This paper systematically reviews empirical research published between 2006 and 2016 on the relationship between informal care-giving to elders and labour force participation (LFP). It does so in the context of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development policy responses to population ageing. In this context, conclusions regarding the LFP and care-giving relationship should at least be applicable to the sub-population of working-aged individuals who are most likely to provide informal elder care. Currently, these are women in mid-life and the recipients of their care are mostly extra-residential parents. The review's key conclusion is that mid-life women care-givers of elderly parents are significantly likely to reduce their working hours and also to work fewer hours relative to their non-care-giving counterparts. In drawing this conclusion, the review shows that studies finding only modest care-giving effects on LFP either do not adequately control for care-giving intensity or their conclusions apply to sub-populations less likely to be affected by policies addressing population ageing.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the suitability of job and work design theory for investigating knowledge workers’ productivity. The review is a response to recommendation and adoption of the motivational human resource management approach by a number of knowledge management researchers. The authors show that the existing literature on this topic overlooks key criticisms of HRM job and work design theory itself. The authors suggest modifications. Design/methodology/approach The paper proceeds by outlining knowledge management researchers’ arguments rejecting the application of traditional measurement approaches to investigating knowledge workers’ productivity. The review develops to examine the various arguments for adopting work design theory and considers the key contributions and critiques in this field. Drawing on the insights of key HRM work design critics, the paper concludes by offering suggestions for a model suitable for examining the drivers of knowledge work productivity in process. Findings The principle finding is that Morgeson and Humphrey’s (2006) Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ) stand as the most conceptually consistent and methodologically considered human resource management work design theory. However, this model must itself be modified to include a category of organizational contextual work characteristics. For application to the filed of knowledge management, WDQ must also be expanded to include knowledge sharing, role breadth self-efficacy and employee well-being as key work design mediators and outcomes. Research limitations/implications Greater consideration needs to be given to the distinction between knowledge sharing as a work design mediator and as a work design outcome. Morgeson and Humphrey themselves note that the “common method variance” problems arising in psychometric research have been reduced but not completely eliminated from their model. Practical implications Survey instruments based on the recommended model potentially provide a valuable means for understanding and enhancing productivity in a variety of knowledge intensive service industries. The pronounced benefit of this model is that it is applicable in cross-industry and cross-occupational contexts, unlike many existing knowledge worker productivity models. This is an advantage, given the centrality of the inter-connectivity of different types of activities and industries in knowledge work. Social implications Work design prioritizes employee motivation and support and links this to the quality of work and the well-being of clients. The benefits of well-designed knowledge work extend well beyond the generation of specific innovations and macroeconomic productivity improvements. Originality/value Job design and work design theory have been applied in the field of knowledge management. However, the applications have largely overlooked key critiques of the established models in the human resource management literature. The paper fills this gap. Its original suggestions for modifying Moregeson and Humphry’s (2006) WDQ reflect the authors’ in-depth analysis of the literature.

No abstract