Stuck at a workplace: What’s work control, demands and learning got to do with it? A longitudinal multilevel study on Swedish permanent employees in situations of ‘workplace locked-in’

Who Gets Stuck in Their Workplaces? The Role of Matching Factors, between Individual and Job, and Demographics in Predicting Being Locked In

“…These findings add to earlier studies, which also showed that disproportions at work including high demands and low control, as well as effort/reward imbalance, increase the risk for being locked in (Bernhard-Oettel et al, 2018;Fahlén et al, 2009). In fact, somebody with too little work ability may find a job too (quantitatively) demanding.…”

“…Concerning the non-preference of the workplace variable, it is related to overall job satisfaction which in earlier studies has been demonstrated to work as a single item as well (Dolbier et al, 2005;Fisher, Matthews, and Gibbons, 2016;Wanous et al, 1997). Furthermore, this study contributes to the field by measuring the locked-in concept in more detail than was done in most earlier studies (see e.g., Aronsson et al, 2000;Furåker et al, 2014), since first, we covered the two dimensions of locked-in status (see e.g., Fahlén et al, 2009;Stengård et al, 2016), and second, we distinguished between being locked in and being at risk of becoming locked in (Bernhard-Oettel et al, 2018;Stengård et al, 2016). However, as this conceptualization does not directly ask whether an employee perceives that they are stuck in a non-preferred workplace, one direction for future research would be to test whether subjective perceptions and the classifications of locked-in situations as defined here are congruent.…”

“…Two earlier studies have conducted research in this area and found that mismatch between (quantitative) demand and control as well as effort/reward imbalance have associations with being locked in (Bernhard-Oettel et al, 2018;Fahlén et al, 2009). These studies focused on perceptions of work environment factors such as low control, (too) high demands or imbalance between effort and rewards, and showed that individuals with unfavorable reports on these work environment factors were at greater risk of being or becoming locked-in.…”

“…An important question is whether there are some factors, related to the individual, that characterize those who are locked in, and whether such factors also can increase the odds for becoming locked in over time. There has been little research (for exceptions, see Bernhard-Oettel et al, 2018;Fahlén et al, 2009) on the potential role of work conditions and the fit of the work conditions to the individual, in relation to being locked in. Also, knowledge is scarce on whether there are demographic variables, such as gender, age, socioeconomic position, living area or family situation (married, having children) that put some individuals at greater risk of becoming locked in.…”

The role of social embeddedness for remaining in non-desired workplaces and mental health consequences: Results from Scania Public Health Cohort

“…Both studies show that being in a non-preferred workplace or occupation associates with poor health, cross-sectionally and over time [1, 2]. It has also been debated that non-preference of workplace or occupation may associate with unfavorable working conditions such as effort-reward imbalance [3], or low workplace control combined with high-quantitative work demands and few learning opportunities [1, 4]. From a public health perspective it is important, therefore, to better understand why individuals remain in non-preferred workplaces and occupations, and how negative health consequences may be reduced.…”