Page 139 - ePaper
P. 139
Chapter 3: The future of work in Europe: job quality and work organisation for a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth
established the objective of ‘more and bet - The ‘Discretionary Learning form’ organisation methods are not (strictly) cod -
ter jobs for all’. In 2001, the Laeken Euro- (hereafter Lean) covers nearly 29 % of ified and are largely informal, probably as
pean Council agreed to a comprehensive employees. It is characterised by a strong a consequence of the lower complexity of
framework on job quality. The resulting presence of team work, including self- the work tasks involved.
concept of job quality included 10 dimen- managed teams, the highest reported
sions, categorised into two themes: use of quality norms and self-assess- 2.3. Work organisation
1) characteristics of the job/worker and ment of quality, the highest level of task impacts on job quality
2) the wider socioeconomic and labour rotation and horizontal and norm-based and performance
market context (Annex 1). In 2013, the constraints, a very high level of cogni-
EU’s Employment Committee (EMCO) Indi - tive demands and higher levels of task As can be seen in Table 1, nearly two
cators Group agreed upon a four-dimen- autonomy. This type of organisation dis - thirds of employees in private estab-
sional concept of job quality, subdivided plays strong learning dynamics and relies lishments with 10 or more employees
into 10 further sub-dimensions, each with on employees’ abilities to solve problems (excluding agriculture) work in forms
several indicators (Annex 1, Table A1.1). themselves. Work is embedded in numer - of work organisation characterised by
The indicators are drawn predominantly ous quantitative and organisational pace strong learning dynamics and high prob -
from the EU Labour Force Survey (EU- constraints and requires the respect of lem-solving activity: the Learning and the
LFS), the Statistics on Income and Living strict quality standards, granting employ - Lean production forms. These are often
Conditions (EU-SILC) and Eurofound’s lat- ees a rather ‘controlled’ autonomy in labelled together under the heading of
est European Working Conditions Survey their work. High Performance Work Places — HPWS
(EWCS). The four dimensions are: (Appelbaum and Batt, 1993).
The ‘Lean Production form’ (hereafter
1. Socioeconomic security, including Lean) covers nearly 29 % of employees. Though similar, Learning and Lean organi -
adequate earnings and job and It is characterised by a strong presence sations differ in a number of dimensions.
career security; of team work, including self-managed Learning organisations place additional
teams, the highest reported use of importance on the wholeness of tasks,
2. Education and training, including skills quality norms and self-assessment of a higher level of personal autonomy and
development through life-long learn- quality, the highest level of task rota- initiative, less emphasis on strict adher-
ing and employability; tion and horizontal and norm-based ence to standards and more open access
constraints, a very high level of cogni- to decision-making process. In contrast,
3. Working conditions, including health and tive demands and higher levels of task Lean organisations are more hierarchical,
safety at work, work intensity, auton - autonomy. This type of organisation dis - and task autonomy and pace of work are
omy and working practices, as well as plays strong learning dynamics and relies more limited and controlled. Also, Learn
collective interest representation; on employees’ abilities to solve problems organisations do not appear to compen-
themselves. Work is embedded in numer - sate workers fully for their increased level
4. Work-life and gender balance. ous quantitative and organisational pace of responsibility and the need to address
constraints and requires the respect of ongoing problem-solving activities in an
Operationalising the multitude of indica - strict quality standards, granting employ - increasingly complex environment. This
tors to facilitate monitoring, assessment ees a rather ‘controlled’ autonomy in may result in problems relating to personal
and policy-making remains a challenging their work. well-being, health or work-life balance
work in progress. Through factor analy- similar to those experienced in Tayloris-
sis, their number has recently been com - The ‘Tayloristic form’ covers about 20 % tic organisations.
pressed but the list still remains long ( ). of employees. This type of work organisa-
10
tion displays a high level of non-autono- Employees working in Tayloristic and
2.2. Work organisation mous team work, the lowest level of task more Traditional or Simple forms of
can take different forms autonomy, limited cognitive demands at work organisation, which account for
work, very high levels of use of pre-defined around a third of all employees, have
In the ever-changing world of work, quality standards (and lower levels of self- much less task autonomy, rarely deal
employees’ well-being, performance and assessed quality standards) and a very with cognitively demanding tasks and
labour market participation depend on high level of pace constraints, especially have fewer opportunities to learn new
the organisation of work by firms. Based those created by limitations in the speed things. Furthermore, while workers in
on the findings of the three most recent of machines or production flow. more Traditional and Simple forms of
EWCS waves (2000, 2005 and 2010), work organisation face fewer quality
four broad forms of work organisation The ‘Traditional or Simple form’ norms or work pace constraints, Tayloris -
can be identified. Table 1 describes the of organisation covers nearly 16 % of tic forms of organisation are marked by
main characteristics of these forms of employees. It is characterised by the low- much stricter controls in both respects.
work organisation among private non- est incidence of work pace constraints and
agricultural establishments employing the use of pre-defined or self-assessed Finally, a meta-analysis of 92 studies
10 or more workers (see Annex 2 for quality standards. Workers belonging to (Combs et al., 2006) found evidence
the methodology used to underpin the this organisational form have less work that HPWS enhance organisational per-
classification). pace autonomy and generally face the formance. These organisations are bet-
least cognitively demanding tasks, with ter suited for more volatile and complex
( ) In the table in Annex 1 these indicators are only a few instances of teamwork and environments, including more competi-
10
marked ‘FACTOR indicating…(the particular
aspect of work)’. work rotation. In such establishments, work tive and globalised markets.
137
established the objective of ‘more and bet - The ‘Discretionary Learning form’ organisation methods are not (strictly) cod -
ter jobs for all’. In 2001, the Laeken Euro- (hereafter Lean) covers nearly 29 % of ified and are largely informal, probably as
pean Council agreed to a comprehensive employees. It is characterised by a strong a consequence of the lower complexity of
framework on job quality. The resulting presence of team work, including self- the work tasks involved.
concept of job quality included 10 dimen- managed teams, the highest reported
sions, categorised into two themes: use of quality norms and self-assess- 2.3. Work organisation
1) characteristics of the job/worker and ment of quality, the highest level of task impacts on job quality
2) the wider socioeconomic and labour rotation and horizontal and norm-based and performance
market context (Annex 1). In 2013, the constraints, a very high level of cogni-
EU’s Employment Committee (EMCO) Indi - tive demands and higher levels of task As can be seen in Table 1, nearly two
cators Group agreed upon a four-dimen- autonomy. This type of organisation dis - thirds of employees in private estab-
sional concept of job quality, subdivided plays strong learning dynamics and relies lishments with 10 or more employees
into 10 further sub-dimensions, each with on employees’ abilities to solve problems (excluding agriculture) work in forms
several indicators (Annex 1, Table A1.1). themselves. Work is embedded in numer - of work organisation characterised by
The indicators are drawn predominantly ous quantitative and organisational pace strong learning dynamics and high prob -
from the EU Labour Force Survey (EU- constraints and requires the respect of lem-solving activity: the Learning and the
LFS), the Statistics on Income and Living strict quality standards, granting employ - Lean production forms. These are often
Conditions (EU-SILC) and Eurofound’s lat- ees a rather ‘controlled’ autonomy in labelled together under the heading of
est European Working Conditions Survey their work. High Performance Work Places — HPWS
(EWCS). The four dimensions are: (Appelbaum and Batt, 1993).
The ‘Lean Production form’ (hereafter
1. Socioeconomic security, including Lean) covers nearly 29 % of employees. Though similar, Learning and Lean organi -
adequate earnings and job and It is characterised by a strong presence sations differ in a number of dimensions.
career security; of team work, including self-managed Learning organisations place additional
teams, the highest reported use of importance on the wholeness of tasks,
2. Education and training, including skills quality norms and self-assessment of a higher level of personal autonomy and
development through life-long learn- quality, the highest level of task rota- initiative, less emphasis on strict adher-
ing and employability; tion and horizontal and norm-based ence to standards and more open access
constraints, a very high level of cogni- to decision-making process. In contrast,
3. Working conditions, including health and tive demands and higher levels of task Lean organisations are more hierarchical,
safety at work, work intensity, auton - autonomy. This type of organisation dis - and task autonomy and pace of work are
omy and working practices, as well as plays strong learning dynamics and relies more limited and controlled. Also, Learn
collective interest representation; on employees’ abilities to solve problems organisations do not appear to compen-
themselves. Work is embedded in numer - sate workers fully for their increased level
4. Work-life and gender balance. ous quantitative and organisational pace of responsibility and the need to address
constraints and requires the respect of ongoing problem-solving activities in an
Operationalising the multitude of indica - strict quality standards, granting employ - increasingly complex environment. This
tors to facilitate monitoring, assessment ees a rather ‘controlled’ autonomy in may result in problems relating to personal
and policy-making remains a challenging their work. well-being, health or work-life balance
work in progress. Through factor analy- similar to those experienced in Tayloris-
sis, their number has recently been com - The ‘Tayloristic form’ covers about 20 % tic organisations.
pressed but the list still remains long ( ). of employees. This type of work organisa-
10
tion displays a high level of non-autono- Employees working in Tayloristic and
2.2. Work organisation mous team work, the lowest level of task more Traditional or Simple forms of
can take different forms autonomy, limited cognitive demands at work organisation, which account for
work, very high levels of use of pre-defined around a third of all employees, have
In the ever-changing world of work, quality standards (and lower levels of self- much less task autonomy, rarely deal
employees’ well-being, performance and assessed quality standards) and a very with cognitively demanding tasks and
labour market participation depend on high level of pace constraints, especially have fewer opportunities to learn new
the organisation of work by firms. Based those created by limitations in the speed things. Furthermore, while workers in
on the findings of the three most recent of machines or production flow. more Traditional and Simple forms of
EWCS waves (2000, 2005 and 2010), work organisation face fewer quality
four broad forms of work organisation The ‘Traditional or Simple form’ norms or work pace constraints, Tayloris -
can be identified. Table 1 describes the of organisation covers nearly 16 % of tic forms of organisation are marked by
main characteristics of these forms of employees. It is characterised by the low- much stricter controls in both respects.
work organisation among private non- est incidence of work pace constraints and
agricultural establishments employing the use of pre-defined or self-assessed Finally, a meta-analysis of 92 studies
10 or more workers (see Annex 2 for quality standards. Workers belonging to (Combs et al., 2006) found evidence
the methodology used to underpin the this organisational form have less work that HPWS enhance organisational per-
classification). pace autonomy and generally face the formance. These organisations are bet-
least cognitively demanding tasks, with ter suited for more volatile and complex
( ) In the table in Annex 1 these indicators are only a few instances of teamwork and environments, including more competi-
10
marked ‘FACTOR indicating…(the particular
aspect of work)’. work rotation. In such establishments, work tive and globalised markets.
137
