Working Conditions and the Conditions of Workers: Old Models in a New Context

John-Paul Byrne, IRC Postgrad Scholar

Department of Sociology/NIRSA, NUI Maynooth, Ireland

WORK IN PROGRESS - 30/03/2014

PLEASE DO NOT CITE - COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ARE WELCOME

ABSTRACT

A recent report from the OECD (2012) on mental health and work has highlighted the changes in working conditions due to structural developments over the last decades, raising concerns as to whether these developments might worsen the mental health of workers. Such macro developments include rapidly developing technological capabilities, an increasingly volatile global capitalism, the valorisation of shareholder value, and organisational strategies which seek ever more flexibility – both numerical and functional. Flexibility is an inevitable context of work and a required capacity of workers. These structural shifts have subsequently transformed the employment relationship, the organisation of work, the demands of working life – and the way work affects workers. Trends across Europe indicate a general increase in the level of psychosocial risk factors of work, particularly in the form of high psychological demands, consistent working at high intensity, and heightened job insecurity (Eurofound 2010).

Prominent models and studies have highlighted the importance of contextual factors such as the level and type of demands, the organisation of work and task content, interpersonal relationships, insecurity, predictability, and role clarity, among others. These perspectives converge on the compounded significance of different types of demands and levels of control or autonomy at work - where job control can exercise a moderating effect on work intensity and stress. Central to this approach is Karasek's (1979) demand-control (D-C) model which asserts that high levels of autonomy ('decision latitude') have a protective effect on workers

1 who also face high psychological demands. More recently, Siegrist's (1996) effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model posits an equilibrium based theory between effort, based on extrinsic and intrinsic demands, and reward, underlined by pay, esteem, and status control.

This paper examines these models in a context where transformations in the organisation of work and employment have altered the shape of demands and the effect of autonomy within the modern conditions of working life - particularly for workers in knowledge intensive occupations where the distinction between work-life and non-work life is increasingly blurred. Based on semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders across knowledge intensive industries (e.g. IT and Software) and empirical data, the paper investigates how highly autonomous work may be a facilitator for, rather than protection from, negative mental health outcomes. The discussion will also illustrate how this process is shaped by the different institutional structures of Ireland and Denmark.

The paper will utilise the two aforementioned models in order to illustrate new analytical paths for the study of institutionally shaped working conditions and mental health outcomes. In doing so it will link societal and organisational factors to individual outcomes through a comparative focus on autonomy, intensity and insecurity as key conditions of working life – representing a novel approach to the study of work and mental health as it brings the broader structural focus of sociology and political economy to the topic.

Keywords: working conditions, mental health, psychosocial work environment, autonomy, D-C model, ERI model, institutional context, Ireland, Denmark

2 Working Conditions and the Conditions of Workers: Old Models in a New Context

INTRODUCTION: WORKING CONDITIONS IN CONTEXT

‘Workers across the OECD have been exposed to changes in working conditions as a result of structural adjustments in the past decades, raising the question whether these developments might worsen the mental health of workers’

(OECD 2012. Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities about Mental Health and Work)

Work is often the pivot which organises life's activities. As such the circumstances of working life are a powerful determinant of mental health (and quality of life in general). However, the relationship between work and mental health is multifaceted. The issue of job quality alone has multiple dimensions. Most studies on work related well-being stem from the fields of occupational health or one of the many employment related fields within psychology and these tend to favour a level of analysis which focuses on the individual. But the structures of the social world also have an influential role in mental health outcomes. It is these objective realities, resources, and capabilities (Sen 1992; Hobson 2014) which are encountered, processed, experienced, utilised and responded to, by individuals.

Against a backdrop of increased technological capabilities, a compressed, competitive and volatile global capitalism, neoliberal individualism, and the valorisation of shareholder value, organisational strategies seeking ever more flexibility – both numerical and functional – have fundamentally altered the employment relationship and the nature of work. The institutionalisation of flexibility has rendered it both an inevitable context of work and a required capacity of workers - resulting in variegated trends in working conditions, including; job enlargement, increased autonomy, a diffusion of responsibility, and heightened job insecurity. These structural shifts have subsequently transformed the employment relationship, the organisation of work, the demands of working life – and the way work affects workers. However in the face of common macro trends and pressures, European countries continue to differ across many dimensions of work organisation types, working conditions, institutional structures and well-being outcomes. As Bell (1973) noted each

3 society’s response to a similar set of core problems of post-industrial society is shaped by the social, cultural and historical organisation of the state.

Arundel et al. (2007) provide a typology of work organisation types using national aggregate data from the third European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) in order to investigate how the type of work organisation influences innovation outcomes. In doing so the authors identify four different clusters of work organisation across Europe – discretionary learning, lean, taylorist and traditional. Table 1 describes the main conditions that characterise each cluster. ‘Discretionary Learning’ is associated with the highest levels of autonomy and learning opportunities and therefore in-house innovation also. Strikingly ‘Lean’ is illustrated as having greater pressures on workers than even Taylorism as the break from Fordist job design to more participatory organisation seem to have left these European workers with increased responsibility, expanded roles, limited autonomy and high levels of constraints. A key finding here is the authors claim that there are significant differences in the extent of each work organisation form across European nations; ‘…the way work is organized is highly nation-specific…’ (2007:1200). ‘Discretionary Learning’ is most prevalent in the Netherlands and the social democratic countries of Denmark, Sweden and Finland and found least in Ireland and the southern European countries. ‘Lean Production’ is linked closely to the liberal countries of the UK and Ireland, and Spain and France while being least evident in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany. ‘Taylorism’ and ‘Traditional’ work organisations are most common in southern European countries of Greece and Italy.

Table 1: Adapted from Arundel et al.'s (2007) Work Organization Clusters

4 Within this typology ‘Lean Production’ seems to be equated with highly stressful conditions as it entails more responsibility, more pressure, limited discretion and considerable vertical and horizontal constraints over the labour process while ‘Discretionary Learning’ is portrayed in a more beneficial light - at least in relation to innovation capabilities. Unfortunately, as the authors focus was linking work organisation type with innovation level, there is no discussion of how these types of work organisation impact on the workers themselves.

Nonetheless, recent reports analysing developments in working conditions across Europe have indicated a general increase in the level of psychosocial risk factors of work, particularly in the form of high psychological demands, working at high intensity, and high job insecurity. Put simply, working conditions likely to have a detrimental impact on mental health have become more common in recent years. An OECD (2012) report on mental health and work has highlighted the increase in job strain conditions across all European OECD states and occupations over the last fifteen years (Figure 1). The economic crisis of 2008 obviously has an important role to play in these findings.

Figure 1: Job Strain rates across OECD

OECD (2012:63) calculations based on European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) 1990-2010

According to the OECD’s analysis of EWCS data, the social democratic countries of Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, associated with the ‘Discretionary Learning’ cluster by Arundel et al. (2007), appear to have lower overall levels of job strain (arising from high intensity, low autonomy working conditions, based on Karasek's D-C model discussed in next section) and have seen less of an increase in averages from the 1995 to 2010. The higher end of the distribution is dominated by the liberal countries of Ireland and the UK, characterised as ‘Lean’ by Arundel et al. (2007), Portugal, and Spain (which is also characterised as ‘Lean’). Looking at Figure 1, it seems workers in the social democratic countries of Finland, Denmark and Sweden face lower job-strain type conditions than those in the liberal states of Ireland and the UK. Thus states where lean production is more prevalent result in larger numbers of workers encountering working conditions which may present more psychosocial work environment risks factors.

5 Arundel et al. (2007) and the OECD (2012) appear to complement each other in terms of the pressures and potential consequences of lean production. The association between low levels of job strain and ‘Discretionary Learning’, however, portrays a more complex picture. For instance, the OECD’s use of the Karasek (1979) demand-control model (D-C) quadrants to measure job strain in Europe (Figure 1) only identifies those workers who have high demands and low control at work – as these are the conditions required to fall into the ‘job strain’ quadrant in the D-C model. Thus, the data outlined by the OECD in Figure 1 does not capture the impact of working conditions for those most likely to be located in the ‘Discretionary Learning’ cluster. In fact, the same OECD report (2012:62) also notes that; ‘…higher psychological demands that occur in conjunction with high control…increase significantly the likelihood to have a mental disorder, be it moderate or severe’. Therefore, it could be claimed that there are other significant factors at play in producing low levels of job strain conditions and psychosocial risk factors at work in social democratic states. Further evidence for this is provided in Figure 2 which utilises the 2010 wave of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) to compare the experience of stress for Irish (liberal) and Danish (social democratic) respondents using Karasek’s model - in order to draw attention to the experience of stress for those with high and low autonomy in both countries.

Figure 2: Experience of Stress by D-C Model in Ireland and Denmark

% Experiencing Stress in Work 'Always' or 'Most of the Time' by Karasek Quadrants, EWCS 2010 wave

Figure 2 indicates the percentage of workers experiencing stress ‘Always’ or ‘Most of the Time’ in each Karasek quadrant for Ireland and Denmark. Initial analysis suggests firstly, similar to the OECD’s (2012) findings, the level of workers experiencing stress (‘Always’ or ‘Most of the Time’) is generally higher in Ireland than Denmark, and secondly, that Karasek’s (1979) job strain can be observed in both countries, as the majority of those experiencing stress in work (‘Always’ or ‘Most of the Time’) are located in the high intensity, low autonomy quadrant for both countries. However, interestingly it seems that it is intensity that matters more, not autonomy, for the experience of stress at work in Ireland and Denmark. Significant numbers of those with high autonomy also experience stress in work,

6 particularly in Ireland where autonomy does not seem to mitigate the negative effects of high intensity. Significantly, these workers would not feature in the OECD (2012) calculations based only on the job strain quadrant.

It seems that the high autonomy quadrants function differently in both countries as it is in these quadrants that the largest divergences are found between the Irish and Danish samples. Although stress is experienced by those with high autonomy in Denmark, autonomy appears to play a much more protective role in Denmark. However, with the increasing individualisation of responsibilities within the employment relationship and the permeability of boundaries between work and non-work life, the mechanisms shaping these differing distributions may not actually lie in the institutional structure of the societies. The institutional context is often overlooked in the prominent models linking work and mental health outcomes.

WORK AND MENTAL HEALTH: THE MODELS

The Job Demand-Control Model

The OECD and EWCS data used in Figures 1 and 2 is based on the quadrants outlined in the demand-control model of job strain devised by Karasek (1979).

The D-C model emphasises the importance of the interaction of job demands and job decision latitude in the development of job strain. It is this interaction which accounts for strain on the job; ‘...psychological strain results not from a single aspect of the work environment, but from the joint effects of the demands of a work situation and the range of decision making freedom (discretion) available to the worker facing those demands' (1979:287). Thus, job strain is a result of high workplace demands combined with low decision latitude. However, the use of this model of job strain can be prone to exaggerated claims.

In utilising Karaseks D-C model, many studies seem to assume that working conditions which fall into the 'job strain' quadrant result in the psychological experience of job strain - but this is not necessarily the case. Job strain circumstances, usually measured by finding the median across various measures of autonomy and intensity in work and then splitting the sample into high and low (e.g. Gallie and Zhen 2013), do not actually mean stress or negative psychological outcomes are experienced. It merely describes working conditions where this is more likely to occur. All Figure 1 does is quantify the number of respondents across the OECD who describe their working conditions in a way that can be characterised as having

7 high intensity of demands and low levels of autonomy. As noted by Anderson-Connolly et al (2002) workers experience structures first. How these industry, occupation, or job, structures are experienced then determines the employees response (stressors). The D-C can be prone to misuse via a conflation of structures/conditions and stressors - actual experiences of structures/conditions.

Karasek also suggests that when job demands and decision latitude are both high it should be termed an ‘active’ job' which ‘…leads to the development of new behaviour patterns both on and off the job’ (1979:288). A key element in this theory is the positing of decision latitude/autonomy as a protective buffer from the negative effects of high workplace demands. However, fully supporting this theory in the current context of work is difficult as the model cannot account for the scope and reach of work demands in modern working life - particularly for those with very high levels of autonomy coupled with very high levels of responsibility and accountabilities. A context of new workplace bargains where ‘…the re- mobilization of workers requires an increase in the duration and intensity of work and the investment of more of the “whole person”’ (Thompson 2003:363).

Here, 'active' jobs can lead to the 'development of new behaviour patterns both on and off the job' but in a potentially threatening manner leading to a demand-induced strain resulting from a life of limitless demands and unregulated behaviour. It is also worth noting again the distribution of frequencies in Figure 2 where a significant number of workers in Ireland (and to a lesser extent in Denmark) with high levels of autonomy report experiencing stress in work. In fact those in Ireland with high intensity and high and low autonomy experiences similar levels of stress at work. In certain contexts, it could be argued that past a certain level, autonomy actually functions more as an additional demand rather than a protection;

'The problem is not that you get too much influence or too much autonomy or your work as itself, it is more the associations with the demands at work. I mean for [the] knowledge work process it is more the problem with the endless demands, you can do it better and you can do more and more...you have influence on how to fulfil the task but not necessarily on the amounts of tasks and not necessarily on the deadlines...It is often set by other institutions...So you are not independently working with your own autonomy. The autonomy is more of a question of the complexity of a larger group of people...it is not possible to

8 increase the influence or autonomy to the level that can match those very high demands' (Expert Interview Respondent).

The Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) Model

Siegrist's (1996) effort-reward imbalance (ERI) model posits an equilibrium based theory based on social reciprocity and an equalization between efforts and rewards. Efforts generally refer to job demands and pressures while reward typically mean pay, esteem, and job security or career opportunities (also referred to as 'status control'). Employees exposed to circumstances characterised by a sustained deficit between high efforts and low rewards are at risk of strain reactions. Importantly, unlike the D-C model, the ERI model allows for the roles of both extrinsic and intrinsic demands. Extrinsic demands refer to externally generated demands such as customer, market, or general employer demands while intrinsic demands refer to the cognitive and motivational patterns of certain workers, especially in relation to over-committed workers who may perceive the prevalence of inappropriate demands and reward more often than others. Thus both external demands and intrinsic personality characteristics play a role in the development of strain.

An important concept within the model is status control which is linked to mastery and self- efficacy. Low status control refers to a threat to continuity of an occupational role or social standing. More commonly this refers to job insecurity and the potential for career sustainability of advancement. However Siegrist (1996) also notes that occupational change, and fragmented careers and lives may also lead to low status control. Under these conditions status control becomes more important than task/job control (i.e. D-C model) for the development of strain reactions. In the current context of incessant demands for worker flexibility, the dearth of indefinite contracts, and increasingly porous work-life boundaries, it is not difficult to see the significance of status control as a key mechanism in the development of strain within the modern demands of working life.

While the ERI model builds on the D-C model's limitations in emphasising the subjective meanings and motivations workers use to explain their work experiences, the most important contribution could be the implied acknowledgement that high autonomy at work can also produce negative outcomes - in this case through excessive levels of commitment to work which tip the underlying balance towards efforts. Ultimately, it appears negative strain

9 outcomes are a result of individual interpretations and behaviour in response to working circumstances. As such, the model seems to underplay the independent role of structural demands as it is these objective realities which are encountered and responded to by workers, thus effecting the effort, commitment, and reciprocity required. The role of status control is also perhaps underplayed. Linking the concept to self-efficacy and mastery (as Siegrist noted) in relation to maintaining the security of an occupational role, and relocating it within a broader institutional framework would account for the role of the institutional context in enabling or constraining workers sense of security. This could allow the construction of a theoretical framework which uses a broader sense of status control to link institutional 'capabilities' (Hobson 2014) to the development of psychosocial risk factors. In such a framework, high levels of work autonomy can act as a protection and threat. Further evidence of how autonomy is changing working life the need for new theoretical models can be found in Nordic literature on 'boundaryless' work.

Allvin (2008) describes the porous nature of work and non-work life in knowledge industries depicting the new rules of work and the boundaryless job. Similar to the literature discussed Allvin notes that the deregulation of organisations means the deregulation of working conditions. Objective working conditions are becoming increasingly difficult to decipher due to the lack of boundaries which he claims abandons, rather than liberates, the worker. Constitutive rules which define actions as functional are now making way for regulative rules where it is the actor who defines rules as functional. Thus work is now more guided by interpretations of professional demands or the market. This requires more commitment from and responsibility for the worker. In these circumstances where the individual shapes a large part of their work, Allvin asks the important question of who is then responsible for stress or burnout? From a theoretical and methodological point of view, Allvin also makes an important claim - there is now a need for frameworks which can take into account individuals and their institutional contexts as the problems of working life are moving beyond the work environment. Taking this into account, models and theoretical frameworks seeking to analyse the impact of work on mental health need to move beyond a limited focus on working conditions to the broader frame of conditions of working life. Before moving on to the development of a new framework, it is worth investigating some of the context described in existing literature on high autonomy or boundaryless knowledge work.

HIGH AUTONOMY LITERATURE: PROTECTION AND THREAT

10 As discussed, traditional theoretical models linking working conditions and mental health suggest high levels of autonomy limit the potential for negative outcomes. Studies using the longitudinal survey data of British civil servants in the Whitehall II studies stated that job control is one of, if not, the, most important factors impacting on the health outcomes of workers; ‘Of all the factors that the Whitehall researchers have studied over the years, job stress and people’s sense of control over their work seem to make the most difference’ (Wilkinson and Pickett 2009:75). However, as the previous sections have highlighted, boundaryless working circumstances raise a question as to whether autonomy can actually function as a defence from the negative influence of incessantly high, and often inescapable, psychological demands of work?

Using data from a 2003 survey of Dutch employees, Van Echtelt et al. (2006) use the concept of over-employment – the gap between actual work hours and preferred work hours – to illustrate how post-Fordist job design creates an ‘autonomy paradox’; ‘Although employees have the autonomy to choose their working hours, their focus on finishing tasks, helping colleagues, showing commitment, and so on, means that they spend more time at work than they prefer…’ (Van Echtelt et al. 2006:505). Post-Fordist job design provides workers with considerably more autonomy and more pressure as responsibility for attaining goals is increasingly shifted down to workers, often in a team structure with strict deadlines, while more and more aspects of the work process are no longer fixed to a particular time or location. Within this type of work organisation, high levels of autonomy bring with them high levels of responsibility, and commitment, and thus shift the focus of employees from time (working hours) to tasks (project deadlines). Due to the high levels of autonomy, showing one hundred percent commitment and dedication to the project, team or task becomes decisive. As a result, these working lives no longer present a clear distinction between income and leisure, and workers, faced with increased responsibility, dedicate more and more time to work. A work process based on projects and deadlines rather than time or shifts means any time can be potential work time. Control over a working life is negated by ‘time greedy’ discretion at work as the boundaries between work and home, and work time and non-work time begin to dissolve. Shih (2004) offers further explanation of this in the experience of ‘project time’ for workers in Silicon Valley.

Shih’s (2004) study of knowledge workers in Silicon Valley emphasises how the temporal structure of work organised around project time (as opposed to the rigidity of clock-time) also creates a blurring of lines between work time and personal time as ‘…any time can be co-

11 opted as work time’ (2004:227). ‘Project time’ is embedded in an industry where ‘time to market’ is decisive and workers need to synchronise with a ceaseless ‘market time’ of the global high-tech industry. According to Shih (2004) consent to such work is achieved through the internalisation of the individualist ideology of ‘workers as entrepreneurs’ who are in charge of their own up-skilling opportunities and career paths; ‘…caught up in the ideologies of Silicon Valley, [workers] allow their work to pervade and subsume their private lives’ (237). Shih’s (2004) interviewees have internalised responsibility for their own careers and therefore consent to demanding, erratic working conditions in order to strengthen their own career experience and use the flexible labour market to their advantage. In essence it is the worker’s responsibility to remain marketable. Also complementing van Echtelt et al.’s (2006) hypothesis, workers in the high-tech industry of Silicon Valley have very high levels of autonomy which seem to translate into task focused over-employment and a difficulty in establishing time and space that is inaccessible to the demands of work. These individuals lead what might be termed ‘occupational lives’ as their days are defined wholly by work, to the point where some have almost postponed any development in emotional or family lives until they have achieved the ‘Silicon Valley Dream’ of ‘striking it rich’; ‘Thus individuals’ time gets bound up as organizational time, in large part because the autonomous nature of work creates a demand for individuals to prove their worth through performance’ (Shih 2004:234).

The level of autonomy afforded these workers, in reality, enables limitless labour through the ideology of individualism which pressures workers to perform. ‘Project time’ becomes the medium through which individual lives are linked to the cadence of the globalised capitalist markets of the high-tech industry. The ideology of ‘worker as entrepreneur’ functions as a mode of control which implies that the intensified, erratic working conditions of a ‘condensed career’ are in the workers own interests – thus providing a clear example of Smith’s (1997) point regarding the intersection of controls in organisational mechanisms and employment practices resulting in highly autonomous workers having very little control over their working lives.

In a qualitative study of managers and workers in the computer software industry in Canada, MacEachen et al. (2008) illustrate the double-edged autonomy of flexible work practices and the reframing of worker health in the pathologising terms of ‘strategies of resilience’ which ignore the role of working structures or conditions and place the emphasis on the fortitude of workers. The same flexible forces which produce intensified, insecure working conditions

12 also frame the nature of their consequences (e.g. chronic stress) and the adequate solutions (improved resilience of workers). According to the authors, the context of control is now one in which entrepreneurial workers are indirectly managed through ‘responsible autonomy’. However the responsibility inherent in this form of autonomous work also becomes a way for firms to attempt to close the gap between worker and firm behaviours and beliefs through the expansion of managerial control (i.e. firm demands) into workers’ personal time and space; ‘Flexible work therefore leaves workers in a position where all time is potential work time. Being out of the office is not a reason to cease work as any place is potentially a work place’ (2008:1028). This merging of personal time and space with the conditions of flexible work can lead to circumstances which cater mainly to the needs of firms as work demands and deadlines become the central structure of people lives. Intensified work patterns and ICT enabled bureaucracy de-link work demands from the workplace.

In this context, and as evidenced in the literature discussed thus far, highly autonomous work in advanced manufacturing and high-tech knowledge intensive services can be highly pressurised, erratic, psychologically demanding, consuming, and inescapable. These forms of autonomy may become the means through which workers cede control of their working lives to the dictates, fluctuations and rhythms of firms and markets and their lives become ‘occupational’ as ‘…the professional bureaucrat is chained to his activity in his entire economic and ideological existence’ (Weber 1978:988).

Looking again at Arundel et al.'s (2007) typology of work organisation across Europe, particularly the conditions which describe the ‘Discretionary Learning’ organisation of work, it could be argued that the key conditions outlined here are very similar to those depicted as potentially detrimental to workers’ mental health in the ‘responsible autonomy’, ‘project time’ and ‘autonomy paradox’ literature previously discussed i.e. very high levels of autonomy and discretion over tasks, continual complex problems, high responsibility, and very low constraints. The highly autonomous conditions typical of the ‘Discretionary Learning’ organisation of work can also be detrimental to workers’ health where work consumes the lives of workers and leads to a market demand-driven psychological strain. High levels of autonomy and learning opportunities do not always equal low psychosocial risk factors at work.

Anderson-Connolly et al. (2002), in their multi-dimensional take on the impact of workplace transformation on well-being, state that working in intense conditions produces harmful stress

13 outcomes for both managers and non-managers while increases in autonomy for those who already have considerable levels of discretion in work can also generate harmful mental health outcomes; ‘There may be a point at which individual responsibility and accountability in a situation of complex interdependencies becomes stress-producing rather than empowering’ (2002:408). Rather than preventing strain, high levels of autonomy can, in certain circumstances produce strain. Further evidence for this can be found in psychology literature, particularly in the work of Peter Warr.

In Work, Happiness and Unhappiness (2007), Warr posits a vitamin analogy in order to explain how nine common environmental features can account for the psychological effects of employment. These are; (1) opportunity for personal control (2) opportunity for skill use (3) externally generated goals (4) variety (5) environmental clarity (6) contact with others (7) availability of money (8) physical security, and (9) valued social position. Warr notes that happiness is shaped by environmental features in much the same way that vitamins affect the physical condition. For certain vitamins a low intake level leads to a deficiency which can cause ill-health. However, after the recommended amount is taken there is no benefit from taking additional quantities (e.g. vitamins C and E). Whereas other vitamins when taken in large quantities can become harmful (e.g. vitamins A and D). Based on these vitamin types, Warr groups the environmental features into two abbreviated categories; AD (additional decrement) and CE (constant effect). The model suggests that environmental features one to six (listed above) are AD features and have a negative or toxic effect when increased beyond a certain level while features seven to nine are CE features which have no effect when increased beyond a particular threshold. Of significant interest to this paper is the fact that features that characterise autonomy i.e. (1) ‘opportunity for personal control’ and (2) ‘opportunity for skill use’ and demands i.e. (3) ‘externally generated goals’ are labelled as AD features which can become noxious when increased beyond a certain level. According to Warr (2007:97) this is because;

‘…an “opportunity” becomes an “unavoidable requirement” at very high levels; behaviour is then coerced rather than encouraged or facilitated. Environments that call for unremitting control (a very high level of feature 1) through difficult decision making and sustained personal responsibility, or that demand continuous use of extremely complex skills (2), can give rise to overload problems as very high demands

14 exceed personal capabilities. In part, those come about through a correlated shift to a particularly high level of externally generated goals (feature 3). As those goals become extremely difficult and/or numerous, the load may become unmanageable, with an inability to cope with environmental requirements and an accumulation of harmful effects’.

Warr (2007) also critiques previous models for their focus on single paths to single outcomes. There are numerous mental health outcomes - positive and negative - which occur at different stages and are the result of different processes. For example, people in higher-level jobs tend to report more job-related anxiety while whereas the thoughts of depressed individuals tend to revolve around loss or deprivation, the inability to move towards something that is currently lacking. This demarcation of different outcomes as a result of particular environments could represent an important addition to the models which tend to use strain or stress as an umbrella term for a number of mental health outcomes.

Warr's (2007) vitamin model may provide a glimpse at the processes involved as the conditions of ‘project time’ (Shih 2004), the ‘autonomy paradox’ (van Echtelt et al. 2006) and ‘responsible autonomy’ (MacEachen et al. 2008) simply ask too much and produce negative mental health outcomes for workers. To summarise, the inescapable market-defined objectives (‘externally generated goals’) of firms can transform high levels of autonomy (opportunities for control and skill use) into unavoidable and unmanageable psychological demands. Unlike Karasek’s (1979) assertion, this process could lead to a demand-driven psychological strain for those with high levels of autonomy. These processes are further underlined by the intersection of organisational control mechanisms, and the consent to flexible employment practices (Smith 1997) via the ideology of individualism. These forces can lead to negative outcomes for the mental health of workers who have too much autonomy (defined as high levels of job discretion and responsibility) and not enough control over the structure of their own working lives as; ‘…genuine autonomy and control remain beyond the grasp of most workers (Smith 1997:332).

THE MODELS IN A SOCIOLOGICAL CONTEXT: ALIENATION & ANOMIE

15 ‘…they are both socio-psychological concepts, embodying hypotheses about specific relationships between social conditions and individual psychological states…’ (Lukes, 1977:74).

Reintroducing Karasek's (1979) D-C model and locating within a sociological framework, the concepts of alienation and anomie may provide the necessary theoretical bridges which can link the sociological and psychological aspects in the development of different psychosocial risk factors potentially leading to different types of outcomes. In other words, the conditions of working life can have a negative impact on workers’ mental health via two broad categories;

(i) outcomes (comfort, boredom, depression) related to limited levels of control or autonomy in meeting the demands of the actual labour process (alienation), and;

(ii) outcomes (enthusiasm, over-commitment stress, anxiety) associated with high levels of work autonomy and responsibility alongside limitless, unregulated demands of particular working lives (anomie).

Here alienation and anomie are used in order to conceptualise two institutionally shaped paths characterised by a lack of control over working lives.

Marx (1964) used the term alienation to describe how, under capitalism, labour entails the creation of a power which comes to oppress workers as work that should be part of a human’s nature becomes external. He defined four factors of alienated labour – separation from the product of labour, separation from the process of labour as work becomes externally forced and thus becomes a means for satisfying other needs rather than a means in itself, alienated from natural conscious activity and essence or ‘species being’, and separated from other workers. Blauner (1964), in correlating the development of industrial technology with levels of alienation, defined four types – powerlessness, meaninglessness, isolation and self- estrangement - which to some extent represent a translation of Marx’s dimensions into social psychological experiences of workers. It is these experiences which Warr (2007) would point to as important risk factors for the development of depression. Here alienated labour which presents a potential risk to the mental health of workers may describe a situation where a worker has very little control over how the work is done (process), little autonomy in meeting the daily demands of the job (routined labour) and lacking in opportunities for self-direction in work.

16 Where very high levels of autonomy and responsibility result in work dictating life to the extent that they become inseparable from each other, these 'occupational lives' may become anomic. Durkheim (1952) used the concept of anomie to describe the de-regulated conditions at societal level during the transitions or shifts from an old moral code to new. However, more importantly for this paper, he also used the concept to describe the need for individuals to be tied to moral orders and regulative powers within society. Anomie at the individual level refers to periods where individuals’ goals, emotions and behaviour are unregulated and not linked to, or restricted by, any stable social order. For Durkheim, individuals, particularly those in higher status positions, require regulation and a check on ambitions for the good of their health. In relation to the workers discussed in this paper, anomic working conditions characterised by the combination of decentralised or deregulated autonomy over the work process, and erratic, intensified, unavoidable and limitless demands of ‘market’ and ‘project’ time can have a negative impact on workers’ mental health. Lukes (1977:78) highlighting of Durkheim’s anomie as ‘…the malady of infinite aspiration…’ does bear a striking resemblance to workers in Silicon Valley enduring intensified, erratic work in order to achieve their dream of ‘striking it rich’ (Shih 2004).

Defined by high autonomy, limited regulation and limitless demands, anomic conditions of working life could simply ask too much and therefore lead to highly activated outcomes e.g. enthusiasm, stress, anxiety etc. (Warr 2007).

In order to account for macro techno-economic shifts in the structure of work and employment, national varieties of work organisation and working conditions, and how these are experienced by workers, theoretical models linking work and mental health require a re- contextualisation in order to account for new forms of working, and the new ways that work may affect the mental health of workers. Building on the context, data, models, and literature discussed thus far, the following theoretical procedures may enable the construction of a thorough framework linking the fields of political economy, sociology of work, and occupational health psychology:

- Relocating the D-C model (Karasek 1979) within the literature of knowledge work and nordic boundarylessness where high levels of autonomy past a certain threshold can become dangerous;

- Broadening the concept of status control (Siegrist 1996) so that it can account for the institutional resources and 'capabilities' (Hobson 2014) provided by welfare states which

17 influence the functioning of autonomy and security beyond the workplace i.e. work-life balance, security over their social standing and mastery over holistic working lives, and;

- Conceptualising different analytical paths of conditions of working life and psychosocial experiences which link to a range of mental health outcomes - good and bad (Warr 2007).

Figure 3 attempts to illustrate this hierarchical framework in order to show the path from welfare state institutions and conditions of working life to various mental health outcomes via different paths. While appearing quite functionalist, it is important to note that the link between a broad status control and the 'capabilities framework' (Hobson 2014) is based on the 'situated agency' of workers to choose a way of life based on the opportunities offered to maintain mastery over social standing, security, and working lives; 'Agency freedoms are the opportunities we have to achieve the things that we value (Sen 1992). Within the context of WLB [worklife balance] and better quality of life, this entails greater control over one's time, less daily stress and overwork, and a greater sense of security and wellbeing' (Hobson 2014:5). The following section will attempt to utilise the conceptual framework in order to explain some of the low strain and stress rates in Denmark as outlined in the introduction to this paper.

18 FIGURE 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

19 DANISH WORK WELLBEING: REGULATED AUTONOMY

‘Questions about flexibility address matters of political economy proper, and do find contrasting formulations….Are there any limits to how much people are forced to bend? Can government give people something like the tensile strength of a tree, so that individuals do not break under the force of change’ (Sennett 1998:53).

Different national systems effect workers' abilities to organise their lives. Bell (1973) emphasises that the unique institutional make-up of each society provides a nationally distinctive set of resources from which to respond to the core questions being asked by post- industrialism. These responses and resources also translate at the micro level. As such, differing national institutional structures influence the experience of flexible working conditions through the capabilities and affordances offered within the conditions of working life. The distinct institutional structures (state policies, working regulations, employment relations, welfare regimes, and cultural frameworks) of both liberal and social democratic regimes translate the common exogenous forces of liberalized global capitalism into domestic policies, conditions, practices, norms, and mental health outcomes.

Considering the data presented in the first section of this paper, it seems working in Denmark is less stressful than working in Ireland. How might this be the case?

Autonomous Working Conditions Limits Alienation

As indicated by the previously discussed EWCS data and Arundel et al.'s (2007) work organisation typology, most Danish workers appear to have high levels of autonomy and

20 opportunities for skill use, resulting in relatively low levels of 'job strain' type conditions, and more importantly, less workers who might feel alienated (powerless, meaningless) in work. This is even more pertinent considering the significance of jobs in exporting, manufacturing, and public administration for the Danish economy - all occupations which could be considered 'job strain' prone due to traditionally low levels of autonomy for employees. Thus, looking at the conceptual framework in Figure 3, workers are prevented from going down the alienation path towards a negative mental health outcome due to a socially and historically rooted regulation which emphasises the importance of involvement, co-determination, ad participation in decision making. This is evident in the complex network of collective agreements between employer federations and unions in Denmark.

Autonomy Beyond the Workplace

Institutional capabilities in Denmark function so as to provide workers with autonomy beyond the pressures and demands of work. This runs right from a universal welfare state (re: health, social assistance and childcare) with high levels of de-commodification, to decentralised, sectoral shaped collective agreements, to centralised legislation which emphasises the importance of the psychosocial work environment, to regulatory bodies like the Work Environment Authority, to very low levels of inequality generally, and cultural peculiarities which emphasise the precedence of homogeneity and community over individualism, extroversion, and ambition (e.g. Jante Law). As pointed to by Jenkins (2012) in Being Danish, this cultural homogeneity may be imagined but it is not imaginary and does have real consequences in its effects. To put this simply, more people in Denmark have more status control i.e. institutional capabilities which enable mastery over more aspects of their working lives.

It is not so much that work in Denmark asks for less of an investment from workers than Ireland (as there are many similarities in economic strategies, industrial structures and workplace demands) but the social democratic welfare state of Denmark seems to offer workers more resources throughout their life activities so that a sense of control is ensured. Considering Sennett's (1998) statement at the beginning of this section, and the OECD and EWCS data previously discussed, it seems the institutional structure of Denmark reinforces their citizens' ability to cope with the demands of modern, flexible working life. Less tied to

21 the fate of firms or the vagaries of the market, autonomous workers, strengthened by social policies, retain more of their autonomy beyond the workplace also.

Regulation of Ambitions

In addition the Danish state (and culture, particularly in the form of the Jante Law) keep a check on circumstances where lives may be at risk of being overtaken by unrealistic work demands and/or ambitions. By its very definition, Denmark, as a coordinated market economy, provides a somewhat higher level of regulation (high taxes and redistribution, extensive collective agreements and legislation coverage etc.) which prevents the prevalence of the anomic path (see Figure 3) down which ambitious, de-regulated, and over-burdened individuals may travel to a demand-induced stress/anxiety. At the micro level, anomie encapsulates the negative effects of individuals who are over or under regulated or integrated within their society. Danish state regulation of pay, taxes, working conditions and psychosocial work environments also ensures the regulation of potentially dangerous de- regulated behaviours and inoculates against the ‘...malady of infinite aspiration…' Lukes (1977:78).

Very generally speaking, Denmark's positive outcomes across the work-mental health relationship spectrum are based on the curbing of psychosocial risk factors emerging from the anomic and alienated paths through which workers may experience negative mental health outcomes (see Figure 3). Central to this is the maintaining of high status control via the institutional capabilities of the social democratic welfare state which enable workers to maintain a sense of mastery over their holistic working lives. To sum up;

1) there are less alienated workers due to higher than average level of autonomy and influence at work - in jobs with traditionally low levels;

2) there are more institutional affordances/resources for citizens to maintain a sense of control over all aspects of their lives (autonomy beyond the workplace);

3) the ideological/cultural influence of Jante Law dampens individualism somewhat e.g. 'one should not think they are more than anyone else';

4) the high level of regulation in the form of high taxes, extensive decentralised collective agreements, centralised health and safety legislation, a focus on quality of working life,

22 bodies such as the work environment authority etc., keep a check on potential limitlessness demands and unregulated work behaviour.

A FINAL NOTE OF CAUTION

Initial qualitative evidence from interviews with relevant experts in Denmark would suggest that Denmark is changing. The flexicurity system, so often a model for other countries to follow, is continually becoming more flexible and less secure with timeframes on the basic unemployment assistance reduced considerably over the last decade. In addition there has been a renewed focus on measurement of productivity levels, particularly in the service sector. This has often taken the form of new public management approaches which seek to standardise more aspects of the work of traditionally autonomous workers. This could suggest that there is a corrosion of the protective forces of autonomy in Danish society. The centre of Danish politics, so often highlighted as very left leaning is all the time shifting to the right, even with the Social Democrats in power. How this might impact on the future experience of working conditions in Denmark is yet to be seen.

23 Bibliography

 Allvin, Michael. 2008. "New rules of work: exploring the boundaryless job" in Naswall, Katharina, Johnny Hellgren and Magnus Sverke (eds) The Individual in the Changing Working Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

 Anderson-Connolly, Richard, Leon Grunberg, Edward S. Greenberg and Sarah Moore. 2002. “Is Lean Mean? Workplace Transformation and Employee Well-being” in Work, Employment and Society 16(3) 389-413

 Arundel, Anthony, Edward Lorenz, Bengt-Ake Lundvall and Antoine Valeyre. 2007. “How Europe’s economies learn: a comparison of work organization and innovation mode for the EU-15” in Industrial and Corporate Change 16 (6) 1175-1210

 Bell, Daniel. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. A Venture in Social Forecasting. New York: Basic books Inc.

 Blauner, Robert. 1964. Alienation and Freedom. The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press

 Durkheim, Emile. 1952. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

24  Harrison, Bennett. 1994. Lean & Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age of Flexibility. New York: Basic Books

 Hobson, Barbara (ed). 2014. Worklife Balance. The Agency & Capabilities Gap. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Jenkins, Richard. 2012. Being Danish. Paradoxes of Identity in Everyday Life. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

 Karasek, Robert. 1979. “Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign” in Administrative Science Quarterly 24(2) 285-308

 Lukes, Steven. 1977. Essays in Social Theory. London: MacMillan Press

 MacEachen, Ellen, Jessica Polzer and Judy Clarke. 2008. “You are free to set your own hours”: Governing worker productivity and health through flexibility and resilience” in Social Science & Medicine 66 1019-1033

 Marx, Karl. 1964. Early Writings. New York: McGraw Hill

 OECD (2012), Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities about Mental Health and Work, Mental Health and Work. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264124523-en

 Pontusson, Jonas. 2009. “Once Again a Model: Nordic Social Democracy in a Globalized World” in Cronin, James, George Ross, and James Shoch (eds) Futures of the Left. Durham N.C.: Duke University Press.

 Sennett, Richard. 1998. The Corrosion of Character. The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company

 Shih, Johanna. 2004. “Project Time in Silicon Valley” in Qualitative Sociology 27 (2) 223-245

 Sigrist, Johannes. 1996. "Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions" in Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1 (1): 27-41.

 Smith, Vicki. 1996. “Employee Involvement, Involved Employees: Participative Work Arrangements in a White-Collar Service Occupation” in Social Problems 43 (2) 166-179

25  Smith, Vicki. 1997. “New Forms of Work Organization” in Annual Review of Sociology 23 315-339

 Thompson, Paul. 2003. “Disconnected Capitalism: Or Why Employers Can’t Keep Their Side of the Bargain”. Work, Employment and Society. 17(2): 359-378.

 van Echtelt, Patricia E., Arie C. Glebbeek and Siegwart M. Lindenberg. 2006. “The new lumpiness of work: explaining the mismatch between actual and preferred working hours” in Work, Employment & Society 20 (3) 493-512

 Warr, Peter. 2007. Work, Happiness and Unhappiness. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

 Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.