Page 140 - ePaper
P. 140
Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2014
Table 1: Work organisation variables across the classes (% of employees) — 2010
Work organisation classes
Discretionary Lean production Tayloristic Traditional
learning or simple
Methods of work* 85.90 % 64.20 % 7.70 % 33.70 %
Autonomy in work Speed or rate of work* 88.80 % 66.20 % 13.80 % 46.20 %
Order of tasks 80.80 % 62.20 % 14.60 % 35.70 %
Learning new things* 83.40 % 90.80 % 37.60 % 22.50 %
Cognitive dimen- Problem solving activities* 98.00 % 91.50 % 58.10 % 46.00 %
sions of work
Complexity of tasks* 74.60 % 86.00 % 32.20 % 12.70 %
Self-assessment* 83.20 % 91.30 % 63.40 % 23.00 %
Quality
Quality norms* 77.80 % 97.70 % 94.50 % 35.40 %
Monotony of tasks* 29.60 % 60.60 % 75.90 % 52.40 %
Repetitiveness 16.50 % 38.20 % 51.60 % 24.00 %
of tasks*
Task rotation* 40.20 % 76.30 % 46.30 % 31.20 %
Automatic* 8.00 % 43.20 % 64.00 % 13.40 %
Norm-based* 41.80 % 77.20 % 73.00 % 17.70 %
Work pace Hierarchical* 28.50 % 68.40 % 65.90 % 27.20 %
constraints
Horizontal* 29.50 % 86.40 % 66.60 % 27.00 %
Direct demands from other people 62.80 % 65.00 % 53.10 % 55.10 %
With autonomy 32.46 % 46.28 % 16.78 % 16.18 %
Teamwork*
Without autonomy 24.94 % 46.86 % 43.72 % 25.99 %
From colleagues 70.49 % 82.61 % 65.54 % 62.70 %
Assistance
From hierarchy 61.06 % 62.29 % 47.66 % 46.35 %
Overall proportion of workers in the four forms 36.00 % 28.70 % 19.50 % 15.80 %
of work organisation
Source: Eurofound based on EWCS (2010).
Note: Variables with an asterisk (*) have been used to identify the four main different organisation forms. Further variables are used to provide additional information.
3. The effects indicators into its four dimensions An adequate level of pay helps avoid
of job quality on (here subsections): 1) socioeconomic in-work poverty and social exclusion ( ).
12
productivity, labour security, 2) education and training,
market participation 3) working conditions and 4) work-life The literature suggests that the level
and social cohesion and gender balance (EMCO Indicators and distribution of earnings can have a
table in Annex 1). For each subsec- direct impact on productivity and output.
This section presents patterns and tion, the transmission mechanism A higher wage (above the free market
between job quality and productivity, level) increases the cost of job loss for
trends in job quality based on the
EU job quality concept and selected( ) labour market participation or inequal- workers and creates incentives to be
11
EU Quality of Work Indicators agreed ity is presented. productive and not to shirk (e.g. Aker-
by the EMCO Indicators group. The lof and Yellen, 1986). Alternatively, the
structure of this section follows the 3.1. Socioeconomic amount above the market level rate may
breakdown of the EMCO job quality security: synergy be seen by the worker as a ‘gift’, induc-
of interests ing higher motivation, commitment and
effort. For employers, a wage above the
3.1.1. Earnings affect market level can reduce labour turnover
11
( ) The aim of the chapter is not to review
all indicators in the EMCO list. Rather, it workers’ motivation and effort and thus reduce the cost of recruitment
reviews a selected number to illustrate main and initial training, especially of highly
trends and the links between job quality
and outcomes such as productivity, labour Earnings from work are an important qualified workers.
market participation and existing inequalities dimension of job quality: they are the
among groups. Furthermore, the high levels
of correlation between indicators within each main source of income for workers,
sub-dimension make it unnecessary to provide and affect many dimensions of work- ( ) More details on brochure on in-work poverty
12
a detailed analysis of all the indicators on the available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
EMCO list. Additional information is presented ers’ well-being, including better access cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-10-015/EN/KS-RA-
in footnotes or in Annex 3. to goods and services or better health. 10-015-EN.PDF
138
Table 1: Work organisation variables across the classes (% of employees) — 2010
Work organisation classes
Discretionary Lean production Tayloristic Traditional
learning or simple
Methods of work* 85.90 % 64.20 % 7.70 % 33.70 %
Autonomy in work Speed or rate of work* 88.80 % 66.20 % 13.80 % 46.20 %
Order of tasks 80.80 % 62.20 % 14.60 % 35.70 %
Learning new things* 83.40 % 90.80 % 37.60 % 22.50 %
Cognitive dimen- Problem solving activities* 98.00 % 91.50 % 58.10 % 46.00 %
sions of work
Complexity of tasks* 74.60 % 86.00 % 32.20 % 12.70 %
Self-assessment* 83.20 % 91.30 % 63.40 % 23.00 %
Quality
Quality norms* 77.80 % 97.70 % 94.50 % 35.40 %
Monotony of tasks* 29.60 % 60.60 % 75.90 % 52.40 %
Repetitiveness 16.50 % 38.20 % 51.60 % 24.00 %
of tasks*
Task rotation* 40.20 % 76.30 % 46.30 % 31.20 %
Automatic* 8.00 % 43.20 % 64.00 % 13.40 %
Norm-based* 41.80 % 77.20 % 73.00 % 17.70 %
Work pace Hierarchical* 28.50 % 68.40 % 65.90 % 27.20 %
constraints
Horizontal* 29.50 % 86.40 % 66.60 % 27.00 %
Direct demands from other people 62.80 % 65.00 % 53.10 % 55.10 %
With autonomy 32.46 % 46.28 % 16.78 % 16.18 %
Teamwork*
Without autonomy 24.94 % 46.86 % 43.72 % 25.99 %
From colleagues 70.49 % 82.61 % 65.54 % 62.70 %
Assistance
From hierarchy 61.06 % 62.29 % 47.66 % 46.35 %
Overall proportion of workers in the four forms 36.00 % 28.70 % 19.50 % 15.80 %
of work organisation
Source: Eurofound based on EWCS (2010).
Note: Variables with an asterisk (*) have been used to identify the four main different organisation forms. Further variables are used to provide additional information.
3. The effects indicators into its four dimensions An adequate level of pay helps avoid
of job quality on (here subsections): 1) socioeconomic in-work poverty and social exclusion ( ).
12
productivity, labour security, 2) education and training,
market participation 3) working conditions and 4) work-life The literature suggests that the level
and social cohesion and gender balance (EMCO Indicators and distribution of earnings can have a
table in Annex 1). For each subsec- direct impact on productivity and output.
This section presents patterns and tion, the transmission mechanism A higher wage (above the free market
between job quality and productivity, level) increases the cost of job loss for
trends in job quality based on the
EU job quality concept and selected( ) labour market participation or inequal- workers and creates incentives to be
11
EU Quality of Work Indicators agreed ity is presented. productive and not to shirk (e.g. Aker-
by the EMCO Indicators group. The lof and Yellen, 1986). Alternatively, the
structure of this section follows the 3.1. Socioeconomic amount above the market level rate may
breakdown of the EMCO job quality security: synergy be seen by the worker as a ‘gift’, induc-
of interests ing higher motivation, commitment and
effort. For employers, a wage above the
3.1.1. Earnings affect market level can reduce labour turnover
11
( ) The aim of the chapter is not to review
all indicators in the EMCO list. Rather, it workers’ motivation and effort and thus reduce the cost of recruitment
reviews a selected number to illustrate main and initial training, especially of highly
trends and the links between job quality
and outcomes such as productivity, labour Earnings from work are an important qualified workers.
market participation and existing inequalities dimension of job quality: they are the
among groups. Furthermore, the high levels
of correlation between indicators within each main source of income for workers,
sub-dimension make it unnecessary to provide and affect many dimensions of work- ( ) More details on brochure on in-work poverty
12
a detailed analysis of all the indicators on the available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
EMCO list. Additional information is presented ers’ well-being, including better access cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-10-015/EN/KS-RA-
in footnotes or in Annex 3. to goods and services or better health. 10-015-EN.PDF
138
