

That tales us toward a different conception of organizational responsibility, one that recognizes business as a participant in the formation of human life and therefore accountable, at least in part, for the conditions of life it creates.

The future of business will certainly involve new technologies, new forms of ownership, new economic models, new relationships with the planet, and new definitions of corporate responsibility. Artificial intelligence will alter the meaning and organization of work in ways we are only beginning to understand. Climate realities will force businesses to reconsider their relationship with ecological limits. Generational changes are already altering expectations around authority, purpose, flexibility, identity, and the place work should occupy within a life.

Beneath all of these changes sits a more fundamental question.

What is business for in a human life?

For a long time, we have been remarkably good at asking what human beings can contribute to organizations. We have built sophisticated systems for turning human intelligence, effort, creativity, attention, and time into economic value. The next stage of business will require us to become equally serious about the other side of that relationship.

What are our organizations contributing to the people whose lives make them possible?

A regenerative economy cannot be built from depleted human beings. A conscious business cannot be sustained by people who must become less conscious of themselves in order to function within it. A purpose-driven enterprise cannot claim success if its purpose consumes the lives of those asked to carry it.

The measure of a genuinely human economy will not be whether work becomes the center of our existence. It will be whether work can take its rightful place within lives that are larger than employment.

That is the possibility contained in the idea of an existentially healthy organization. Not a workplace that promises happiness, manufactures meaning, or removes the difficulty of being human, but one that refuses to require people to abandon themselves in exchange for participation.

The question facing business, then, is larger than how to improve employee wellbeing.

It is whether the organizations we build can become places where human beings contribute meaningfully to a shared undertaking while remaining fully participants in their own lives.

I am at the beginning of thinking about what Existential Health means for business and the institutions in which we work. I do not want to rush that inquiry toward a tidy framework. The questions involved are too important, and the existing movements already engaged in this territory deserve serious consideration.

Conscious Capitalism, the B Corp movement, regenerative business, stakeholder governance, organizational psychology, workplace wellbeing, responsible leadership, and the growing conversation about the future of work have each contributed important ways of reconsidering the relationship between business and human flourishing.

Existential Health enters this conversation with a particular concern. It asks us to examine the human experience underneath the systems we have built. Beneath questions about productivity, engagement, retention, culture, purpose, sustainability, and impact are people attempting to live lives that are finite, uncertain, relational, and meaningful to them. They are not simply employees. They are human beings whose work occurs inside an already unfolding encounter with being alive.

That distinction changes what we notice.

It means burnout cannot always be understood solely as a problem of workload or resilience. Disengagement may reflect something deeper than a failure of motivation, and turnover may involve more than compensation and opportunity. Better communication does not resolve every conflict, just as explaining the corporate purpose more convincingly does not necessarily restore a lost sense of meaning. Sometimes these experiences are signals that something about the relationship between the person and the organization has become difficult to inhabit.

This does not mean every workplace problem is existential. It means this dimension of human experience has been largely absent from how we think about organizational health.

Bringing it into the conversation opens areas that deserve sustained investigation. Agency can be understood as a dimension of human health rather than simply a management variable, and leadership can be evaluated by whether it strengthens self-authorship or produces dependency. Organizations must find ways to cultivate genuine belonging without demanding conformity and to pursue meaningful purpose without allowing that purpose to consume the people devoted to it.

Hierarchy also raises the challenge of maintaining contact with reality when information is filtered as it moves upward. Perhaps most fundamentally, work can be designed around the reality of human finitude rather than treating human limits as inefficiencies to overcome.

There are economic questions here as well. The possibilities for existential health must be considered within systems whose incentives may continually reward extraction. Regenerative principles might be extended from ecological systems to human ones, but doing so carries the risk of turning human flourishing into another corporate performance metric.

Businesses must also contend with whether they can remain competitive while refusing practices that generate financial value through the depletion of attention, agency, relationships, or time. This raises larger concerns about the forms of ownership, governance, leadership, and accountability capable of supporting organizations that seek to regenerate rather than consume the conditions upon which human flourishing depends.

I do not know all the answers. I am increasingly convinced that these issues demand our attention.

The stakes extend well beyond whether people are happier at work. Business has become one of the dominant institutions through which modern human beings encounter power, community, identity, status, technology, purpose, and one another. The workplace occupies an extraordinary amount of human time, but its influence reaches further than those hours. The assumptions we absorb there follow us home. They shape how we evaluate ourselves, how we relate to time, how we define success, what we believe we are worth, and what we imagine a worthwhile life should look like.

This is why the conversation about the future of work cannot ultimately be separated from the conversation about the future of being human.

We are entering a period in which that relationship will be renegotiated whether we choose to examine it or not. Artificial intelligence is forcing us to reconsider what kinds of human contribution remain distinctive and valuable. Ecological limits are exposing the inadequacy of economic systems built around endless extraction. Loneliness and social fragmentation are changing the significance of workplaces as sites of belonging.

Younger generations are questioning assumptions about loyalty, authority, ambition, identity, and the role work should occupy within a life. The old bargain in which people exchanged large portions of their lives for economic security while leaving matters of meaning and flourishing somewhere outside their employment is becoming increasingly unstable.

The response cannot simply be to make corporations responsible for satisfying every human need. That would give business far too much power over human existence. Nor should the goal be to transform every job into a calling. There is dignity in labor that is simply useful, competent, fairly compensated, and bounded. A person should be able to earn a living without being required to locate their deepest purpose in the organization that employs them.

The more significant possibility is to rethink the relationship itself.

A healthy relationship between human beings and organizations would contain mutual obligations and mutual limits. People would contribute effort, skill, creativity, responsibility, and time toward shared purposes. Organizations would provide compensation, structure, opportunity, accountability, and conditions in which that contribution can occur without requiring unnecessary forms of human diminishment. Neither side would pretend the relationship is something it is not. Employment would remain employment, while still being recognized as a profoundly human encounter.

This is where the idea of existentially healthy business begins to take shape.

It begins with the recognition that every business operates inside several living systems at once. It participates in ecological systems, social systems, communities, economies, and networks of human relationships. Increasingly, responsible businesses are being asked to consider whether their participation strengthens or depletes those systems.

Human existence belongs on that list.

A company can create extraordinary products and still diminish the people who create them. It can generate enormous wealth while normalizing ways of living that leave people estranged from themselves. It can have an inspiring mission while requiring chronic self-abandonment from those devoted to achieving it. It can protect forests while consuming human lives through expectations that no living system could sustain indefinitely.

Conversely, a business can become a place of meaningful participation without claiming to provide the meaning of someone’s life. It can cultivate belonging without demanding conformity, invite commitment without claiming possession, exercise authority without undermining agency, pursue excellence while respecting limits, and generate economic value without treating every dimension of human existence as a resource waiting to be monetized.

This is not a finished model of the existentially healthy organization. It is an opening inquiry.

For decades, one of the defining concerns of business has been how to get the best out of people. The language has become more humane over time, but the underlying direction of attention has often remained the same: How can organizations attract, motivate, engage, develop, retain, and optimize human beings in pursuit of business objectives?

Existential Health turns the question around.

Alongside everything we ask people to contribute to our organizations, we should be willing to examine what those organizations are contributing to the lives of the people inside them. We should be able to ask whether the systems we build strengthen or weaken agency, whether their cultures deepen or diminish belonging, whether their stories connect people with reality or protect institutions from it, and whether participation expands a person’s ability to inhabit life or slowly requires them to withdraw from it.

That inquiry will take us beyond workplace wellness. It will take us beyond the idea that human beings are resources whose wellbeing matters because healthy resources perform better. It will require a deeper reckoning with what organizations are, what economies are for, and what place work should occupy within a finite human life.

The future of business will not be determined only by what companies are capable of producing.

It will also be determined by what kind of human life their way of producing it makes possible.

If this work speaks to something you believe matters, I invite you to become a paid subscriber ($50 annually).

Existential Health is still an emerging field. The ideas, language, research, practices, and applications are being developed in real time, through writing like this and through an expanding community of people willing to take these questions seriously.

Your paid subscription does more than support my writing. It gives me the time and resources to continue developing this field, bringing Existential Health into conversation with business, education, healthcare, spirituality, community, leadership, and public life.

If you believe these questions deserve sustained attention and want to help make this work possible, I would be grateful for your support.