the evolution of job quality

The Evolution of Job Quality

Francis GreenPresentation to the IIPPE Political Economy of Work

Conference, University of Leeds, 5 May

2

Context

• Background:– affluence, but differentiation – age of the computer– increasing international competition– recession– the “Lisbon strategy” – “more and better jobs”– increased perceived importance of intrinsic

aspects of job quality

3

Outline

• Concept and theory• Indicators• Stories about job quality:

– increased skill requirements, – polarisation, – intensification, – control, – (in)security.

• Some implications for worker well-being consider along the way

4

Concepts of job quality

• Subjective “Utility” (Economics)• Job that delivers complexity and autonomy (sociology)• Needs-based: job that delivers, first, external need

satisfaction; and second, internal need satisfaction – e.g. in marxian terms, self-validating labour.

• Competing models in practice: – “more and better jobs” (OECD and others) – usually meaning

“better-paid”– EC: from “quality in work” to “quality of employment” and

“flexicurity”– “decent labour” (ILO);

5

Grand narratives

• e.g. – Neoclassical/technicist

• Growth delivers rises in standards of living; job quality is a “luxury good” which we demand more of as we become richer

– De-skilling and upskilling; Fordism and post-Fordism– Declining worker power and ubiquitous lean

production systems– Precarious work

• Inevitable combination of intensification of global competitiveness with the feminisation of the workforce?

• Contingent, non-secular, development shaped by national legal frameworks?

6

Core Indicators of job quality

• Wages – Including fairness of wages

• Job skills– Including skill matching

• Effort and hours• Autonomy/discretion• Security

– employment security (financial and psychological)– physical

7

Story 1: SBTC

• A prima facie good-news story for job quality• Evidence:

– Direct measures of rising skills use– Persistence or increase in education premia, in face

of rising quantities of more-educated workers– Increased skills use and deployment of educated

labour is: • in similar industries across countries• associated with new technologies

8

Figure 4.1b Trends in Broad Skills: Required Highest Qualification, 1986-2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1986 1992 1997 2001 2006

Level 4+

No qualification

Figure 4.1d Trends in Broad Skills: Learning Time,

1986-2006

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1986 1992 1997 2001 2006

> 2 years

< 1 month

Broad skill requirements rising, but recent change muted

9

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6P

hysi

cal

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

Ext

erna

lC

omm

unic

atio

n

Influ

ence

Ch

ang

e in

Ski

lls

Ind

ices

, 19

92-1

997

Same Job

Different Job

Total

Changes in the Use of Generic Skills, 1992-1997.

Source: Skills Survey series

10

Changes in the Use of Generic Skills, 1997-2006.

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25P

hysi

cal

Pro

blem

-sol

ving

Che

ckin

g

Ext

erna

lC

omm

unic

atio

n

Num

erac

y

Sel

f-Pla

nnin

g

Lite

racy

Influ

ence

Cha

nge

in S

kills

Indi

ces,

199

7-20

06


11

Year 0.00598

[0.00614]

Emp. Involvement 0.812*

[0.458]

Task Discretion 0.158

[0.281]

Low Computing 0.599*

[0.309]

High Computing 1.212**

[0.451]

Observations 83

R-squared 0.960

Explaining Literacy Skills: Within-Industry Analysis

12

1992 1997 2001 2006Women % % % %Overqualified 23.8 25.2 23.4 32.1

Overskilled 1 12.2 - 12.0 12.7

Men % % % %

Overqualified 21.7 23 27 33.2

Overskilled 15.4 - 12.8 15.4

Education and Skill Mismatches in Britain

13

Quantile Regression and OLS Estimates of Returns to Graduate Education for Men.3-year moving window.

.25

.3.3

5.4

.45

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005yr3mw

10th Percentilee 50th Percentilee90th Percentilee OLS

14

Story 2: POLARISATION OF THE LABOUR FORCE?

15

Explanations

• Technical change and polarisation: a nuanced version of SBTC

• Demographics and inequality

• Structural choice: the “low road”?

16

Figure 4.1: Net employment creation by job quality quintiles (different time periods)

Growth in middlePolarization Hybrid polariz/upgrading Upgrading Hybrid upgrading/mid

AT

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

1995-2003

1995-2000

BE

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995-2006

1995-2000FR

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1995-2006

1995-2000

IE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1998-2006

1998-2000

DE

-800-600-400-200

0200400600800

100012001400

1995-2006

1995-2000

DK

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1995-2006

1995-2000

IT

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1995-2003

1995-2000

LU

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995-2006

1995-2000 SE

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1997-2006

1997-2000

UK

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1995-2006

1995-2000

ES

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

1995-2006

1995-2000

GR

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

1995-2006

1995-2000

CY

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2006

1999-2000

CZ

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

1998-2006

1998-2000

EE

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

1997-2006

1997-2000

HU

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1997-2006

1997-2000

FI

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1997-2006

1997-2001NL

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1996-2006

1996-2000

PT

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

1998-2006

1998-2000

LT

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

1998-2006

1998-2000

LV

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

1998-2006

1998-2000

SL

-30-20-10

01020304050607080

1996-2006

1996-2000

SK

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

1998-2006

1998-2000

EU15

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1995-2006

1995-2000NMS

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

2000-2006

17

Story 3 Intensification

• Technology and organisation– EBTC– more effective monitoring technology

• Changing balance of power, linked to intensified global competition

• Insecurity??• Consumerism: the work/spend treadmill?

• Evidence: typically based on comparison of required effort questions across time or in-depth case study

18

Proportion in EU12 with high effort more than half the time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1991 1995 2000 2005

Tight deadlines

High speed

Source: EWCS

19

Evolution of Work Intensity, EU15, 1991 - 2005

1991 for EU12 only

201991 for EU12 only

21


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1992 1997 2001 2006

disagree or stronglydisagree

agree

strongly agree

“Job requires hard work”

Private Sector

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1992 1997 2001 2006


agree

strongly agree

Public Sector

22

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1992 1997 2001 2006


agree

strongly agree

Men Women

“Job requires hard work”


Related facts: over 2001-6: work intensification notable among school teachers; and in Hotels and Restaurants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1992 1997 2001 2006


agree

strongly agree

23

High Work Effort

05

101520253035

Men Women

19982004

% who strongly agree that “My job requires that I work very hard”

Source: WERS; establishments with at least 10 workers.

24

Story 4 Autonomy

• Central to marxian conception of job quality;

• Also to psycho-social models of workplace well-being

• On contested terrain, and with contrasting predictions: – Post-Taylorism/fordism: rising autonomy– Neo-Taylorism: renewed assault on autonomy

25

Source: UK Skills Surveys

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

1992 1997 2001 2006

Men

Women

All

Task Discretion in Britain, 1992-2006

2

2.05

2.1

2.15

2.2

2.25

2.3

2.35

2.4

2.45

2.5

1992 1997 2001 2006

Private

Public

All

26

Control over pace of work, 1989-2001, Sweden

% responding that they can decide their work pace themselves all the time. 1989-2001.

Source: ‘The Work Environment survey’

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Order

of t

asks

Worki

ng m

etho

ds

Conten

ts of

task

s

Pace o

f wor

k

Divisio

n of ta

sks b

etwee

n em

ploye

es

Choice of

wor

king

partn

er

1984

1990

1997

2003

Task discretion in Finland, 1984-2003

Source: Quality of Life Surveys, Statistics Finland.

28

Decision latitude, 1996–2006, Norway

(% of workers citing high levels)

Source: SSB, Level of Living Surveys

30

0102030405060708090

100

1992 2001 2006

No Team

Non-Self-Directing Team

Self-DirectingTeam

The Paradox of Teamwork in Britain

See Gallie et al. ‘Teamwork, Productive Potential and Employee Welfare’ Source: UK Skills Surveys

31

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1992 1997 2001 2006

%

Males Females

Proportion of High-Strain Jobs”

‘See Green (2008) Work Effort and Worker Well-Being in the Age of Affluence’


Implications of Combined Story 3 and Story 4

32

Men and women constantly thinking about work and having limited control over their work,1989-2001, Sweden.

% of women and men who cannot stop thinking about work on their time off, combined with limited control over their work.

Source: ‘The Work Environment survey’

33

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9S

train

Anxie

ty-

Conte

ntm

ent

Depre

ssio

n-

Enth

usia

sm

Str

ain

Anxie

ty-

Conte

ntm

ent

Depre

ssio

n-

Enth

usia

sm

Men Women

1992

2001

2006

Changing Well-Being

Full-time employees

Source: Skills Survey/ EIB series

34

Story 5 Security

• Employment insecurity has several dimensions: including risk of job loss, length of unemployment, loss of wages.

• Influence of external context on perceptions:– Perceived risk of job loss rises with unemployment– Perceived difficulty of re-employment rises with

unemployment and rate of change of unemployment– So: must be very poor now

• However, the movement of perceived insecurity, on average, is cyclical not secular, despite the rise in use of temporary labour contracts in many countries

35

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1986 1997 2001 2006

Men

Women

Source: UK Skills Surveys

Perceived Risk of Job Loss

% reporting at least an evens chance of job loss and unemployment

36

Job Insecurity

0

5

10

15

20

25

Men Women

19982004

% who disagree or strongly disagree with “I feel my job is secure in this workplace”

37

C

T

L

L

T

O

C

N

NT

T

TL

L

C

O

O

O

N

O

O

O

T

LL

TL

N

N

T

T

T

T

L L

D

O

O

O

TO

O

N

C

C

N

1020

3040

Hig

h In

secu

rity

Rat

e (%

)

0 5 10 15 20Unemployment Rate (%)

Perceived insecurity by unemployment rate across nations

Classification: L: Liberal mkt econ; T: transitional; N: Nordic; C: Corporatist; O: Other industrialised; D: developing

Source: ISSP, pooled 1997 and 2005

38

Perception that health and safety is at risk because of work

39

Conclusions 1

4 unpleasant tales:• Upskilling but polarisation• Persistence of low-autonomy jobs• Persistence of high-effort jobs• Still increasing high-strain jobs• The movement of perceived insecurity is

cyclical, and widely varying, but not secular• Emerging gender differences in these trends

40

Conclusions 2

• Impact of recession:• Massive increases in perceived insecurity• High u, and rate of change of u; ubiquitous

presence of crisis• Impact on work effort??

– Labour hoarding– Fear effect??– Radical work re-organisation

• Impact on autonomy ?• Wages

– Likely to be reduced

the evolution of job quality

Documents