Which workers are more vulnerable to work intensification? An analysis of two national surveys

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify whether there are particular employee groups that are more vulnerable to work intensification and its outcomes for well-being. Design/methodology/approach – This paper utilises data collected in two representative national surveys in 2005 (n=1,004) and 2009 (n=1,016), first to determine which employee groups are most vulnerable to work intensification and, second, to identify who is more vulnerable to the impacts of high work intensity on well-being, in terms of job (dis)satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life imbalance. Findings – Professionals reported significantly higher levels of work intensity than all other occupational groups, and higher levels of stress and work-life imbalance. In addition, full-time employees experienced greater work intensity than part-timers, and union members than non-union members. Public-sector employees reported greater stress and work-life imbalance than those in the private sector. There was also a small, but significant and consistent, interaction effect that identified women as more negatively impacted by high work intensity than men. Research limitations/implications – Professionals have become vulnerable workers, in the sense of high levels of work demand, and the notion of worker vulnerability needs to recognise this. Future research on vulnerable employees would benefit from a broader conception of what constitutes vulnerability, exploring a wider range of employee groups who might be considered vulnerable, and including a wider range of potential outcomes for the lives and well-being of the individuals concerned. In particular, a more finely grained examination of the working conditions of professionals would be desirable, as would a more detailed examination of the reasons for the higher negative impact of work intensity on women. Practical implications – One way of improving the sustainability of professional working is to foster higher rates of part-time working, which brings better outcomes in terms of stress and work-life balance. This, however, is hardly a societal remedy and the question of how to reverse deteriorating job quality among professionals, particularly those struggling to balance work and family demands, is something that needs much greater attention. Originality/value – The paper expands the notion of “vulnerable workers” to recognise those groups most at risk of work intensification, and the outcomes of that intensification for satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life balance. The authors add to the small group of studies highlighting the degradation of professional work, as well as identifying other types of employee who are more vulnerable to work intensification. The use of two large-scale surveys, with a four-year gap, has allowed a high degree of consistency in the patterns of vulnerability to be revealed.

Reforming while maintaining job security: a good idea? The case of the Kazakhstani public service

“…Workforce reduction was drastic, with a focus on efficiency and accountability (New Zealand State Services Commission 1998). As a result of increased responsibilities, public employees are said to be more likely to report greater job stress than private sector employees, as well as experiencing an increase in unpaid work (Plimmer et al 2013;Le Fevre, Boxall, and Macky 2015). In spite of these developments, public employees report feeling empowered, motivated and committed to serve the public (Plimmer et al 2013).…”

Employer Choice and Job Quality

“…Employers are the primary actors in designing jobs, employment, and workplace relationships (Metcalf & Dhudwar, 2012) and ''the extent to which an employee has autonomy, control and decision latitude will depend largely on the organization of work, the design of jobs and the quality of management'' (Coats & Lehki, 2008, p. 15). Employers make choices about JQ, even within the same product markets (Le Fevre, Boxall, & Macky, 2015), and their capacity and autonomy to shape workplace change is important to how employees experience JQ (Hoque et al, 2014). Yet, employer agency and strategic choice are underexplored relative to structural and institutional factors in the JQ literature (Bazen et al, 2005).…”

Editorial

“…Job-life and life-job spill-over effects are commonplace – an observation which has already attracted substantial empirical support (e.g. Georgellis and Lange, 2012; Agarwala et al , 2014; Guzi and de Pedraza García, 2015; Le Fevre et al , 2015). What is more, a renewed focus on employee well-being serves as an attractive business proposition.…”