First, it is crystal clear that Mill Girls and Harvey Girls were always observed by their employers. While the Mill Girls were not expected to comply with a carefully crafted set of guidelines (as did the Harvey Girls), their performance in operating the looms could be carefully monitored, and their productivity easily measured. Today, the open-air design of many corporate offices allows for direct observation of employees; however, with many employees now working from home, direct observation of performance is challenging. A manager might insist on participating in all digitally-based conference calls, but this is rarely feasible. Certainly, one of the reasons why many corporate leaders insist that their employees return to the office relates to observability. What can now be “observed” more intently are the digital “footprints” left by the new knowledge workers. Everything communicated digitally to someone else is now vulnerable. This might be an elevated form of observation that is more intrusive than the old modes of direct observation.
The observational culture was cranked up another notch with the two populations studied by Dr. Sun and me. Observation and resulting regulation of behavior are readily apparent in the work and life of all these women. The Mill Girls were required to observe a strict code of conduct even when not at work. They were observed “in town” having left the mill and their dormitories. Any aberrant behavior would have certainly been reported to the leaders of the Mill by town folk. In the case of the Harvey Girls, the ability to observe the nonwork behavior of these women would be even less difficult. The Harvey Girls often had nowhere to go (other than sometimes traveling to a nearby small Western town). The world of work was indeed dictating all aspects of these women’s lives.
A central question remains unanswered. Was the control of these women’s labor and life truly internalized? Were they working and living in their own Panopticon? Did anyone need to be in the tower of the New England Mills or the Harvey restaurants? I propose that internalization of the chains (control) was probably common among the women Dr. Sun and I were studying. This is particularly likely if the women were Pulled to their job, rather than being Pushed. The Harvey Girls, in particular, probably internalized the Fred Harvey code of conduct. They were likely to carry this code over to their life even after leaving employment at the Harvey Corporation.
These Harvey Girls were facing a mental and emotional challenge called cognitive dissonance. (Festinger, 1957; Aronson, 2018) If these women have been Pulled to the Harvey Corporation under their own free will, then it is critical that they positively view this decision. Otherwise, these women would have to acknowledge that they made a lousy, misinformed career decision. This would create cognitive dissonance in their minds and hearts. A similar challenge was facing Lindsey Gulden, the fired ExxonMobil scientist I introduced in the first essay on Worth. She was conscious of the “troubling pattern in her way of thinking.” (Wen, 2025, p. 24) Cognitive consonance is achieved by considering the Harvey and ExxonMobil corporations as “good places” in which to work.
These corporations are wonderful. In serving the ever-increasing energy needs of its customers, ExxonMobil must extract oil from the ground. Lindsey Gulden was doing the “right thing” in being blind to the environmental destruction caused by her company. The Harvey codes are appropriate, and it is perfectly acceptable for the personal lives of the Harvey Girls to be observed and regulated by the Harvey executives. These women have done “the right thing” in joining and remaining employed by the Harvey Corporation or staying at ExxonMobil. Therefore, they can retain an image of themselves as thoughtful decision-makers and dedicated employees. They have internalized the control of their thoughts and feelings under the threat of cognitive dissonance.
