SURVEY REPORT | 2019 UK Working Lives The CIPD Job Quality Index The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people development. The not-for-profit organisation champions better work and working lives and has been setting the benchmark for excellence in people and organisation development for more than 100 years. It has 150,000 members across the world, provides thought leadership through independent research on the world of work, and offers professional training and accreditation for those working in HR and learning and development.

UK Working Lives is an annual representative survey of UK workers first published in 2018. Reports and other resources are available at cipd.co.uk/workinglives UK Working Lives

Survey report UK Working Lives

Contents

Foreword 2

Introduction 3

Work–life balance and flexible working 6

Pay and benefits 14

Contracts 19

Job design and the nature of work 24

Relationships at work 33

Voice and representation 40

Health and well-being 44

The CIPD Job Quality Index 48

Conclusion 56

Notes 59

Acknowledgements This report was written by Dr Daniel Wheatley at the University of Birmingham and Jonny Gifford at the CIPD. The survey was designed by Jonny Gifford, with Ian Neale and Phil Newbold at YouGov. The international index was produced by Jon Boys at the CIPD. We thank YouGov for running the survey and Mark Beatson, Ian Brinkley and other colleagues at the CIPD for their feedback and advice on the research.

1 UK Working Lives

1 Foreword

Access to and opportunity for good work and jobs is a vital part of a healthy society and economy, whatever people’s background, skills and experience. This principle has been called out amongst the UN sustainability development goals for the world by 2030, and has been increasingly positioned within national and regional business and political manifestos over the last few years. Today we are seeing almost record levels of employment in many countries, and the UK in particular has been praised for its ‘jobs miracle’, growing employment levels as it recovers from the global recession and with the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. But a simple view of employment or unemployment levels is not an adequate gauge of the health of a country’s labour market, or the well-being of its workforce. Yes, these are crucial statistics, but beyond the number of people in work, we must also understand the quality of the jobs they do and find ways to improve this. In this, our second UK Working Lives survey, we have again gone out to a large, representative sample of workers in all kinds of occupations and sectors, and asked them to consider the work and jobs they do against the various criteria of good work. We have also researched comparable data from other countries to be able to understand how the UK compares. Some of these comparisons have to cause some concern. For example, for work–life balance, our ranking puts the UK 24th out of 25 comparator economies. Flexible working arrangements and practices are an obvious area to focus on to support better well-being and work–life balance, and in helping support more gender-balanced and diverse workforces. The CIPD is co-chairing the Government’s Flexible Working Task Force, with the aim of understanding and promoting the broader take-up of flexible work in all its forms. This edition of the UK Working Lives survey focuses in depth on the area of work–life balance and flexible working. The findings are telling: flexible working arrangements are delivering for some workers but not for others. We see a lack of equality in access to flexible working and clear gender differences in their usage. These insights can help us address some of the cultural, behavioural and practical barriers to wider uptake. Our survey also provides evidence on six other dimensions of good work: pay and benefits; contracts and the terms of employment; job design and the nature of work; relationships at work; voice and representation; and health and well-being. Each of these dimensions is a crucial area for investment. We shed light on what ‘good’ looks like in these areas, the current state of play in the UK, and drivers and outcomes. The UK Working Lives survey is central to the CIPD’s purpose, to champion better work and working lives by improving practices in people and organisation development for the benefit of individuals, the economy and society. We also see it as a major benchmark in the area of good work or job quality. Since launching in 2018, it has contributed to government thinking, informing recommendations1 on its response to the 2017 Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices. We hope that practitioners, policy-makers and academics will continue to make use of the UK Working Lives survey, both as a source of evidence on the broader condition of the UK labour market and, more importantly, for its insight into how we can improve and protect job quality in every Peter Cheese organisation. As well as giving life to economies, work takes Chief Executive up a big part of our lives, and it can, and should, be a force CIPD for good for all. 2 Foreword UK Working Lives

2 Introduction

This report presents the first findings from the CIPD’s second annual UK Working Lives survey (UKWL). It gives an overview of the survey data, looking across the seven core dimensions we identify of good work. What is good work? The CIPD’s purpose is to champion better work and working lives by improving practices in people and organisation development for the benefit of individuals, the economy and society. We believe that good work is fundamental to individual well-being, supports a strong, fair society and creates motivated workers, productive organisations and a strong economy. The CIPD describes good work as follows: Good work is fairly rewarded. Good work gives people the means to securely make a living. Good work gives opportunities to develop skills and a career and ideally gives a sense of fulfilment. Good work provides a supportive environment with constructive relationships. Good work allows for work–life balance. Good work is physically and mentally healthy. Good work gives employees the voice and choice they need to shape their working lives. Good work should be accessible to all. Good work is affected by a range of factors, including HR practices, the quality of people management and by workers themselves. Across each of these areas of activity or influences, employers need to develop an effective people strategy that includes: • values, culture and leadership • workforce planning and organisational development • employment relations • people analytics and reporting. Background to the UK Working Lives survey Measuring job quality and what good work looks like is increasingly acknowledged in both policy and organisational spheres as being centrally important to assessing contemporary work and the employment relationship, understanding their impact on our lives and productivity, and making sure we improve them wherever we can.2 In the UK context, the 2017 Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices identified several key concerns of relevance to job quality in the modern labour market. Meanwhile, Thriving at Work: The Stevenson/ Farmer review of mental health and employers3 heightened the profile of the importance of workplace well-being. The UK Government, in addition, set up the Flexible Working Taskforce in March 2018, co-chaired by the CIPD, which is currently undertaking a review of flexible working policies with the aim to widen the availability and take-up of flexible working. A range of attempts have been made to identify the constituents of ‘good work’ and job quality, including through taxonomies developed by Karasek and Theorell,4 Bartling,5 Connell and Burgess,6 Holman,7 Overrell et al,8 Rosso et al,9 and Vidal.10 Common to these taxonomies are dimensions of job quality which centre on pay (including relative income levels) and benefits, job prospects including opportunities for development and job security, the nature of work including skill, autonomy, and variety, and work–life balance.11 In 2017, as part of these recent debates, the CIPD embarked on a project to review the research on job quality and good work and develop a tool to measure the main dimensions

3 Introduction UK Working Lives

of job quality. To this end, it commissioned two reviews: first, from the perspectives of workers, on what constitutes good or poor job quality and what are the opportunities and pitfalls in measuring it;12 and second, on the capacity workers have to influence their job quality and the shifting balance of power between employers and employees.13 This survey is based on this body of work and further consultation with academics, HR experts and government officials. It builds on the Employee Outlook, the CIPD’s previous survey of UK employees. The UK Working Lives survey provides a key indicator of the current state of work in the UK, giving insight and reference points for those involved in research, policy and practice relating to good work. More specifically, it presents a regular, comprehensive and broadly representative survey of workers across job types, occupations and sectors, complementing other surveys of workers that are less regular (for example, the UK Skills and Employment Survey) or contain less detail on job quality and good work (for example, the Labour Force Survey). The focus of UKWL: seven dimensions of good work The UK Working Lives survey captures data on seven dimensions of good work, which are summarised in Table 1.14 The CIPD Good Work Index includes both objective and subjective measures. Objective measures capture aspects that in principle should be unbiased: for example, data on contract type and the amount people earn. Subjective measures, on the other hand, reflect an opinion, preference or feeling: for example, how meaningful people find their work, the quality of relationships at work and measures of satisfaction with job or life. At the same time, we measure aspects of good work that are universal – what is good for one person will be good for anyone – and aspects that are relative – what’s good for one person may not be for another. For example, no one would contest that more pay is better than less pay, but part-time work and irregular hours are far less clear as they are likely to vary with one’s life stage. The same part-time job may be a poor deal for someone who is trying to feed a family or tie down their first mortgage, yet ideal for a student who cannot commit full-time, or an older worker who has paid off their mortgage and wants to wind down a little. To give a full view of working life, we need to capture both universal and relative aspects of job quality and rely on both objective and subjective measures.

Table 1: Dimensions of good work Dimension Areas included 1 Pay and benefits Pay as a percentile and in relation to the Living Wage, subjective feelings regarding pay, employer pension contributions and other employee benefits. 2 Contracts The terms of employment. Contract type, underemployment and job security. 3 Job design and Workload or work intensity, autonomy or how empowered people are in their jobs, the nature of work how well resourced they are to carry out their work, job complexity and how well this matches the person’s skills and qualifications, how meaningful people find their work, and development opportunities provided. 4 Work–life balance Overwork, commuting time, how much work encroaches on personal life and vice versa, and HR provision for flexible working. 5 Relationships Social support and cohesion. The quality of relationships at work, psychological safety at work and the quality of people management. 6 Voice and Channels for feeding views to senior management, cultural norms on voice and representation satisfaction with the opportunities for voice. 7 Health and Positive and negative impacts of work on physical and mental health. Often considered well-being as an outcome of job quality.

*Source: adapted from Warhurst et al (2017) and Wright et al (2018).15 4 Introduction UK Working Lives

Focus on work–life balance and flexible working In this year’s survey, we include an expanded focus on work–life balance and flexible working arrangements, a major current focus of UK government policy. As well as questions covered last year on hours worked, commuting time, work–life balance and flexible work arrangements, the 2019 survey collected additional data on patterns of flexible working and the demand for and the drivers and impacts of flexible work arrangements. Equality, diversity and inclusion In addition to the dimensions of job quality explored by the UKWL survey, we consider equality, diversity and inclusion characteristics. This relates to the distribution of job quality across societal groups – that is, who has better and who has worse jobs and in what ways. It gives us insight into the extent of opportunities and access to good work in the UK economy. In particular, we reflect on gender, age, presence of a disability and ethnicity. Occupational groups We also look at how job quality varies across occupational groups. The occupation in which someone is employed is undoubtedly a central explanatory factor with respect to the quality of work they encounter. We use occupational groupings based on the National Readership Survey (NRS) social grades:16 A – Higher managerial, administrative and professional B – Intermediate managerial, administrative and professional C1 – Supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative and professional C2 – Skilled manual workers D – Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers E – State pensioners, casual and lowest grade workers, unemployed with state benefits only.17 Research approach Survey sample The 2019 UKWL survey was conducted in January 2019. It drew on the same YouGov UK panel of approximately 350,000 adults in work as the 2018 survey, and gave a sample of 5,136 workers. To make the sample representative of the UK as a whole, quotas were used to target the sample and subsequent weights based on ONS figures were applied to the dataset. The sample is representative of the UK workforce in terms of gender, full- or part-time work status, organisation size within each sector and industry. Trend data The UKWL survey sets out to give a regular, comprehensive and representative view of contemporary work. It is designed to build trend data so as to map changes in good work over time. However, while we make some comparison with data from the 2018 UKWL, in large part we leave trend data for future years. As we would expect given the short time period, the data in most cases is highly consistent between 2018 and 2019. Further detail of the survey approach and detail on the statistical analysis conducted is provided in the report Appendix available at cipd.co.uk/workinglives.

5 Introduction UK Working Lives

Structure of this report The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • The next section reports the 2019 focus on the work–life balance and flexible working dimension of job quality. • The following six sections present the survey results on each of the other job quality dimensions. • Section 10 looks across the job quality dimensions at their relative importance for key outcomes. • In the final section we draw together our conclusions and identify areas for future research.

3 Work–life balance and flexible working

Key findings Flexible working is delivering for some workers, but not for others. There is a lack of equality in access to flexible working arrangements and the impacts of different arrangements vary. • Three in five UK employees work longer hours than they want. Almost one in four overworks by ten or more hours a week. In addition, UK workers commute on average for 3 hours 45 minutes per week. • Formal flexible work arrangements are relatively common, especially flexi-time, reduced hours and working from home. However, there is an unmet demand for flexible working, in particular for flexi-time, compressed hours and working from home. • The main drivers for flexible work arrangements are caring responsibilities (especially for women) and increasing leisure time (especially for men). • Overall, flexible working arrangements contribute substantially to people’s quality of life. • The ‘cost’ of working flexibly to one’s career is relatively uncommon; indeed, many workers see a benefit in their careers. • Outcomes of flexible working vary with different arrangements. For example, reducing hours is more likely to hit one’s career, while homeworkers are more likely to overwork.

In our contemporary world, the boundaries between work and the rest of our lives are often less clear cut than they have been in the past. The nature of paid work is evolving, as the pace and intensity of work has grown, and work is increasingly conducted with the aid of mobile technologies, resulting in a blurring between work and the rest of our lives.18 In this context, it can be more challenging to achieve a reasonable balance and there is a risk of organisations developing ‘always on’ working cultures.19 As previous CIPD research has shown, incidence of some forms of flexible working has been ‘broadly flat, or increasing very slowly, over the past 10 to 15 years’, but many employees use informal arrangements to work flexibly and there is an increase in the proportion of employees who work from home or remotely.20

6 Work–life balance and flexible working UK Working Lives

The 2019 UK Working Lives survey was expanded to have a greater focus on aspects of work–life balance and flexibility in paid work through a series of additional questions. This provides us with a unique insight into not only the factors influencing work–life balance and patterns of flexible work, but also the impacts of the use of flexible working arrangements on both the careers of those using these arrangements, and their overall quality of life. The analysis presented here is part of a wider CIPD programme of research into flexible working. Separately, we have conducted further analysis of the UKWL survey data on this area, relating this to government policy;21 and in-depth case study research on effective and innovative practices, providing guidance to employers on implementing flexible work arrangements.22 International comparisons on work–life balance By international standards, the work–life balance of UK workers is very poor, based on a measure of how often job demands interfere with family life.23 Our ranking puts the UK 24th out of 25 comparator economies, roughly at the same level as Australia, Belgium and Sweden. The best countries for work–life balance in this measure are Hungary, Estonia and Austria; and in the middle we find Norway, the Czech Republic and Mexico.

Table 2: Country rankings of an international index of work–life balance Work–life balance rank Country 1 Hungary 2 Estonia 3 Austria 4 Latvia 5 Lithuania 6 Israel 7 Chile 8 Japan 9 Slovenia 10 Iceland 11 Switzerland 12 Norway 13 Czech Republic 14 Mexico 15 Finland 16 United States 17 Denmark 18 Spain 19 Germany 20 France 21 New Zealand 22 Sweden 23 Belgium 24 United Kingdom 25 Australia

7 Work–life balance and flexible working UK Working Lives

The UKWL survey gives us insight into a more detailed range of aspects of work–life balance. We now look at these in turn, considering working hours, commuting time, work– life balance and flexible working practices. Working hours The median hours per week spent working in the UKWL sample overall is 37.5 hours. This is consistent with the UK average reported in government statistics collected, for example, in the Labour Force Survey, which estimated usual hours per week at 37 hours for the quarter July–September 2018.24 Time spent in work remains highly gendered, reflecting differences in levels of part-time work between men and women. In line with UK estimates, our survey shows that more than two in five (45%) women employees work part-time compared with one in seven (14%) men (see section 5 for further discussion on contractual status). However, we do find consistency in what constitutes part-time or full-time work for men and for women: mean full-time hours are around 40 hours per week, and part-time hours are around 21 hours for both men and women.

Figure 1: Broad employment status, by gender (%)

Employed full-time 73 (30 or more hours a week) 48

12 Employed part-time 38

15 Male Self-employed 14 Female

Base: all employees (n=2,707 male; 2,429 female)

Overwork PresenceFigure 2: Hours of overwork overworked is perlikely week to (%)impact negatively on how people balance work with Figure 1: Broad employment status, by gender (%) the rest of40 their lives. Hours17 overworked19 is measured 10 14 by the difference between reported usual Employedhours of full-time work and preferred hours of work 73‘taking into account the need to earn a (30 or more hours a week) living’.None The averageUp to 5 hours (median) More worker than 5, upreports to48 10 hours around five hours of overwork per week. In More than 10, up to 15 hours 12 More than 15 hours total, Employedapproximately part-time 60% of workers report that they work over their preferred hours per 38 week,Base: all workers while (n=5,136) almost a quarter work more than ten hours over their preferred hours (Figure 15 Male 2). ManagerialSelf-employed and professional workers (social grades A and B) report the longest hours of overwork, equating to 7.114 and 6.8 hours respectivelyFemale on average per week. Overwork Figure 3: Balancing work and personal life (%) canBase: allalso employees be measured(n=2,707 male; 2,429 with female) respect to whether individuals feel they have enough time to

completeHard to relax inthe personal tasks time in because their job,of job which24 we discuss18 in section58 6.

Figure 2: HoursPersonal overworked commitments per a ect week job (%)7 14 79

Job 40a ects personal commitments17 1926 1021 14 53

None Up to 5 hours More than 5,Strongly up to 10 agree hours or agree Neither agree nor disagree

Base:More all workers than 10, (n=5,136) up to 15 hours More than Disagree15 hours or strongly disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 4: Flexible working arrangements (%) TheFigure commute 3: Balancing work and personal life (%) Commuting represents a considerable additional burden on the time of many workers. Flexi-time 12 35 WhileHard to relaxit can in personal be used time productively,because of job it24 is also18 widely considered58 as one of the least appreciatedWorking from home work-related9 activities as it is 30associated with ‘lost time’ and uncertainty due to Personal commitments a ect job 7 14 79 traffic and public transport reliability, and can act as a significant source of dissatisfaction Reduced hours 35 13 and stress.Job a ects25 Consistent personal commitments with our 201826 data, median21 total53 time spent travelling to and Compressed hours 22 12 Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Work–life balance and flexible working 8 Base:Term-time all workers working (n=5,136) 13 5 Disagree or strongly disagree Available, not used 13 3 Job-sharing Used

FigureBase: all employees4: Flexible (n=4,546) working arrangements (%)

Flexi-time 12 35

Working from home 9 30

Reduced hours 35 13

FigureCompressed 5: Informal hours flexiblity in working22 hours (%) 12

Term-time working 13 5 28 37 12 13 10 Available, not used 13 3 Di™cultyJob-sharing of taking time o for personal or family matters Used Very easy Fairly easy Neither easy nor di™cult Base: all employees (n=4,546) Fairly di™cult Very di™cult

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 5: Informal flexiblity in working hours (%)

28 37 12 13 10

Di™culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Very easy Fairly easy Neither easy nor di™cult Fairly di™cult Very di™cult

Base: all employees (n=4,546) UK Working Lives

from work, that is, both journeys together, is 45 minutes (mean of 61 minutes), which is equivalent to an additional 3 hours 45 minutes per week of work-related time for a worker who commutes five days a week. Commutes are shorter, on average, for part-time workers (mean of 43 minutes) when compared with those working full-time (67 minutes). The additional work-related time spent commuting differs considerably by region, with workers in London (78 minutes), the east (65 minutes) and the south-east (65 minutes) reporting lengthier commutes. Jobs in higher social grades (A and B) also have longer commutes, averaging approximately 70 minutes, compared with commutes of around 50 and 46 minutes respectively in lower-grade semi-skilled, unskilled and casual (D and E) jobs. In addition, we find that commutes are, on average, shorter among women Figure 1: Broad employment status, by gender (%) (55 minutes) compared with men (65 minutes), consistent with existing evidence.26 Employed full-time 73 Balance(30 or more hours a week) 48 To offer insight into balance12 between work and life, we ask workers a series of questions Employed part-time regarding how they manage their work38 and personal life. In the UKWL sample, we find a 15 Male notable proportionSelf-employed of workers (24%) report finding it difficult to relax in their personal time because of their job (Figure14 3). This is indicativeFemale of the spillover of paid work into 27 Base:our allpersonal employees (n=2,707 lives, male; which 2,429 female)can act as a source of work–life conflict and stress. Just over a quarter of workers, meanwhile, report that work affects personal commitments. In contrast, only 7% of workers considered that their personal commitments affect their job. Figure 2: Hours overworked per week (%) Those in higher-level jobs report greater difficulties in relaxing in personal time (26% in social grade40 A and 28% in17 grade B).19 Similarly, 10 around 14 28% of those in social grade A and B report that their job affects personal commitments compared with 23% of those in social None Up to 5 hours More than 5, up to 10 hours grade D. Interestingly, significant differences are not found by gender, perhaps reflecting More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours that methods have been employed by members of our sample to address work–life conflict Base:such all workersas the (n=5,136) use of flexible working arrangements.

Figure 3: Balancing work and personal life (%)

Hard to relax in personal time because of job 24 18 58

Personal commitments a ect job 7 14 79

Job a ects personal commitments 26 21 53

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136) Disagree or strongly disagree

Availability and use of flexible working arrangements FigureFlexible 4: Flexibleworking working arrangements arrangements provide (%) a method of altering the timing or location of paid work. Data on the use of flexible working is collected in the UKWL survey through the question:Flexi-time ‘In the last 1212 months, have you made 35use of any of the following arrangements, 28 andWorking if not,from homeare they available9 to you if you30 needed them?’

We Reducedfocus onhours six types of arrangement.35 Flexi-time (sometimes 13called flextime) and compressed hours are flexible working arrangements that focus on the arrangement, Compressed hours 22 12 rather than reduction, of work time.29 Reduced hours, job-sharing and term-time working areTerm-time arrangements working that13 focus on the5 reduction of work time. Finally, working from home or teleworking focuses on flexibility in work location. Some of Available,these arrangements not used are more Job-sharing 13 3 formal in nature, whereas others may take a more informal andUsed occasional form, including

forBase: exampleall employees (n=4,546)some types of homeworking and flexi-time.

9 Work–life balance and flexible working

Figure 5: Informal flexiblity in working hours (%)

28 37 12 13 10

Di™culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Very easy Fairly easy Neither easy nor di™cult Fairly di™cult Very di™cult

Base: all employees (n=4,546) Figure 1: Broad employment status, by genderUK (%) Working Lives

Employed full-time 73 (30 or more hours a week) 48

12 Employed part-time 38

Despite expansion in the provision15 of flexible workingMale arrangements in the last two Self-employed decades, existing evidence14 has shown continued gapsFemale between availability and use

ofBase: flexible all employees working (n=2,707 male; arrangements, 2,429 female) although this varies considerably between different arrangements.30 In the UKWL survey we find similar patterns (Figure 4). The most commonly available options are flexi-time (available to 47% of employees), reduced hours (47%)Figure 2:and Hours working overworked from per home week (39%). (%)

More than 40half of UK workers17 (54%)19 work flexibly 10 in 14 some way. The most commonly used flexible working arrangement is flexi-time (35%), which enables workers to choose the startNone and finishUp to time 5 hours of the working More than 5,day, up to while 10 hours often still maintaining full-time working More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours hours. Working from home, which may involve a worker being based at/from home on a permanentBase: all workers (n=5,136) basis or working from home on a more occasional basis, is used by almost a third of employees. This figure is somewhat larger than estimates from the Labour Force Survey; however,Figure 3: Balancing the Labour work Force and personal Survey life uses (%) a narrower definition focusing on those working at or from home on a more permanent basis.31 Hard to relax in personal time because of job 24 18 58 We find other flexible working arrangements are less common in use. Compressed hours, which involvesPersonal commitmentsworking the a ect same job 7number14 of hours per79 week but over fewer days, is used by

12% of employeesJob a ects personal in our commitments sample. A similar26 proportion21 of 53employees (13%) report a reduced hours flexible working arrangement. Other reduced hours flexible working arrangements are the least common in use. Job-sharing,Strongly agree in which or agree one full-time Neither agree job nor is disagree shared between part-timeBase: all workers workers, (n=5,136) is only reportedDisagree by 3% or of strongly employees. disagree Meanwhile, working only during school term times is reported by 5% of employees.

Figure 4: Flexible working arrangements (%)

Flexi-time 12 35

Working from home 9 30

Reduced hours 35 13

Compressed hours 22 12

Term-time working 13 5 Available, not used 13 3 Job-sharing Used

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

The most common responses among employees using a flexible working arrangement regarding how they started using the arrangement included, ‘it was openly offered when I accepted the job’ (27%), ‘I requested it at some point after starting the job’ (25%), and ‘I just work this way, I didn’t have to ask’ (26%). EmployeesFigure 5: Informal clearly flexiblity like having in working options hours to(%) work flexibly. We see this not only in the uptake

of flexible28 working but also37 in the evidence12 of 13 unmet 10 demand. Our survey finds that, excluding the self-employed, one in five employees (21%; n=4,546) has no flexible working arrangementDi™culty of taking timeavailable o for personal to them or family in their matters current job. But the unmet demand goes far wider thanVery this: easy two thirdsFairly of easy UK employees Neither easy(68%) nor di™cult report they would like to work flexibly in Fairly di™cult Very di™cult at least one form that is not currently available to them. For those who do not have the options,Base: all employees the (n=4,546)most desirable arrangements are flexi-time (70% of those who cannot use this arrangement would like to do so), compressed hours (58%) and working from home (49%).

10 Work–life balance and flexible working Figure 1: Broad employment status, by gender (%)

Employed full-time 73 (30 or more hours a week) 48

12 Employed part-time 38

15 Male Self-employed 14 Female

Base: all employees (n=2,707 male; 2,429 female)

Figure 2: Hours overworked per week (%)

40 17 19 10 14

None Up to 5 hours More than 5, up to 10 hours More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 3: Balancing work and personal life (%)

Hard to relax in personal time because of job 24 18 58

Personal commitments a ect job 7 14 79

Job a ects personal commitments 26 21 53

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136) Disagree or strongly disagree

Figure 4: Flexible working arrangements (%)

Flexi-time 12 35

Working from home 9 30

Reduced hours 35 13

Compressed hours 22 12

Term-time working 13 5 Available, not used 13 3 Job-sharing Used

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

UK Working Lives

Figure 5: Informal flexiblity in working hours (%)

28 37 12 13 10

Di™culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Very easy Fairly easy Neither easy nor di™cult Fairly di™cult Very di™cult

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Informal flexibility, which can be considered a broader indicator of the culture of flexibility within organisations, is also often highly valued by employees.32 Informal flexibility enables greater control over the way work interacts with the rest of our lives without requiring formal requests and approval (and associated changes to contractual status). In our sample the presence of informal flexibility, in the form of the ability to fairly or very easily take an hour or two off during working hours to take care of personal or family matters, is reported by around two-thirds (65%) of workers (Figure 5). At the same time, it should be noted that a lack of informal flexibility is present in a number of jobs, with 10% of workers indicating it would be very difficult for them to be flexible in their current jobs. This could in some cases reflect the practical realities of certain jobs, including for example those that are customer- facing and/or require physical presence in the workplace at specific times. Drivers of flexible working Aspects of care act as a considerable driver of the use of flexible working arrangements, with just under a quarter (23%) reporting this as the primary reason (Figure 6). It is most common in relation to looking after children (18%), but also looking after incapacitated or vulnerable adults (5%), with the latter offering some reflection of the impacts associated with the changing demography of the UK, which is increasing demand for elderly care.33 Other drivers include increasing leisure time, which is also reported by around a quarter of flexible workers (23%), as well as to a lesser extent the presence of an illness or disability (7%). Reducing and/or avoiding the commute also acts as a rationale for the use of flexible working arrangements (5%), evidencing the negative impact of commuting on work–life balance.34 In addition a notable proportion of respondents reported other reasons, which vary from productivity and broader work–life balance benefits to agile working, often as part of a company-wide policy.

Figure 6: Reasons for using flexible working arrangement (%)

Own illness or disability 7

Look after a child/children 18

Look after incapacitated/vulnerable adult(s) 5

Undertake education/training 3

Undertake another job 2

Increase my leisure time 23

Could not find a standard job 2

Miminise travel/avoid commute 5

Other reason 34

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,393)

Figure 7: Use of flexible working arrangements, by gender (%)

11 Flexi-time 36 Work–life balance and flexible working33 Working from home 34 26

Reduced hours 8 18

Compressed hours 12 12

Term-time working 3 7

Job-sharing 2 5

40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 Men Women Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 8: Reported presence of autonomy among flexible and non-flexible workers (%)

Works flexibly 70 Tasks in your job Does not work flexibly 51

Works flexibly 77 The pace at which you work Does not work flexibly 59

Works flexibly 86 How you do your work Does not work flexibly 67

Works flexibly 68 The time you start and finish Does not work flexibly 25

Base: employees (n=4,546, excludes those with job tenure under one year)

Figure 9: Impacts of flexible working, by gender (%)

80

70 21 26 60

50

40

30 56 Very positive 52 20 Positive 5 5 10 Negative 13 11 Very negative 0 5 2 4 2 12 1 –10 4 –20 Men Women Men Women Career Quality of life

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,285) UK Working Lives

Children act as key drivers of the use of reduced hours arrangements, including job-sharing (26%) and term-time working (42%). Increased leisure time is the primary driver of the use of compressed hours (40%). Meanwhile, those working from home predominantly gave ‘other reasons’ (51%), with explanations including agile working or it simply being the nature of the job, although 12% of employees also reported avoiding or reducing the commute as the primary reason for use of this flexible working arrangement. We also find heavily gendered reasons for the use of flexible working arrangements. Figure 6: Reasons for using flexible working arrangement (%) Looking after children accounts for a quarter of the moves into flexible working among women, but onlyOwn 13%illness for or disability men. Meanwhile,7 28% of men report increased leisure time as the

primary driver,Look compared after a child/children with 19% of women. 18 CharacteristicsLook after incapacitated/vulnerable of flexible adult(s) workers5

Patterns ofUndertake use of education/training flexible working arrangements3 vary considerably by gender and other demographics. Reduced hours arrangements, in particular, show significant gender Undertake another job 2 differences, with the proportion of women reporting these arrangements more than double that of men (FigureIncrease my7). leisure Reduced time hours is reported by 18% of women23 but only 8% of men. Job-sharingCould is notreported find a standard by 5% job of women2 compared with 2% of men, while 7% of women

report term-timeMiminise travel/avoid working commute compared with5 3% of men. Given the already identified link between use of reduced hours arrangements and caring responsibilities, the gendered Other reason 34 nature of flexible working arrangement use is highly likely to reflect gendered patterns in theBase: employeesprovision using offlexible care. working35 arrangement (n=2,393)

Figure 7: Use of flexible working arrangements, by gender (%)

Flexi-time 36 33

Working from home 34 26

Reduced hours 8 18

Compressed hours 12 12

Term-time working 3 7

Job-sharing 2 5

40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 Men Women Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 8: Reported presence of autonomy among flexible and non-flexible workers (%) Somewhat unsurprisingly, and in line with these patterns, we find that almost two-thirds (63%) of women in theWorks 35–44 flexibly age group report use of a flexible working70 arrangement, Tasks in your job compared withDoes around not work half flexibly of most other age groups. Meanwhile,51 greater proportions of men report use of arrangements that offer greater control over both the timing (flexi-time) Works flexibly 77 Theand pace location at (working from home) of paid work while usually enabling full-time hours to be which you work retained.36 FlexibleDoes notworking work flexibly is more common among workers who59 have a disability, being Works flexibly 86 Howreported you do by around two-thirds of these workers. your work Higher-level jobsDoes (social not work grade flexibly A and B) are those more likely to involve67 use of flexible working Works flexibly 68 Thearrangements time you in general. Flexi-time and working from home are the most prominent forms of start and finish flexible workingDoes arrangement not work flexibly among higher-level25 jobs. Flexi-time is reported by just under half (47%) of workers in social grade A and 45% of social grade B, while homeworking is reported byBase: 52% employees of those(n=4,546, inexcludes social those grade with job tenureA. In under comparison, one year) flexi-time is only reported by 15% of those in grade D or E jobs and homeworking among just 7%. Reduced hours is more evenly spread, as Figurearound 9: 15%Impacts of those of flexible in both working, grade by Agender and C(%) report this flexible form of work. 80 70 Work–life balance and flexible working 21 26 12 60

50

40

30 56 Very positive 52 20 Positive 5 5 10 Negative 13 11 Very negative 0 5 2 4 2 12 1 –10 4 –20 Men Women Men Women Career Quality of life

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,285) Figure 6: Reasons for using flexible working arrangement (%)

Own illness or disability 7

Look after a child/children 18

Look after incapacitated/vulnerable adult(s) 5

Undertake education/training 3

Undertake another job 2

Increase my leisure time 23 UK Working Lives Could not find a standard job 2

Miminise travel/avoid commute 5

Other reason 34

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,393) Characteristics of flexible jobs Levels of autonomy present in jobs are generally higher among those who work flexibly. ThisFigure is 7: particularly Use of flexible pronounced working arrangements, with respect by gender to the (%) start and finish times of work as we would expect, as we find over two-thirds of flexible workers report this form of autonomy comparedFlexi-time with around36 a quarter of those who do not work33 flexibly. Differences are also presentWorking from in otherhome forms34 of autonomy, including job tasks,26 pace of work and how work is doneReduced (Figure hours 8). This is likely to8 be a product of 18the relative levels of flexibility and

autonomyCompressed hoursavailable across occupations,12 as it has12 been identified in previous research that greater levels of autonomy are found in more highly skilled occupations37 and it is in these Term-time working 3 7 jobs where greater flexibility is also present, as already noted. This reflects both practical limitationsJob-sharing – customer-facing jobs may2 not 5lend themselves to workers using flexi-time or working from home40 –30 as well 20 as employers 10 0 in 10 some 20 cases 30 not 40being supportive of flexibility because of concerns over the misuseMen of companyWomen time and resources.38 Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 8: Reported presence of autonomy among flexible and non-flexible workers (%)

Works flexibly 70 Tasks in your job Does not work flexibly 51

Works flexibly 77 The pace at which you work Does not work flexibly 59

Works flexibly 86 How you do your work Does not work flexibly 67

Works flexibly 68 The time you start and finish Does not work flexibly 25

Base: employees (n=4,546, excludes those with job tenure under one year)

AdditionalFigure 9: Impacts indicators of flexible of working,the characteristics by gender (%) of flexible working provide initial insight into some80 of the impacts of these forms of work. We find that overwork is greatest among those70 reporting working flexibly from home. This shows that working flexibly, whether on 21 26 a60 permanent or more occasional basis, may not always solve tensions between work and 39 personal50 life and could even contribute to the blurring of boundaries between them. Across40 the UKWL sample, we find job satisfaction is higher among those reporting working 30 56 Very positive flexibly. We find 86% of flexible workers52 report being satisfied with their job compared with 77%20 of those who do not work flexibly. Variations byPositive different flexible working arrangement 5 5 do10 not reveal considerable differences, with the exceptionNegative of reduced hours, where 13 11 Very negative 0 marginally5 lower proportions2 (84%) report4 being satisfied with their job. 2 12 1 –10 Career and quality4 of life impacts of flexible working A–20 contributionMen of Women the 2019 UKWLMen is in Women enhancing our understanding of the impact of flexible workingCareer arrangements.Quality The of surveylife included specific questions focusing on the impactsBase: employees of using the flexible use workingof flexible arrangement working (n=2,285) arrangements, using the question, ‘In your opinion, what impact, if any, has working in a flexible working arrangement had on your…’, with separate questions covering career prospects and quality of life. We find that only a relatively small proportion (17%) of employees report positive impacts on their career from the use of a flexible working arrangement, while quality of life benefits are very clear and are reported by over three-quarters of flexible workers (78%). Impacts do vary to some extent by arrangement. Job-sharers report greater positive career impacts

13 Work–life balance and flexible working Figure 6: Reasons for using flexible working arrangement (%)

Own illness or disability 7

Look after a child/children 18

Look after incapacitated/vulnerable adult(s) 5

Undertake education/training 3

Undertake another job 2

Increase my leisure time 23

Could not find a standard job 2

Miminise travel/avoid commute 5

Other reason 34

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,393)

Figure 7: Use of flexible working arrangements, by gender (%)

Flexi-time 36 33

Working from home 34 26

Reduced hours 8 18

Compressed hours 12 12

Term-time working 3 7

Job-sharing 2 5

40 30 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 Men Women Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 8: Reported presence of autonomy among flexible and non-flexible workers (%) UK Working Lives Works flexibly 70 Tasks in your job Does not work flexibly 51

Works flexibly 77 The pace at which you work Does not work flexibly 59 (35%), as do term-time workers (28%). Unsurprisingly, it is employees using all forms of Works flexibly 86 reducedHow you do hours arrangements who report the greatest negative career impacts: we know your work that part-time workDoes not is work often flexibly lower quality and can be bad for people’s67 pay and careers.40

Negative career impactsWorks are flexibly reported by 14% of job-sharers and 18%68 of term-time workers. The time you Meanwhile,start and finish over a quarter of those using reduced hours (27%) report a negative impact Does not work flexibly 25 on career from the use of this arrangement. Quality of life impacts do not vary as greatly betweenBase: employees arrangements. (n=4,546, excludes those with job tenure under one year)

Figure 9: Impacts of flexible working, by gender (%)

80

70 21 26 60

50

40

30 56 Very positive 52 20 Positive 5 5 10 Negative 13 11 Very negative 0 5 2 4 2 12 1 –10 4 –20 Men Women Men Women Career Quality of life

Base: employees using flexible working arrangement (n=2,285)

Impacts are also highly gendered, consistent with overall patterns of flexible working. Double the proportion of women report negative career implications (15%) from use of a flexible working arrangement compared with men (Figure 9). While both men and women overwhelmingly report positive impacts with regard to the quality of life from flexible working, 5% of women report negative impacts on quality of life, compared with only 2% of men.

4 Pay and benefits

Key findings Absolute levels of pay are important to our working lives, especially at lower income levels, but it is subjective views (perceptions of relative incomes and appropriateness of pay) that tell us more about the happiness of workers. • Just under half of workers consider themselves to be paid appropriately, considering their responsibilities and achievements, and over a third do not. Those who are happier with their pay are also happier with their job overall. • The Real Living Wage is a clear threshold in pay satisfaction. Only a third of those earning less are satisfied with their pay, whereas this jumps to nearly half for those earning between the Real Living Wage and double this rate. • Satisfaction with pay is predictably higher among higher-level occupations, and lower in the public sector. • Around seven in ten employees say they are saving for a pension. Most employees receive a contribution from their employer of 6% or less. • A range of non-pension benefits are available to employees, with the most common being social, enhanced leave and food benefits.

14 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

Pay and benefits are an obviously important indicator of the quality of work. However, we should acknowledge at the outset that some jobs that are highly paid exhibit a number of qualities that we may consider bad. In particular, they may involve high workloads and work intensity, demand long hours that limit leisure time and involve greater levels of stress. Clearly such factors risk reducing happiness and well-being despite good pay. Pay is nevertheless relevant to our understanding of job quality. International comparisons on pay According to an OECD measure, the UK is slightly below average in ‘earnings quality’. This index accounts for both the level of earnings and their distribution across the workforce.41 The UK sits 15th out of 25 comparator countries, alongside the United States and New Zealand. The top countries for earnings quality are Switzerland, Norway and Denmark; and the bottom are Mexico, Chile and Estonia.

Table 3: Country rankings of an international index of pay (earnings quality) Pay rank Country 1 Switzerland 2 Norway 3 Denmark 4 Belgium 5 Germany 6 Austria 7 Iceland 8 Australia 9 Finland 10 France 11 Sweden 12= Latvia* 12= Lithuania* 14 United States 15 United Kingdom 16 New Zealand 17 Spain 18 Japan 19 Slovenia 20 Israel 21 Czech Republic 22 Hungary 23 Estonia 24 Chile 25 Mexico *Due to absent data, population means are imputed for these figures. This maintains the ability to produce an overall ranking but makes the ranking of the country on this metric unreliable.

The UKWL survey allows us to consider remuneration in greater detail, in both its objective form – that is, the amount a worker earns (as well as any additional benefits they receive) – as well as the subjective feelings an individual has regarding their pay and its impact on their financial status.42 15 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

Objective measures of pay Actual levels of pay relate to job quality and satisfaction with work, but we also view our pay in relation to what our peers earn. Relative pay has been shown to be significant in much existing research, whether that be workers’ pay relative to national pay levels or the Living Wage, or their pay relative to colleagues and social connections.43 In our analysis we consider pay levels relative to the National Living Wage and Real Living Wage. The National Living Wage (NLW) at the time of the survey was £7.83 per hour for those aged 25 and over. The Real Living Wage was £9.00 across the UK, and £10.55 in London.44 Median weekly pay in the UK in April 2018, according to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), equalled £569, an increase of 3.5% on the previous year.45 The weekly median pay in our sample is notably lower at £488 (£25,350 per annum). It is also lower than the figure in the 2018 UKWL, which was £511, itself well under the previous ASHE estimate. It should be noted that pay is complex and challenging to calculate accurately in a sample survey. In total a third of our sample chose not to provide objective pay details in their responses to the 2019 survey. This could be for a number of reasons, including difficulties in accurately reporting pay or simply preferences not to provide this information. The large number of non-responses may have been the primary cause of the bias in our data, evidencing the challenges of researching the relative role of objective pay in job quality. This limits the usefulness of the absolute values in our data. However, it is still possible to consider patterns in how pay is split across broad groups. Across occupation groups we find stark variations. A little under half (45%) of higher- level managerial, administrative and professional occupations (NRS social grade A) report earning at least twice the Real Living Wage. In contrast, one in seven skilled manual workers report earning at least twice the Real Living Wage, while only 6% of those in social grade D or E jobs report this level of pay. Subjective measures of pay Given the limitations of our data on objective pay, we consider in greater detail subjective measures of pay. Research has highlighted the relevance of perceptions of wealth and financial status.46 While subjective pay measures can be biased to some degree by workers overestimating their own value,47 they can offer greater insight into pay relative to both individual and household costs of living. Cost of living is impacted by a range of factors, from region of residence and local housing markets to presence of dependent children and preferred living standards.48 The UKWL survey explores subjective pay in relation to whether respondents consider the pay they receive to be appropriate. Just under half of our sample agree that their pay is appropriate, considering their responsibilities and achievements, reflecting a reasonable degree of satisfaction with pay. As we would expect, higher levels of satisfaction with pay is moderately correlated with higher objectively measured pay (0.309).49 Importantly, we find that the Real Living Wage appears to act as a threshold of sorts for levels of satisfaction with pay. Only around a third of those earning below the Real Living Wage report satisfaction with pay, but this increases to just under half (47%) of those earning at least the Real Living Wage (but less than twice the rate), and almost seven in ten of those earning at least twice the Real Living Wage. We also find a moderate positive correlation (0.384) overall between satisfaction with pay and general job satisfaction.50

16 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

Figure 10: Subjective measures of pay and work centrality (%)

Considering my responsibilities and achievements in my job, 7 39 19 26 9 I feel I get paid appropriately

I would enjoy having a paid job 12 47 18 16 7 even if I did not need money

A job is just a way of earning money – no more 10 26 19 34 11

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

SatisfactionFigure 11: As a proportionwith pay differsof your salary,considerably how much by does different occupational groups. Well over half (57%)your employer of those contribute in higher into managerial, your company administrative pension? (%) and professional occupations (grade A)

feel40 their pay is appropriate. Relative levels of satisfaction with pay decrease as we move to lower NRS grades, with just under half of grade B workers feeling their pay is appropriate, 35 34 45% of grade C1, 39% of grade31 C2 and 37% of grades D and E. 30 Turning to contractual status, fewer of those running their own business are satisfied with their25 pay (40% satisfied) than those on other contract types who give more consistent

responses20 (46% for permanent 18employees and 46% for temporary and non-standard contracts),15 while those working as freelancers or independent contractors are the most satisfied (54%) with their pay. Satisfaction with pay is also marginally lower among workers 10 in the public sector, with 13% reporting7 strong dissatisfaction compared with around 9% 5 5 of5 workers in other sectors. This could perhaps be evidence of the impact of real-term pay 2 51 cuts0 that have occurred in this sector in the last decade. 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% 16% Few differences in subjective feelings regardingor more pay are recorded by diversity Base: employees saving through a company pension plan (n=2,098) characteristics. We do find that those in the middle-age group (35–44) are marginally more satisfied with their pay, with half stating they feel their pay is appropriate, compared withFigure around 12: Employee 45% benefitsof other other age than groups. pensions Interestingly (%) no notable differences are found in subjective measures of pay by gender. Career development benefits 17 12 In addition to direct questioning on pay, the UKWL survey also collects data on the relative Enhanced leave benefits 24 28 importance of work. Here we find that three-fifths of workers place a positive value on theirFinancial jobs, stating assistance thatbenefits they would10 enjoy2 having a job even if they did not need the money

(Figure 10).Transport Equally, benefits though, a 12notable portion of21 respondents (45%) report viewing work as just a way of earning money, evidencing some division in the way individuals consider the role of paid workFood in benefits their lives.8 35 Health care and insurance benefits 21 18 Pensions and other employee benefits In additionWell-being to pay benefitsmany workers receive21 a number8 of other benefits from engagement in paid work. This includes pension contributions from employers, but also a range of other Social benefits 18 37 benefits, including for example transport schemes and health care plans. Overall, just under fourTechnology in five employees benefits 7 report saving16 for a pension through a company pension plan. Of these employees, 71% receive a contribution from their employer of 6% or less of their salary,Base: all employees 18% receive (n=4,546) a contributionAvailable, of not 7–10% used of their Used salary, and 12% of employees receive a contribution of 11% or more (Figure 11).

17 Pay and benefits Figure 10: Subjective measures of pay and work centrality (%)

Considering my responsibilities and achievements in my job, 7 39 19 26 9 I feel I get paid appropriately

I would enjoy having a paid job 12 47 18 16 7 even if I did not need money

A job is just a way of earning 10 26 19 34 11 money – no more UK Working Lives

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 11: As a proportion of your salary, how much does your employer contribute into your company pension? (%) Figure 10: Subjective measures of pay and work centrality (%) 40 Considering my responsibilities and achievements in my job,34 7 39 19 26 9 35I feel I get paid appropriately 31 30 I would enjoy having a paid job 12 47 18 16 7 even if I did not need money 25

20A job is just a way of earning money – no more 10 1826 19 34 11 15 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 10 7 Base: all workers (n=5,136)5 5 5 2 0 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% 16% Figure 11: As a proportion of your salary, how muchor does more yourBase: employees employer saving contribute through a company into your pension company plan (n=2,098) pension? (%)

40

AFigure35 range 12: ofEmployee other non-pensionbenefits34 other than benefits pensions are (%) available to employees (Figure 12). The most commonly offered are social31 benefits (55%), which include parties and other social events, and30 Careerenhanced development leave benefits benefits (52%),17 which include12 paid bereavement leave, emergency 25 eldercareEnhanced support, leave benefitsor more than the24 legal minimum of 20 days’28 paid annual leave (excluding bank20 holidays). Financial assistance benefits 10 18 2 Other15 frequently used benefits include food benefits (free or subsidised food or drink), Transport benefits 12 21 used10 by 35% of employees, transport benefits such as free or subsidised parking, rail season 7 Food benefits 8 35 tickets and/or5 a company car, which is used 5by just over a fifth of employees, and health 5 care and2 insurance benefits, which include death in service or life assurance, flu jabs, dental Health care and insurance benefits 21 18 or0 health insurance, which is used by 18% of employees. Other benefits are less frequently 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% 16% reported asWell-being being benefitsavailable and/or21 used, althoughor more 8 around a quarter of employees report Base: employees saving through a company pension plan (n=2,098) career developmentSocial benefits and well-being18 benefits. 37

Figure 12: EmployeeTechnology benefits benefits other7 than pensions16 (%)

Base: allCareer employees development (n=4,546) benefits Available,17 not used Used12

Enhanced leave benefits 24 28

Financial assistance benefits 10 2

Transport benefits 12 21

Food benefits 8 35

Health care and insurance benefits 21 18

Well-being benefits 21 8

Social benefits 18 37

Technology benefits 7 16

Base: all employees (n=4,546) Available, not used Used

18 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

5 Contracts

Key findings • Most workers (more than three in four) have a permanent employment, whether full- or part-time. • Other ‘contingent’ contracts, including temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts, are relatively uncommon. • Workers in these contingent or ‘non-standard’ forms of employment are more likely to have precarious jobs. In particular, they more often face underemployment. • Multiple job-holding is also more common among those on non-standard contracts and those reporting underemployment, suggesting financial necessity is a key driver for taking more than one job.

While the structure of paid work undoubtedly remains centred on work as a permanent employee at one organisation, for a growing portion of the labour force participation in paid work is insecure and characterised by periods of temporary or reduced hours work. These patterns are the result of a labour market in which, some have argued, flexibility is increasingly employer-driven.52 International comparisons on contracts UK workers fare better than average in contractual stability, based on international measures of part-time and temporary employment.53 The UK sits 8th out of 25 comparator countries, alongside the United States and Slovenia. Estonia, Hungary and Norway come top, and France and Spain come bottom. France ranks very low, despite having strong protections against dismissal for permanent employees, because this index reflects people’s ability to secure the work contracts they want. Stability in this broad sense is not a simple function of legal protection, but of the availability of stable work and conditions in the labour market.

Table 4: Country rankings of an international index of employment contract stability Contracts rank Country 1 Estonia 2 Hungary 3 Norway 4 Latvia 5 Belgium 6 Lithuania* 7 United States* 8 United Kingdom 9 Slovenia 10 Israel* 11 Austria 12 Japan 13 Germany Continued on next page

19 Contracts UK Working Lives

14 Iceland* 15 Switzerland 16 Denmark 17 Czech Republic 18 Finland 19 New Zealand* 20 Sweden 21 Chile* 22 Australia* 23 Mexico* 24 France 25 Spain *Due to absent data, population means are imputed for these figures. This maintains the ability to produce an overall ranking but makes the ranking of the country on this metric unreliable.

The UKWL survey allows us to develop a detailed picture of employment contracts. As well as temporary work, we consider other forms of ‘contingent’ or ‘precarious’ work, such as zero-hours and short-hours contracts and the gig economy. We also look at factors that can be related to contingent work, namely multiple job-holding,54 underemployment55 and various measures of work security. Contract type Nearly four in five of our sample report work as a permanent employee (either part-time or full-time). This is relatively consistent with UK national estimates.56 Within this group, 29% work part-time and the majority of these are women (see section 3). Also consistent with national estimates, around 15% of workers in the UKWL survey report some form of self-employment. Self-employment in the UK is close to the EU average, and has been increasing as a share of overall employment.57 In our sample, we find 11% of workers overall report running their own business and a further 5% report working as a freelancer or independent contractor. It should also be acknowledged that there exist quite blurred boundaries between some forms of employment and self-employment, in particular in forms of work including own-account self-employment/gig working, discussed later in this section. Some self-employed individuals may in practice work for one contractor and are in some respects effectively employees. Other contract types account for the remaining 5% of workers, comprising 2.5% on temporary (including agency), 2.4% on zero-hours and 0.5% on short-hours contracts. Despite media and political interest in non-standard or contingent contracts over recent years – in particular zero-hours contracts – they are generally no more common than in the past.58 The proportion of temporary employees is the same as in the 1980s and has shrunk over the past year or two, while the number of permanent workers has increased relatively sharply, and the proportion of zero-hours contracts has stabilised in the last couple of years. Nonetheless, non-standard contracts remain an important aspect of working life and, while they give some workers much desired flexibility, for others they are a central aspect of what constitutes a bad job and they can also backfire for employers by harming performance.59

20 Contracts UK Working Lives

Figure 13: Working status and contract type (%)

1

5 Contract type 1 11 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 2 3 Temporary employment Zero-hours contract work

Short-hours contract work

Running my own business 79 Freelancer or independent contractor

Other

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

ExploringFigure 14: Underemployment further patterns (%) of contract type, we findHours that underemployed workers per in week higher-level managerial, administrative and professional occupations (NRS socialNone (work grade at least A) as manyand hoursskilled as want) manual workers (grade C2)84 are the most likely 6to 6run 2 3 their Upown to 5 business. hours Almost two-fifths of grade More than 5, up to 10 hours ABase: workers all workers (n=5,136)own their own business, while it is 17% among skilled manual workers. One in ten grade A workers also report working as a freelancerMore than or 10, independent up to 15 hours contractor. Among remaining workers, over four-fifths report permanentMore employee than 15 hours status, with intermediate managers, administrative and professional (grade B) workers especially likely to report this form of employment (87%). Meanwhile, workers in grade D and E occupations are much moreFigure likely15: Underemployment, to report working by contract on temporary, type (%) zero-hours and short-hours contracts (9%), compared with under 5% among other occupation groups. Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 86 14 With respect to diversity characteristics, the greatest differences are found between age Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 52 48 groups. Younger workers (aged 18–34) and older workers (55 and over) more often report other contract types,Running including my own business temporary, zero-hours and 83short-hours. Older workers,17 aged 55 and over, are the most likely to be self-employed (17% running own business and Freelancer or independent contractor 76 24 8% working as freelancer or independent contractor). Women are more likely to report other contract types (7% compared with 4% of men), while men are marginally more Base: all workers (n=5,136) None (work at least as many hours as want) Underemployed likely to report work as a freelancer or independent contractor (6% compared with 4% of women).

TheFigure gig 16: Number economy of jobs held currently (%) In addition to contract type, the UKWL survey also1 includes questions regarding work in the gig economy. This89 has been an area9 of2 particular2 political and media focus in recent 3 or more years.Base: all workers Although (n=5,136) potentially offering opportunities to workers seeking flexibility and/or those who have higher levels of employability, in particular the highly skilled,60 concerns have been raised regarding working conditions,61 while the gig economy has also been linked to growth in insecure part-time self-employment, including amongst those exiting Figure 17: Job security, by contract type (%) unemployment.62

TheWork gigas permanent economy employee is defined (full-time orby part-time) the CIPD 15as: 24 62

‘…workTemporary, arranged zero-hours through or short-hours an online contract platform 31covering a variety30 of on-demand39 customer services. These services include (but are not limited to) taxi services and ride sharing (for example Uber, BlaBlaCar,Running andmy own so business on), vehicle9 rental20 (for example EasyCar),71 food or goods

delivery (forFreelancer example or independent Deliveroo, contractor City Sprint),21 as well as31 platforms that link48 people for other services (for example TaskRabbit, Upwork, and so on).’

How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months?

Very likely or likely Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely or very unlikely Contracts 21 Base: all workers (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

Estimating numbers of workers engaged in the gig economy is problematic, in part, as work may be performed for multiple ‘employers’ during the same month, week, or even day.63 Estimates vary from figures published by the CIPD64 of around 4%, to estimates of up to around one in seven workers.65 Consistent with previous CIPD estimates, we find 3.5% of workers report having worked in the gig economy in the last 12 months, while only 1.7% of the UKWL sample report working in the gig economy as their main job. Consistent with other evidence, we find that working in the gig economy is more common among higher- level occupations (social grade A) and low-level grade D and E occupations, that is, at either end of the labour market.66 Because of the small number of gig workers in the survey sample, no further detail can reliably be drawn from this group of workers. UnderemploymentFigure 13: Working status and contract type (%) Underemployment1 acts as a source of insecurity in the labour market, reflecting not having as much work as would be preferred. It is a particular concern as it has implications for financial status and living standards. It is calculated in the UKWL survey by looking at 5 Contract type the difference1 11 between the number of hours usually worked per week and how much an Figure 13: Working status and contract type (%) Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) individual would like to work per week. Where workers report preferences for more hours, 2 1 this is counted3 as underemployment. Temporary employment Zero-hours contract work We find underemployment is present among one in six workers (Figure 14). The majority of 5 Short-hours contract work these workers report underemploymentContract of up type to five hours (6%) and between five and ten 1 11 Running my own business hours per week (6%). The79 presence of underemploymentWork as a permanent employee is much (full-time higher or part-time) among workers 2 Freelancer or independent contractor on non-standard3 contracts, with almost halfTemporary of those employment on temporary, zero-hours and short- Other hours contracts reporting being underemployedZero-hours (Figure contract work 15). Almost a quarter of individuals workingBase: all workers as (n=5,136) a freelancer or independent contractorShort-hours contract also report work underemployment. Running my own business 79 Figure 14: Underemployment (%) FreelancerHours or independent underemployed contractor per week

Other None (work at least as many hours as want) 84 6 6 2 3 Up to 5 hours Base: all workers (n=5,136) More than 5, up to 10 hours Base: all workers (n=5,136) More than 10, up to 15 hours Figure 14: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week More than 15 hours None (work at least as many hours as want)

84 6 6 2 3 Up to 5 hours

Rates of underemployment are highest among youngerMore than workers 5, up to 10 (aged hours 18–34), with almost Base:Figure all workers 15: Underemployment, (n=5,136) by contract type (%) one in five reporting underemployment comparedMore with than only 10, up aroundto 15 hours 15% of those in the

middleWork as permanent age groups employee (35–44 (full-time and or part-time) 45–54). This is undoubtedlyMore than 15 hourslinked86 to the aforementioned14 patterns of non-standard employment among different age groups. Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 52 48

Figure 15: Underemployment,Running bymy contract own business type (%) 83 17

Freelancer or independent contractor 76 24 Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 86 14

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 52 48 Base: all workers (n=5,136) None (work at least as many hours as want) Underemployed

Running my own business 83 17

Freelancer or independent contractor 76 24 Figure 16: Number of jobs held currently (%) 1 Base: all workers (n=5,136) None (work at least as many hours as want) Underemployed 89 9 2 2

3 or more Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 16: Number of jobs held currently (%) 1 Figure 17: Job security,89 by contract type (%) 9 Contracts2 2 22 3 or more Base: all workers (n=5,136) Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 15 24 62

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 31 30 39

Figure 17: Job security, Runningby contract my own type business (%) 9 20 71

Freelancer or independent contractor 21 31 48 Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 15 24 62

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 31 30 39 How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months?

Very likely or likely RunningNeither my likely own norbusiness unlikely9 Unlikely20 or very unlikely 71

Base: all workers (n=5,136)Freelancer or independent contractor 21 31 48

How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months?

Very likely or likely Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely or very unlikely

Base: all workers (n=5,136) Figure 13: Working status and contract type (%)

1

5 Contract type 1 11 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 2 3 Temporary employment Zero-hours contract work

Short-hours contract work

Running my own business 79 Freelancer or independent contractor

Other

Base: all workers (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

Figure 14: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week Figure 13: Working status and contract type (%) None (work at least as many hours as want)

841 6 6 2 3 Up to 5 hours

More than 5, up to 10 hours Base: all workers (n=5,136) Multiple job-holding More than 10, up to 15 hours Whether workers5 hold more than one jobContract is another type useful indicator of the structure of 1 11 More than 15 hours work and the economy. It can reflect bothWork a choice as a permanent made employee by a worker (full-time inor part-time)order to enable 2 greater flexibility3 in the way they work, includingTemporary employmentthe ability to hold secondary employment 67 Zero-hours contract work alongsideFigure 15: Underemployment, self-employment. by contract Equally, type it (%) can be a result of underemployment, which drives 68 multiple job-holding through financial necessity.Short-hours contract work 86 14 Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) Running my own business While multiple job-holding79 is relatively uncommon, it is reported by 11% of our sample. The majorityTemporary, of the zero-hours UKWL or sample short-hours who contract report Freelancermore than or 52independent one job contractor hold two jobs (9%),48 with those Other holding three jobs orRunning more my onlyown business comprising 2% of our sample83 (Figure 16). These figures17 are Base:higher all workers than (n=5,136) the proportions reported in the Labour Force Survey for second-job-holding, which are closerFreelancer to or 4%, independent69 reflecting contractor some distinction in the76 UKWL sample. Importantly,24 and perhaps indicative of the key drivers of multiple job-holding, we find that in our sample 27% Figure 14: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week ofBase: those all workers holding (n=5,136) more than one job are underemployed,None (work at least as manycompared hours as want)with only Underemployed 15% of workers None (work at least as many hours as want) with a single job. 84 6 6 2 3 Up to 5 hours

More than 5, up to 10 hours Base:Figure all workers 16: Number (n=5,136) of jobs held currently (%) More1 than 10, up to 15 hours

89 9 2 More2 than 15 hours

3 or more Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 15: Underemployment, by contract type (%) In addition, multiple job-holding is reported by three in ten workers on temporary and otherFigureWork as 17:non-standardpermanent Job security, employee bycontracts, (full-time contract or typepart-time) and (%) almost a quarter of those86 working as a freelancer or 14 independentTemporary, zero-hourscontractor. or short-hours Meanwhile, contract two-fifths of those52 reporting having worked48 in the gigWork economy as permanent inemployee the last (full-time 12 months or part-time) have 15held more24 than one job. We62 also find multiple job- Running my own business 83 17 holdingTemporary, to be zero-hours more common or short-hours among contract younger31 workers and30 those aged 5539 and over. Freelancer or independent contractor 76 24 Job and labour marketRunning my ownsecurity business 9 20 71 Job security is an important dimension of job quality, reflecting the job prospects Base: all workers (n=5,136)Freelancer or independent contractor None (work at least as many hours as want) Underemployed encountered by workers. A substantial minority21 of workers31 (15%) feel that48 they are likely or very likely to lose their job within the next year. Consistent with the patterns observed so far,How thoselikely do whoyou think feel it is the that leastyou could secure lose your in job their in the jobs next 12are months? on temporary, zero-hours or short-hours Figure 16: Number of jobs held currently (%) contractsVery likely (Figure or likely 17).Neither As we likely might nor unlikely expect given Unlikely the or very precarious unlikely nature of these forms of 1 employment, almost a third of workers on temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contracts Base: all workers (n=5,136) 89 9 2 2 consider it likely or very likely that they will lose their job in the next 12 months. This is 3 or more Base:much all workers higher (n=5,136) than is found among both permanent employees (15%) and those who run their own business (9%).

Figure 17: Job security, by contract type (%)

Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 15 24 62

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 31 30 39

Running my own business 9 20 71

Freelancer or independent contractor 21 31 48

How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months?

Very likely or likely Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely or very unlikely

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

23 Contracts UK Working Lives

It is also relevant to consider the wider confidence in the labour market among UK employees. With reference to the question, ‘how easy or difficult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?’, we find approximately half of all workers in our sample would consider it fairly or very difficult to find comparable work. The outlier among workers by contract type is those running their own business, of which almost two-thirds feel it would be difficult to find a job comparable with their current one (Figure 18). This may reflect the flexibility, autonomy and wider lifestyle benefits that are found among many entrepreneurs,70 all of which are features of good work that may be difficult to find in alternative employment.

Figure 18: Confidence in the labour market, by contract type (%)

Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 30 21 50

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 34 23 44

Running my own business 20 15 65

Freelancer or independent contractor 29 22 49

How easy or dicult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?

Very easy or fairly easy Neither easy nor dicult Fairly dicult or very dicult

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

A further measure which offers us insight into the relative security of an individual’s position in the labour market is job tenure. In the UKWL sample, two-fifths of workers who have been in their current job less than one year report feeling it would be difficult to find Figure 19: Workload (%) a comparable job; however, this is considerably higher among those in their job for 15–20 years6 (63%)26 and 20 years or59 more (68%). 8Finally,2 as we would expect, those with shorter tenures in their current job are those who report feeling most insecure, with around a fifth ofIn athose normal week,in their is the current workload injob your under job? one year reporting it likely they will lose their job in the nextFar 12 too months, much comparedToo much with About only right less than Too little one in seven Far too littleof those who have been in their jobBase: forall workers 15 years (n=5,136) or more.

Figure6 20: Job Workload, designby contract type (%) and the nature of work Work as a permanent employee 7 29 57 6 1 Key findings Temporary, zero-hours, short-hours employment 2 13 67 14 4 The nature of work differs considerably by occupation level. Higher-level occupations exhibitRunning my characteristics own business 3 of17 good work, including64 greater autonomy,13 3 variety, complexity, and meaningfulness. Mid-level managerial, administrative and professionalFreelance occupations,or independent contractor while 2benefiting13 from a number66 of these characteristics,17 2 face problems associated with high workloads. Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little • One in three workers considers that they have too much work to complete in their Base: all workers (n=5,136) job. One in five does not have the time to do their job in their allocated hours. • Half of UK workers believe the skills they have are not well matched to their job, 37% being overskilled and 12% being underskilled. • Around half of workers feel their jobs give good opportunities to develop their skills, Figurebut 21: onlyJob autonomy three in (%)ten workers feel they have good prospects for career advancement. Continued on next page How you do your work 45 32 16 7

The pace at which you work 37 31 19 14

24 The tasks you do in yourJob job design 25and the nature35 of work 23 17

The time you start or finish your working day 25 22 18 34

A lot Some A little None

Base: all employees (n=4,546) UK Working Lives

• Most workers have at least some autonomy over what tasks they do, how they work and how fast they work. Levels of autonomy are much greater among higher-level occupations and permanent employees. • The clear majority of workers feel they engage in meaningful work that contributes to their organisation, but almost a quarter feel that their job does not contribute to society and one in ten think it does not even contribute to their organisation.

The intrinsic nature of the work we do is a central yet multifaceted aspect of job quality. It relates to job design and the allocation of tasks, and concerns how skilled the work is that we do, how well we can shape this work and what opportunities we have to develop. International comparisons on skills, autonomy and development UK workers fare better than average by international standards, according to combined measures of the extent of professional roles, work autonomy and development opportunities.71 The UK sits 7th out of 25 comparator countries, alongside Sweden and Belgium. Switzerland, the United States and Norway are ranked top; Germany, Slovenia and Austria rank in the middle; and Mexico, Hungary and Chile are ranked bottom.

Table 5: Country rankings of an international index of skills, autonomy and development Skills, autonomy and Country development rank 1 Switzerland 2 United States 3 Norway 4 Denmark 5 Finland 6 Sweden 7 United Kingdom 8 Belgium 9 Australia 10 Iceland 11 New Zealand 12 Germany 13 Slovenia 14 Austria 15 France 16 Israel 17 Estonia 18 Lithuania 19 Czech Republic 20 Latvia 21 Japan 22 Spain 23 Mexico 24 Hungary 25 Chile

25 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

The UKWL survey adds detail to this view of the intrinsic nature of work in several areas. In particular, we consider people’s workload and the intensity of work, levels of control and autonomy, whether they have the resources they need, how meaningful they find their work, their job complexity and career development opportunities. We now look at these in turn. Workload and intensity In addition to concerns over the length of time spent in work, which is considered in section 3 (overemployment) and section 5 (underemployment), the relative intensity of work, or

Figurehow hard 18: Confidence someone in has the labourto work market, in order by contract to complete type (%) their tasks in a given time period, has become of increasing significance to our understanding of the quality of work and its 72 impacts,Work as permanent including employee on (full-time well-being. or part-time) Work overload30 and task21 ambiguity create50 stress and can result in burnout and other negative consequences.73 Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 34 23 44 A third of workers consider themselves to have too much work to complete in their job Running my own business (Figure 19). One in twenty, meanwhile, feel20 completely15 overloaded by65 their jobs, suggesting substantiveFreelancer problems or independent of overwork contractor are present29 among an22 important minority49 of workers. High workloads are relatively consistent in their presence across occupational groups, How easy or dicult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one? although workers in intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations Very easy or fairly easy Neither easy nor dicult Fairly dicult or very dicult Figure(grade 18: B) Confidence report marginally in the labour higher market, incidence by contract (37%) type (%) of intense working routines. As was discussedBase: all workers in(n=5,136) the 2018 survey report, this could reflect the existence of a ‘squeezed middle’ Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 30 21 50 of middle-level managers and professionals performing supervisory tasks alongside a numberTemporary, of other zero-hours core or responsibilities.short-hours contract 74 34 23 44

Running my own business 20 15 65 Figure 19: Workload (%) Freelancer or independent contractor 29 22 49 6 26 59 8 2

How easy or dicult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one? In a normal week, is the workload in your job? Very easy or fairly easy Neither easy nor dicult Fairly dicult or very dicult Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little Base: all workers (n=5,136) Base: all workers (n=5,136)

A little over a third of permanent employees are overworked (Figure 20). Incidence of over- workFigure is 20: most Workload, prominent by contract among type full-time (%) employees, with 41% reporting too much or far too Figuremuch 19:work Workload compared (%) with 25% of part-time workers. Among those on other contract types, Work as a permanent employee 7 29 57 6 1 overwork is less common, accounting for around 15% of temporary, zero-hours and short- 6 26 59 8 2 hoursTemporary, contracts, zero-hours, andshort-hours freelancers employment and2 independent13 contractors,67 and one in five14 4business own- Iners. a normal Finally, week, we is the find workload that in yourmore job? than two in five (42%) workers in the public sector are over- Running my own business 3 17 64 13 3 workedFar too muchcomparedToo with much around About three right in ten Too workers little in Far other too little sectors. Other evidence shows

Base:that all this workers Freelancehas (n=5,136) worsened or independent for somecontractor public2 13 sector jobs – such66 as teaching and nursing17 2 – over the last decade, potentially due to the pressure put on public sector resources.75 Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little Figure 20: Workload, by contract type (%) Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Work as a permanent employee 7 29 57 6 1

Temporary, zero-hours, short-hours employment 2 13 67 14 4

Figure 21: Job autonomyRunning (%)my own business 3 17 64 13 3

How you do your work 45 32 16 7 Freelance or independent contractor 2 13 66 17 2

The pace at which you work 37 31 19 14 Far too much Too much About right Too little Far too little

Base: all workers (n=5,136)The tasks you do in your job 25 35 23 17 26 The time you start or finish your workingJob day design25 and the nature22 of work18 34

A lot Some A little None Figure 21: Job autonomy (%) Base: all employees (n=4,546)

How you do your work 45 32 16 7

The pace at which you work 37 31 19 14

The tasks you do in your job 25 35 23 17

The time you start or finish your working day 25 22 18 34

A lot Some A little None

Base: all employees (n=4,546) Figure 18: Confidence in the labour market, by contract type (%)

Work as permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 30 21 50

Temporary, zero-hours or short-hours contract 34 23 44

Running my own business 20 15 65

Freelancer or independent contractor 29 22 49

How easy or dicult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?

Very easy or fairly easy Neither easy nor dicult Fairly dicult or very dicult

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

UK Working Lives

Figure 19: Workload (%)

6 26 59 8 2

In a normal week, is the workload in your job? ControlFar too much and autonomyToo much About right Too little Far too little The presence of autonomy in paid work can be considered to be an important intrinsic Base:component all workers (n=5,136) of the nature of work. Autonomy can be usefully understood as the level of control workers have over decisions in their job.76 It is an aspect of work which can be present

inFigure regard 20: Workload,to both the by contractlevel of typecontrol (%) over tasks and work conduct, referred to as job control, and discretion over the timing and/or location of work, referred to as schedule control.77 The presence andWork level as a ofpermanent autonomy employee forms7 an important29 component57 of job quality, 6potentially1 enabling employees to cope with greater work demands, and impacts on both the relative well- Temporary,being of zero-hours,employees short-hours as well employment as the health2 13 of their employer,67 that is, through productivity14 4 levels.78 Levels of autonomyRunning suggest my own business that employees3 17 are empowered,64 overall, in shaping13 3 how they work in their jobs. Employees report a considerable level of discretion over aspects of job Freelance or independent contractor 2 13 66 17 2 control, including how they do their work, where we find just over three-quarters of workers

reportFar too having much a lot Too or much some control, About right and just Too overlittle two-thirds Far too little over the pace at which they work (Figure 21). Control over the tasks completed as part of a job is reported by three in Base: all workers (n=5,136) five workers. Schedule control, in the form of autonomy over the start and finish times of the working day, is slightly less common, with just under half (48%) of workers reporting this form of autonomy in their jobs.

Figure 21: Job autonomy (%)

How you do your work 45 32 16 7

The pace at which you work 37 31 19 14

The tasks you do in your job 25 35 23 17

The time you start or finish your working day 25 22 18 34

A lot Some A little None

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

The autonomy present in paid work differs in all measures greatly by occupational group, consistent with the findings of existing research.79 For example, those in higher-level occupations have much higher degrees of control over the tasks they do in their job, with 70% of higher managerial, administrative and professional workers (grade A) reporting a lot or some control over tasks, compared with only around two in five skilled manual workers (grade C2) and workers in grade D and E occupations. Differences are also stark in autonomy over start and finish times, where we find that around three in five workers in higher-level occupations (grade A and B) report a lot or some control over the timing of work, but this is only found among one in four of those in grade D or E occupations. Turning to sector of employment, we find notable differences in control over start and finish times, with around three in five workers in the public and voluntary sectors reporting autonomy in this aspect of work compared with 44% of those in the private sector. It is likely that this, in part, reflects the greater use of certain flexible working arrangements including flexi-time in these sectors.80 Finally, workers in temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts report lower levels of autonomy. The majority (54%) of workers on these contracts have little or no control over job tasks, compared with just under two in five permanent employees. Differences are also quite large with respect to the pace of work, with under a third of permanent employees reporting little or no control over this aspect of work, compared with two in five workers on non-standard contracts. 27 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

Resources Having the correct resources available to us is another important factor that influences the intrinsic quality of work.81 Consistent with the 2018 survey, the UKWL survey includes three questions that focus on the resources available to workers, which focus on whether they have enough time to get their work done, whether they have the right equipment to perform in their job, and whether they have a suitable space, either office or other workspace, to do their job effectively. The majority of workers report having access to adequate work resources (Figure 22). Around three-quarters report having the right equipment and a suitable workspace. Time is a more limited commodity, it appears, as around one in five workers feel they lack the necessary time to get their work done in their allocated hours. Proportions do vary notably by occupation group, however. We find that in higher-level jobs, including senior and intermediate managerial and professional occupations (social grade A and B), around a quarter of our sample state they feel they do not have enough time to get work done within allocated hours, compared with around 18% of those in grade C (associate professional and skilled manual workers) and D and E (semi-skilled and unskilled). Where individuals feel they do not have enough time, this can reflect the presence of overload discussed earlier in this section, which can act as a significant work stressor.82

Figure 22 : Adequate work resources (%)

I usually have enough time to get my work done within my allocated hours 19 44 17 15 5 I have the right equipment to do my job e‰ectively 25 50 13 9 2

I have a suitable space to do my job e‰ectively (for example o‹ce space or workshop) 28 47 14 7 3

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Meaningful work Work can have a deep sense of meaning to an individual, acting as a source of achievement andFigure fulfilment. 23 : Meaningful83 Equally, work (%) work can become an ‘alien’ activity, disconnected from the Figure 22 : Adequate work resources (%) 84 individualI have andthe feeling seen of doingonly useful as a work toil or laborious activity. The sense of meaning an individual for my organisation/client 21 54 17 6 3 receivesI usually from have work enough is, time as tosuch, get my an important intrinsic characteristic of job quality with wider relevanceI workhave tothedone workerfeeling within of my doingwell-being. allocated useful hours work 19 44 17 15 5 for society 15 35 27 17 7 I have the right equipment to do The focus onI ammeaningful highlymy motivated job e‰ectively work by my in the 25UKWL survey is on50 the ‘sense of13 pride9 2and organisation/client’s core purpose 13 35 30 14 7 Iachievement have a suitable space at toa dojob my well job e‰ectively done’. Three-quarters of workers feel they perform useful work (for example o‹ce space or workshop) 28 47 14 7 3 for Stronglytheir organisationagree Agree (or client Neither in theagree case nor disagree of the self-employed). Disagree Strongly Approximately disagree half of

workersBase:Strongly all workers are agree (n=5,136) highly Agree motivated Neither by the agree core nor disagree purpose of Disagree their organisation Strongly disagree (or client). The wider impact of the work an individual performs is seen as somewhat less common, with Base: all workers (n=5,136) around half feeling they do useful work for society, but almost a quarter feeling that the work they do does not offer a useful contribution to society (Figure 23). Figure 24: Job complexity (%) Figure 23 : Meaningful work (%) In general, how often does your main job involve the following? I have the feeling of doing useful work 21 54 17 6 3 Solving unforeseen problemsfor my organisation/client on your own 20 43 28 8 1 I have the feeling of doing useful work for society 15 35 27 17 7 Interesting tasks 13 32 41 12 2 I am highly motivated by my organisation/client’s core purpose 13 35 30 14 7 Complex tasks 13 34 34 17 3

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Monotonous tasks 12 31 39 17 2 Base: all workers (n=5,136) 28 Learning new things Job12 design and36 the nature of37 work 13 2 Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

FigureBase: all workers24: Job (n=5,136) complexity (%) In general, how often does your main job involve the following?

Solving unforeseen problems on your own 20 43 28 8 1

Interesting tasks 13 32 41 12 2 Figure 25: Person–job match: qualifications and skills (%)

Complex tasks 13 34 34 17 3

32 Monotonous tasks 12 37 31 39 17 2

Learning new things 12 36 37 13 2

Always Often Sometimes RarelyI have the skills Never to cope 64 with more demanding duties Base: all workers (n=5,136) 51 I am overqualified My present skills correspond I have the right level well with my duties of qualification I lack some skills required I am underqualified 12 in my current duties 4

FigureBase: all workers 25: Person–job (n=5,136) match: qualifications and skills (%)

32 37

I have the skills to cope 64 51 with more demanding duties I am overqualified My present skills correspond I have the right level well with my duties of qualification I lack some skills required I am underqualified 12 in my current duties 4

Base: all workers (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

The meaningfulness of work declines as we move down occupational level. Those in higher- level grade A and B occupations generally report more meaningful work, with four in five workers in these occupations feeling they contribute useful work to their organisation, compared with only around two-thirds of workers in grade C2 and D and E occupations. Similarly, workers in higher-level occupations – 61% of grade A and 53% of grade B – report being more motivated by their organisation or client’s core purpose than we find in other occupation groups, where this is only reported by around two in five workers. Consistent differences are also observed in societal contribution. Differences by sector of work are most distinct in societal contribution. As we might have expected, we find that around three-quarters of both public and voluntary sector workers report feeling they do work that is useful for society, compared with only two in five Figure 22 : Adequate work resources (%) private sector workers. Voluntary sector workers are also those most motivated by their organisation/client,I usually have enough with time seven to get my in ten reporting feeling motivated compared with 57% of work done within my allocated hours 19 44 17 15 5 public sector workers and just 45% of private sector workers. I have the right equipment to do my job e‰ectively 25 50 13 9 2 Job complexity and skills I have a suitable space to do my job e‰ectively The complexity(for example o‹ce of spacea job or and workshop) the skills that28 are used to do47 it are undoubtedly14 7 3 relevant to our understanding of the intrinsic characteristics of job quality. Job complexity, sometimes referredStrongly to agree in terms Agree of variety Neither encountered agree nor disagree in a job, encompasses Disagree Strongly the disagreetypes and range 85 ofBase: activities all workers (n=5,136) involved in a job. The relative fit or match between the skills an individual possesses and their job is also relevant to job quality. Overqualification or being overskilled can result in boredom, lack of engagement, negative impacts on earnings and stagnation, and lower levels of life satisfaction at the level of the individual worker, while being Figure 23 : Meaningful work (%) underskilled can result in underperformance and higher levels of work-related stress.86 At the macroeconomicI have the feeling of doinglevel useful these work issues are also important, as skill mismatch and underuse for my organisation/client 21 54 17 6 3 of skills reflects a waste of human capital and potentially limits the productivity of the I have the feeling of doing useful work 87 workforce, which has beenfor societya key concern15 in the35 UK context. 27 17 7 I am highly motivated by my We find inorganisation/client’s our sample that core purpose over three-fifths13 of35 workers regularly30 engage14 in problem-solving7 in their job (Figure 24), and that a little under half report their job as involving interesting tasksStrongly (45%), agree complex Agree tasks (47%) Neither agreeand norlearning disagree new things Disagree (48%). Strongly On disagreethe opposite end of variety,Base: all workers around (n=5,136) two in five workers report frequently completing monotonous tasks in their job. However, these overarching patterns hide quite stark differences by contract type and occupational group.

Figure 24: Job complexity (%)

In general, how often does your main job involve the following?

Solving unforeseen problems on your own 20 43 28 8 1

Interesting tasks 13 32 41 12 2

Complex tasks 13 34 34 17 3

Monotonous tasks 12 31 39 17 2

Learning new things 12 36 37 13 2

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Job design and the nature of work 29 Figure 25: Person–job match: qualifications and skills (%)

32 37

I have the skills to cope 64 51 with more demanding duties I am overqualified My present skills correspond I have the right level well with my duties of qualification I lack some skills required I am underqualified 12 in my current duties 4

Base: all workers (n=5,136) Figure 22 : Adequate work resources (%)

I usually have enough time to get my work done within my allocated hours 19 44 17 15 5 I have the right equipment to do my job e‰ectively UK25 Working Lives50 13 9 2

I have a suitable space to do my job e‰ectively (for example o‹ce space or workshop) 28 47 14 7 3

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree IfBase: we all workersexplore (n=5,136) differences by contract type, we find that workers on temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts report lower levels of complexity and variety in their jobs, with a third stating they rarely or never perform complex tasks and less than half regularly engaging in problem-solving. Meanwhile, the self-employed – both business owners Figure 23 : Meaningful work (%) and freelancers and independent contractors – generally have jobs which involve higher levels Iof have problem-solving, the feeling of doing useful reported work by seven out of ten of these workers, learning new for my organisation/client 21 54 17 6 3 things, reported by around half of these workers, and among freelancers and independent I have the feeling of doing useful work contractors, levels of complexityfor society (56%).15 35 27 17 7 I am highly motivated by my We find thatorganisation/client’s jobs in higher-level core purpose occupations13 35(NRS grade A and30 B) have14 much7 greater degrees of complexity and variety, with three-quarters of workers in grade A and two-thirds in gradeStrongly Bagree occupations Agree having Neither jobs agree that nor regularly disagree involve Disagree problem-solving, Strongly disagree while three in fiveBase: allworkers workers (n=5,136) in grade A occupations describe their job as involving complex and interesting tasks. In contrast, only one in five workers in grade D and E occupations say their job involves complex tasks, while three in five workers in these occupations have jobs which frequently involve monotonous tasks, and less than a quarter learn new things. Figure 24: Job complexity (%) Overall, there is a general pattern of increasing levels of complexity and variety as we move In general, how often does your main job involve the following? up occupational groups in regard to skill level. We find weak correlations between high-level Solvingoccupation unforeseen groups problems and on your problem-solving own 20 (0.174), interesting43 tasks 28(0.222), complex8 1 tasks (0.277), and learning new things (0.207), and a negative correlation with monotonous tasks (–0.153).88 Interesting tasks 13 32 41 12 2 These patterns may simply be indicative of the differing content of occupations. Some occupations by theirComplex nature tasks involve13 routine34 completion of34 simple and17 repetitive3 tasks. The patterns are also consistent, though, with the argued move in some sectors to job design that is characterisedMonotonous by highlytasks 12subdivided31 tasks and low39 levels of autonomy17 2 and variety, associated with low job quality.89 Learning new things 12 36 37 13 2 Turning to the match between the qualifications and skills possessed by workers and their jobs,Always we find that Often almost Sometimes two-thirds of Rarely workers Never(64%) consider themselves to have the correctBase: all workers level (n=5,136) of qualifications for their jobs. Almost a third, however, consider themselves to be overqualified. In terms of skills match, half of workers feel their present skills correspond well with their duties. This means, though, that equally half of workers consider themselves to be either overskilled (37%) or underskilled (12%).

Figure 25: Person–job match: qualifications and skills (%)

32 37

I have the skills to cope 64 51 with more demanding duties I am overqualified My present skills correspond I have the right level well with my duties of qualification I lack some skills required I am underqualified 12 in my current duties 4

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

If we explore this in terms of occupational group and contract type, we find that workers in grade C2 and lower-skilled grade D and E occupations are more likely to report being overqualified (39% and 42% respectively) and overskilled (42% and 42%). Equally, workers on temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts are those that consider themselves 30 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

more often to be overqualified (48%) and overskilled (45%). As we might expect, feelings of being underqualified and lacking skills are more prominent among younger workers: 7% of 18–34-year-olds feel they lack the correct qualifications, and 16% feel they lack skills to fulfil their current duties.90 Overall, the data suggests that overqualification and overskilling is perhaps a greater concern than workers lacking the necessary qualifications or skills to perform in their job. The findings relating to skills, though, also point to a potential broader issue of the presence of skills mismatch in the UK economy.91 The impact of skills and qualification mismatch appears to be reflected in relative levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is lower among those who report being under- and overqualified and skilled: approximately three-fifths of those who report a qualification or skills mismatch are satisfied with their job, compared with over three-quarters (76%) who have a good qualification/skills match. Learning and career development Career development opportunities form an important part of job prospects while at the same time having clear links with skills and a number of other job quality dimensions.92 Alongside education outside of work, training and career development is central to personal and career advancement. Increasing the skills levels of the workforce is generally agreed as being beneficial not only to the individual, but also to employers and more broadly the economy and society.93 In our sample, around half of workers consider their job to offer good opportunities to develop their skills (Figure 26). Referring to the specific situation of training and information being provided to workers to enable them to do their job effectively, we find again around half of workers agree that they receive necessary training and information, and this is also reported by those with managerial responsibilities. However, career advancement is perhaps not as common a feature of some jobs. Only three in ten workers agree that their job offers good prospects for career advancement.

Figure 26: Personal and career development (%)

My job oers good opportunities to develop my skills 10 39 25 17 8

My job oers good prospects for career advancement 7 23 29 27 15

I receive the training and information 10 41 27 16 7 I need to do my job well

I receive the training and information 10 41 26 18 6 I need to manage my colleagues well*

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=5,136) except * line managers (n=1,321)

Exploring in more detail by occupation, it is clear that the level of opportunity for skill development is greater in higher-level occupations (Figure 27). Three in five workers in Figure 27: Development opportunities, by occupational group (%) higher managerial, administrative or professional occupations (NRS grade A) feel they haveSkill development good opportunities to develop their skills, whereas this is only reported by just over a60 third of workers in grade D and E occupations. As per the overall pattern observed, career advancement opportunities are lesser, with a clear division by occupation group between those in grade A and B occupations, of which a third feel they do not have 40 47 44 good opportunities for career37 advancement,35 compared with grades C1 (46%), C2 (48%) 20 30

14 Job design and the nature of work 11 10 10 6 31 0 –12 –15 –20 –15 –4 –23 –6 –20 –11 –8 –16 –40

–60 A B C1 C2 D or E

Career advancement 60

40

20 26 28 20 19 21 9 7 0 6 6 4

–24 –23 –29 –28 –30 –20 Agree –8 –12 Strongly agree

–40 –17 –19 –20 Disagree Strongly disagree

–60 A B C1 C2 D or E

Base: all employees (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

and D and E (50%). These findings suggest that while workers who already have greater levels of skills also have good opportunities for further development, other workers could find themselves trapped in lower-skilled work with few opportunities for advancement. However, this could perpetuate further polarisation of the labour market. Private sector workers, which again are quite diverse because of the large size of this sector, report fewer opportunities for skill development. Just under half report good skill developmentFigure 26: Personal opportunities, and career development compared (%) with around 55% in both the public and voluntary

sectors.My jobPublic oers sectorgood opportunities workers, meanwhile, feel they have the best opportunities for career 10 39 25 advancement. Ato developthird ofmy publicskills sector workers agree that they have17 good8 opportunities for careerMy advancement,job oers good prospects whereas this is 29% in the private sector and 27% in the voluntary for career advancement 7 23 29 27 15 sector. This is likely a reflection of organisation size and the presence of internal labour I receive the training and information 10 41 27 16 7 markets in theI need public to do my sector. job well

I receive the training and information Differences are also observed by10 work status.41 Two in five26 workers (41%)18 on6 temporary, zero- I need to manage my colleagues well* hours and short-hours contracts feel they have good opportunities to develop their skills,

comparedStrongly agree with approximately Agree Neither 55% agree of the nor disagreeself-employed Disagree (business Strongly owners, disagree freelancers and independent contractors). Permanent employees, which itself is of course a diverse group Base: all employees (n=5,136) except * line managers (n=1,321) comprising many occupations, fall somewhere in the middle, with 49% reporting they have good opportunities for skill development.

Figure 27: Development opportunities, by occupational group (%)

Skill development 60

40 47 44 37 35 20 30

14 11 10 10 6 0 –12 –15 –20 –15 –4 –23 –6 –20 –11 –8 –16 –40

–60 A B C1 C2 D or E

Career advancement 60

40

20 26 28 20 19 21 9 7 0 6 6 4

–24 –23 –29 –28 –30 –20 Agree –8 –12 Strongly agree

–40 –17 –19 –20 Disagree Strongly disagree

–60 A B C1 C2 D or E

Base: all employees (n=5,136) 32 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

When we consider career advancement by contract status, we find quite contrasting responses. Workers on permanent contracts are those that report better opportunities, with a third feeling they have good opportunities for career advancement, whereas only around one in five workers on other contracts report good opportunities. In fact, half of workers on temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts feel they do not have good opportunities for career advancement. Workers on these contracts, as well as experiencing insecure employment, also seem to benefit from fewer development opportunities. We also see that workers on these contracts who are in grade D and E occupations not only have some of the lowest-quality jobs in aspects such as how skilled the work is, but also have the fewest opportunities to develop professionally and potentially move into higher-level occupations (see section 5). As we noted in last year’s UKWL survey, they may become stuck in poor quality work. Finally, we find quite stark differences reported among workers of different age groups with regard to both the opportunities for skill development and for career advancement. Younger workers report greater skill development opportunities, with three-fifths of those aged 18–34 agreeing that their job provides these opportunities, compared with only 46% of workers aged 55 and over. Similarly, just under half of younger workers feel their job offers good prospects for career advancement, whereas this is only reported by a quarter of those aged 45–54 and only one in five of those aged 55 and over. This could simply reflect the differing career stages of these workers, with older workers more often in higher-level and more advanced roles that may have fewer progression routes. Alternatively, it could partly reflect assumptions by some employers that older workers are less interested or able to learn, which could act to limit further career development.94

7 Relationships at work

Key findings Relationships at work strongly affect our working lives, but conflict at work is all too common. It has negative consequences not just for the worker but for their employer too, for example, by increasing turnover intention. • Employees generally report a supportive working environment, although incidence of blame from management (19% of workers) and being excluded for being different (22%) is not uncommon. • Three in ten workers report at least one form of bullying or harassment in the workplace in the last 12 months. For one in seven workers, a case remains unresolved. • Forms of conflict at work differ in particular by gender. Women record more cases of being undermined or humiliated and unwanted sexual attention or harassment, and men report more physical threats and false allegations. We also note differences according to race and sexual orientation or gender identity. • More than one in four workers reporting workplace conflict in the last 12 months say they are likely to quit their job in the next year (almost double workers who experienced no conflict). • Relationships at work are generally positive, especially for those with whom we work more closely (line manager, team members).

33 Relationships at work UK Working Lives

Relationships with others at work form an important dimension of the quality of work encountered by workers. Positive interactions with others in the workplace have been shown to increase levels of commitment among employees and generate more positive work attitudes.95 Relationships with stakeholders both inside the organisation (managers, colleagues) and external to it (clients, customers) may be equally important to job quality.96 Workplace relationships also have an important role in creating and maintaining social connectedness – that is, the number and quality of relationships we have.97 In addition, occupational networks act as a key source of social capital throughout our lives, which is to say that strong relationships with others and shared identities, values, interests and behavioural norms help us to perform and build our careers.98 International comparisons on relationships at work The quality of work relationships in the UK is average by international standards, according to a measure of relations between management and employees.99 The UK sits 12th out of 25 comparator countries, alongside the United States and Hungary. Austria, Switzerland and Israel come top, and Slovenia, France and Japan are ranked bottom.

Table 6: Country rankings of an international index of relations between managers and employees Relationships with Country managers rank 1 Austria 2 Switzerland 3 Israel 4 Germany 5 Mexico 6 Latvia 7 Iceland 8 New Zealand 9 Spain 10 Chile 11 United States 12 United Kingdom 13 Hungary 14 Estonia 15 Finland 16 Australia 17 Norway 18 Lithuania 19 Denmark 20 Czech Republic 21 Sweden 22 Belgium 23 Slovenia 24 France 25 Japan

34 Relationships at work UK Working Lives

In the UKWL survey, we build on this by looking in more detail at relationships at work, in particular: the quality of relationships with different types of colleagues, different aspects of line management, psychological safety or how supportive our work environments are, and different forms of conflict. We now consider these in turn. Quality of relationships at work Relationships with managers within the workplace are generally reported as being positive, with over three-quarters of employees rating their relationship with their line manager or supervisor positively, and only slightly fewer (72%) reporting a positive relationship with other managers at their workplace (Figure 28). Poor relationships with managers are uncommon, but around 7% do report a poor or very poor relationship with management at their workplace. Among those who manage others, 88% report positive relationships with their staff. Although the difference is not great, managers may be more positive about their relationships with their staff than the staff themselves because of the power differential: for example, other CIPD evidence suggests conflict is more likely to be perceived and seen as serious by the more junior person in a relationship.100

Figure 28: Quality of relationships at work (%)

Line manager or supervisor 37 41 14 5 3

Other managers at your workplace 23 50 20 6 2

Colleagues in your team 41 47 9 21

Other colleagues in your workplace 28 54 15 31

Sta’ who you manage 36 52 10 11

Customers, clients or service users 34 51 13 21

Suppliers 26 53 19 11

Very good Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

TheFigure relationships 29: Quality of betweenline management employees (%) and their colleagues are viewed most positively, especially with colleagues in the same team (88%). Finally, around four in five employees reportMy boss... positive relationshipsTreats me with fairly customers, clients75 and service users, and16 with 9 suppliers. 73 17 11 RelationshipsIs supportive with if I havemanagers a problem and leaders FurtherCan insightbe relied upon can to be keep gained their promise with regard to the57 reported relationships24 between18 managers and employees through additional questions which focus on the quality of line Supports my learning and development 54 27 19 management and confidence in senior management. The most positive responses from employeesProvides regarding useful feedback the onquality my work of their manager53 or supervisor25 relate to showing22 respect

(76%) and fair treatmentHelps me (75%). in my job The large majority60 of employees also23 report17 that their managers are supportive when problems arise (73%), and that they offer recognition when theyIs successful have in done getting apeople good to workjob together(67%). 55 27 18 Recognises when I have done a good job 67 18 15 Where managers fare worse is in relation to the support they provide with respect to learning and development,Respects me as aincluding person feedback, to which76 around a fifth of16 employees8 report their manager as performing poorly. This is important considering the role of development opportunitiesStrongly agree orto agree job quality, Neither as agree considered nor disagree in section Disagree 6. or strongly disagree Base: all employees with a manager or supervisor or equivalent (n=4,429)

35 Figure 30: Confidence in senior managementRelationships (%) at work Managers have clear vision for organisation 54 24 23

Confidence in senior management team 47 24 29

Trust the senior management team 52 24 24

Trust employer to act in best interest 42 27 30

Confident can go to someone for help if problem 62 19 18

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=4,546) Figure 28: Quality of relationships at work (%)

Line manager or supervisor 37 41 14 5 3

Other managers at your workplace 23 50 20 6 2

Colleagues in your team 41 47 9 21

Other colleagues in your workplace 28 54 15 31

Sta’ who you manage 36 52 10 11

Customers, clients or service users 34 51 13 21

Figure 28: Quality of Suppliersrelationships at26 work (%)UK Working53 Lives 19 11

VeryLine good manager or Good supervisor Neither good37 nor poor Poor41 Very poor14 5 3

Base:Other all managers employees at (n=4,546) your workplace 23 50 20 6 2

Colleagues in your team 41 47 9 21 Figure 29: Quality of line management (%) Other colleagues in your workplace 28 54 15 31

My boss... Sta’ who you manageTreats me fairly36 7552 10 11 16 9

Customers, clientsIs supportive or service ifusers I have a problem34 7351 13 21 17 11

Can be relied uponSuppliers to keep their promise26 5753 1924 11 18

Supports my learning and development 54 27 19 Very good Good Neither good nor poor Poor Very poor

Provides useful feedback on my work 53 25 22 Base: all employees (n=4,546) Helps me in my job 60 23 17

FigureIs successful 29: Qualityin getting of people line tomanagement work together (%) 55 27 18

My boss...Recognises when I have doneTreats a goodme fairly job 67 75 18 1615 9

Is supportiveRespects if I haveme as a aproblem person 7376 1716 118

Can be relied upon to keep their promise 57 24 18 Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree 27 19 Base: all employeesSupports withmy learninga manager and or supervisor development or equivalent (n=4,429) 54

Provides useful feedback on my work 53 25 22 Perspectives on senior managers generally elicit positive responses from non-managerial employees, althoughHelps the me strength in my job of these views60 is less pronounced23 than it17 is for people Figure 30: Confidence in senior management (%) managersIs successful in (Figuregetting people 30). to workEmployees together tend to think55 their leaders have27 a clear 18vision for the

organisationManagers have (54%) clear vision and for have organisation trust in the senior54 management team24 (52%),23 but the fact Recognises when I have done a good job 67 18 15 that nearly one in four workers lack confidence in their leaders in these respects is clearly 47 24 29 worrying.Confidence in Respectssenior management me as a person team 76 16 8 Trust the senior management team 52 24 24 A greaterStrongly agree proportion or agree of workers, Neither agree almost nor disagree two-thirds, Disagree is confident or strongly disagree they have someone to go to if theyTrust have employer a problem to act in bestat work,interest but even here,42 almost one in 27five workers30 says that they Base: all employees with a manager or supervisor or equivalent (n=4,429) do not. This raises real concerns about the extent of effective worker voice and protections Confident can go to someone for help if problem 62 19 18 for whistleblowing in the UK.101

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree Figure 30: Confidence in senior management (%) Base: all employees (n=4,546) Managers have clear vision for organisation 54 24 23

Confidence in senior management team 47 24 29

Trust the senior management team 52 24 24

Trust employer to act in best interest 42 27 30

Confident can go to someone for help if problem 62 19 18

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

However, three in ten employees lack confidence in their senior management team and nearly a quarter did not trust them. These patterns, perhaps, offer further evidence of the greater strength of relationships held at more local levels when compared with the organisation as a whole, which is viewed with more suspicion. It could also reflect a lack of involvement in discussions and decision-making, which is explored in section 8.

36 Relationships at work UK Working Lives

Psychological safety Psychological safety refers to the presence of blame cultures and levels of support and trust within a workplace. We find that employees generally report a supportive working environment, with two-thirds of employees stating that no one in their team would deliberately undermine them, and almost three-quarters reporting trust in their colleagues to act with integrity. While employees are generally positive regarding the behaviour of their manager or supervisor, almost a fifth feels that their manager would hold it against them if they make a mistake (Figure 31). Finally, we find that almost one in four employees feel they do not work in inclusive environments, agreeing with a statement that their colleagues ‘sometimes reject others for being different’. Thus, although discriminatory behaviour is rarer (see Figure 32), its roots are relatively common. As the notion of macro-aggressions illustrates, there are many shades of behaviour and comments that exclude people; even if unintentional or subconscious, expressions of exclusion can have a powerful negative effect on others.102

Figure 31: Psychological safety (%)

Mistakes held against one 19 20 62

Exclusion 22 18 60

Social support 67 17 17

Trust colleagues 73 17 10

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree

‘If I make a mistake my manager or supervisor will hold it against me’ ‘People in my team sometimes reject others for being dierent’ ‘No one in my team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my eorts’ ‘I trust my colleagues to act with integrity’

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 32: Experiences of workplace conflict and unfair treatment in the last 12 months (%) Conflict and unfair treatment Incidence of conflict at work, which includes forms of bullying and12 harassment, can have Being undermined or humiliated significant negative impacts on the experienced quality of work, as it has been17 shown to 7 increaseFalse allegationslevels of made burnout, against me and result in greater intentions among workers to leave their job.103 We find that three in ten workers report5 having experienced at least one form of 14 bullyingShouting or or harassment very heated arguments in the workplace in the last 12 months. Almost 10% have experienced 12 at least two forms of bullying and harassment. These statistics are significant as it has been 12 shown that evenVerbal a abuse single or insult incident of conflict can have a serious detrimental impact on 11 working life.104 The most common forms of conflict encountered are being undermined or 1 Unwanted attention of a sexual nature humiliated (14%), shouting or heated arguments4 (13%), and verbal abuse or insult (11%).

0.3 Sexual assault 0.3

6 Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 6

4 Physical threat 2

2 Physical assault (not of a sexual nature) 2

5 Male Discriminatory behaviour 6 Female

6 Other oensive or threatening behaviour 5 37 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Relationships at work

Figure 33: Resolution of workplace conflict and unfair treatment (%)

Being undermined or humiliated 14 37 49

False allegations made against me 32 31 37

Shouting or very heated arguments 37 32 32

Verbal abuse or insult 30 27 43

Unwanted attention of a sexual nature 27 19 54

Sexual assault 22 21 57

Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 19 31 50

Physical threat 37 21 43

Physical assault (not of a sexual nature) 40 22 38

Discriminatory behaviour 15 25 60

Other oensive or threatening behaviour 25 30 45

Fully resolved Partly resolved Not resolved

Base: all workers (n=5,136) Figure 31: Psychological safety (%)

Mistakes held against one 19 20 62

Exclusion 22 18 60

Social support 67 17 17

Trust colleagues 73 17 10

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree

‘If I make a mistake my manager or supervisor will holdUK it againstWorking me’ Lives ‘People in my team sometimes reject others for being dierent’ ‘No one in my team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my eorts’ ‘I trust my colleagues to act with integrity’

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 32: Experiences of workplace conflict and unfair treatment in the last 12 months (%)

12 Being undermined or humiliated 17

7 False allegations made against me 5

14 Shouting or very heated arguments 12

12 Verbal abuse or insult 11

1 Unwanted attention of a sexual nature 4

0.3 Sexual assault 0.3

6 Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 6

4 Physical threat 2

2 Physical assault (not of a sexual nature) 2

5 Male Discriminatory behaviour 6 Female

6 Other oensive or threatening behaviour 5 Base: all workers (n=5,136)

QuiteFigure stark 33: Resolution differences of workplace are reported conflict between and unfair mentreatment and (%)women (Figure 32). Women report greater incidence of being undermined or humiliated (17%), non-sexual intimidation/ Being undermined or humiliated 14 37 49 harassment (6%), discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic (which includes gender) (6%)False and allegations unwanted made against attention me of a32 sexual nature,31 which although37 marginal is

reported byShouting more or thanvery heated double arguments the proportion37 of women (4%)32 compared 32with men (1.3%). Men, in contrast, more often report shouting or heated arguments (14%), verbal abuse or insult (12%), false allegationsVerbal abuse or made insult against30 them (7%),27 and physical threat43 (4%). In some cases, theUnwanted more attention aggressive of a sexual nature nature of a number27 of these19 conflicts may54 reflect occupational differences between men and women, but also could reflect differences in the way men and Sexual assault 22 21 57 women interact with others at work, or indeed reflect differences between the public and private sectors.Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 19 31 50 In terms of other diversityPhysical characteristics, threat we37 find differences21 in workplace43 conflict and unfair treatmentPhysical assault according (not of a sexual to nature) ethnicity, with40 discrimination22 being reported38 by 13% of non- white workers compared with only 5% of white workers. Discriminatory behaviour 15 25 60 We also see differences by sexual orientation and gender identity, in line with the UK Other oensive or threatening behaviour 25 30 45 Government’s LGBT survey.105 Being undermined or humiliated is reported by one in five

LGBTFully workers resolved compared Partly resolved with 14% of Not heterosexual resolved workers, and discrimination is reported by 5% of heterosexual workers, but more than double the proportion of LGBT workers (11%). Base: all workers (n=5,136) While this seems to tell a clear story, more data is needed – for example, we do not know in our survey whether a worker’s sexual orientation is known to managers or workers.

38 Relationships at work Figure 31: Psychological safety (%)

Mistakes held against one 19 20 62

Exclusion 22 18 60

Social support 67 17 17

Trust colleagues 73 17 10

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree

‘If I make a mistake my manager or supervisor will hold it against me’ ‘People in my team sometimes reject others for being dierent’ ‘No one in my team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my eorts’ ‘I trust my colleagues to act with integrity’

Base: all employees (n=4,546)

Figure 32: Experiences of workplace conflict and unfair treatment in the last 12 months (%)

12 Being undermined or humiliated 17

7 False allegations made against me 5

14 Shouting or very heated arguments 12

12 Verbal abuse or insult 11

1 Unwanted attention of a sexual nature 4

0.3 Sexual assault 0.3

6 Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 6

4 Physical threat 2

2 Physical assault (not of a sexual nature) 2

5 Male Discriminatory behaviour UK Working6 Lives Female

6 Other oensive or threatening behaviour 5 Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 33: Resolution of workplace conflict and unfair treatment (%)

Being undermined or humiliated 14 37 49

False allegations made against me 32 31 37

Shouting or very heated arguments 37 32 32

Verbal abuse or insult 30 27 43

Unwanted attention of a sexual nature 27 19 54

Sexual assault 22 21 57

Intimidation/harassment (non-sexual) 19 31 50

Physical threat 37 21 43

Physical assault (not of a sexual nature) 40 22 38

Discriminatory behaviour 15 25 60

Other oensive or threatening behaviour 25 30 45

Fully resolved Partly resolved Not resolved

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Turning to conflict resolution in Figure 33, we find that of those reporting conflict of some form in the last 12 months, just over half report that it has been resolved or partly resolved. This differs by the type of conflict reported, with more complex and serious conflicts, including forms of sexual harassment, appearing less likely to be resolved. Also important to note is that other behaviours, which by their nature may be difficult to prove or change, including being undermined or humiliated and discrimination, have the lowest levels of reported full resolution in both cases, equating to around 14%. Across our entire sample what this means is that one in seven of all employees report at least one unresolved conflict in the workplace in the last 12 months. Conflicts at work and turnover intention An important potential negative impact for organisations of incidence of conflict at work is the risk of losing human capital or ‘talent’. Evidence from the UKWL survey suggests this is indeed a potential outcome. More than one in four workers who report having experienced a conflict at work in the last 12 months state that it is likely or very likely that they will quit their job in the next year, compared with only one in seven who report having experienced no conflict. Even if we remove those who have been in their current job for less than a year from our analysis, we still find that reported intention to leave remains consistent.

Figure 34: Experiences of conflict at work and turnover intention (%)

Yes 10 18 18 23 31

No 5 9 17 25 44

How likely or unlikely do you Very likely think it is that you will Likely voluntarily quit your job in the next 12 months? Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely Very unlikely Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 35: Channels for voice available to workers (%) Relationships at work 39 One-to-one meetings with your line manager 59

Team meetings 47 Employee survey 38

All-department or all-organisation meetings 21 Trade union 20 Online forum or chat room for employees (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) 12 Employee focus groups 10 Non-union sta“ association or consultation committee 5 Other 3

None of the above 19

Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546)

Figure 36: Channels for voice, by sector (%)

54 One-to-one meetings 73 with your line manager 76 41 Team meetings 64 65 32 Employee survey 60 49

All-department or all- 17 organisation meetings 31 36 12 Trade union 52 24 Online forum or chat room for 11 employees (for example an enterprise 13 social network, such as Yammer) 16 9 Employee focus groups 12 Private 17 Public Non-union sta“ association or 4 6 consultation committee 11 Voluntary 3 Other 2 5 24 None of the above 6 8

Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546) UK Working Lives

8 Voice and representation

Key findings Although workers have a range of channels for voice, we should be concerned about the willingness of managers to genuinely consult them on decisions and even to keep them informed about organisational developments. • Direct methods of voice are the most common, including one-to-one meetings, team meetings and employee surveys. • Considerable differences are found between sectors in the channels available to workers, with significantly lesser availability of more formal employee surveys and trade union representation in the private sector. • Employees who have union or non-union representation, on average, are positive about their representatives, although about one in four employees feel their representative’s performance is poor. • Managers are considered less open to allowing employees to influence final decisions than inviting opinions in the first place. Meanwhile, a third of employees feel management do not keep them adequately informed of discussions and decisions.

Employee voice and representation refers to the opportunities available to workers to directly engage with managers or indirectly engage with their employer through employee representatives (union or non-union). Employee voice is undoubtedly an important aspect of the quality of work. It has both an instrumental and intrinsic value: • The instrumental value of voice is in the way it enables a worker to influence their conditions of work through communicating preferences and concerns and being able to make a difference in an organisation.106 • In addition, as an intrinsic dimension of job quality,107 it has an important role in our understanding of the quality of work encountered by UK workers. Having a meaningful voice is part of what makes us human, so even if it doesn’t lead to actual external change, it can still be motivating or satisfying. International comparisons on employee voice One way to measure employees’ ability to influence and have a voice is their access to trade union representatives. Levels of trade union density in the UK are slightly above average, according to an international measure for 25 comparator countries.108 The UK comes 10th out of 25, alongside Austria, Slovenia and Chile. The highest levels of unionisation are the Scandinavian countries, in particular Iceland, Denmark and Sweden; the mid-ranked countries are New Zealand, Japan and Germany; and the lowest levels of union membership are in France, Lithuania and Estonia.

40 Voice and representation UK Working Lives

Table 7: Country rankings of an international index of union density Union density rank Country 1 Iceland 2 Denmark 3 Sweden 4 Finland 5 Belgium 6 Norway 7 Israel 8= Austria 8= Slovenia 10 United Kingdom 11 Chile 12 New Zealand 13 Japan 14 Germany 15 Switzerland 16 Australia 17 Spain 18 Latvia 19 Mexico 20 Czech Republic 21 United States 22 Hungary 23 France 24 Lithuania 25 Estonia

However, union density is a narrow measure of employee voice. The UKWL survey focuses in detail on two main aspects of employee voice: first, the institutional mechanisms or channels that enable employees to communicate their perspectives; and second, the behavioural norms or culture that determine the openness of management to employee voice and the willingness of employees to exercise it. Channels for voice A range of channels for voice are considered in the UKWL survey. The majority of employees report having access to a number of channels for voice (Figure 35). Local forms of communication and voice are the most common channels, including one-to-one meetings with a line manager reported by three-fifths of employees, and team meetings (47%). Employee surveys are also fairly common among the UKWL sample (38%). Other methods of voice are less common. Around a fifth of respondents report all- department or all-organisation meetings and more formalised trade union representation. The latter statistic evidencing methods of indirect representation is relatively consistent with the latest UK averages available, which find union membership among 23% of all in employment in 2017.109 It should also be noted that almost a fifth of employees report having access to none of these mechanisms of communication. 41 Voice and representation Figure 34: Experiences of conflict at work and turnover intention (%)

Yes 10 18 18 23 31

No 5 9 17 25 44

How likely or unlikely do you Very likely think it is that you will Likely voluntarily quit your job in UK Working Lives the next 12 months? Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely Very unlikely Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 35:34: ChannelsExperiences for ofvoice conflict available at work to workers and turnover (%) intention (%)

Yes 10One-to-one18 meetings18 with your line 23 manager 31 59 Team meetings 47 No 5 9 17 25 44 Employee survey 38

How All-departmentlikely or unlikely or do all-organisation you meetingsVery likely 21 think it is that you will Trade unionLikely voluntarily quit your job in 20 the nextOnline 12 months? forum or chat room for employeesNeither likely nor unlikely (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) 12 Unlikely Employee focus groups Very unlikely 10 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Non-union sta“ association or consultation committee 5 Other 3

Figure 35: Channels for voice availableNone of the to above workers (%) 19

Base: all employeesOne-to-one including meetings freelancers with with your only line one manager client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546) 59

Team meetings 47 Access to channels for voiceEmployee does surveyappear to differ considerably by38 sector of employment (Figure 36). Workers in the public and voluntary sector report greater opportunities for voice, All-department or all-organisation meetings 21 in particular in respect of more formal direct channels such as employee surveys, where we Figure 36: Channels for voice, by sectorTrade (%) union 20 find this methodOnline forum of or communication chat room for employees reported by three-fifths of public sector and just under (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) 12 54 half of voluntaryOne-to-one sector meetings workers, but only a third of private sector employees.73 Indirect trade with your line manager union representation offersEmployee the focus starkest groups difference,10 as only 12% of private sector76 workers Non-union sta“ association or 41 report union membership,Team meetingsconsultation while committee union density5 in the public sector is consistent64 with national averages at 52%.110 Non-union indirectOther representation3 is more common in65 the voluntary sector 32 (11%), but is relativelyEmployee survey marginalNone of in the presence above in the private19 and public 60sector. 49 Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546) A lack of All-departmentaccess to channels or all- for voice 17appears to be a primarily private sector problem. organisation meetings 31 Almost a quarter of private sector employees report36 having access to no channels for voice, while proportions in the public (6%)12 and voluntary sectors (8%) are considerably lower. Trade union 52 24 FigureOnline 36: forum Channels or chat for room voice, for by sector 11(%) employees (for example an enterprise 13 social network, such as Yammer) 16 54 One-to-one meetings 9 73 Employeewith your focusline manager groups 12 Private 76 17 Public41 Non-union sta“Team association meetings or 4 64 6 65 consultation committee 11 Voluntary 32 Employee survey 3 60 Other 2 49 5 17 All-department or all- 24 organisation meetings 31 None of the above 6 36 8 12 Base: all employees includingTrade freelancers union with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546)52 24 Online forum or chat room for 11 employees (for example an enterprise 13 social network, such as Yammer) 16 9 Employee focus groups 12 Private 17 Public Non-union sta“ association or 4 6 consultation committee 11 Voluntary 3 Other 2 5 24 None of the above 6 8

Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,546)

42 Voice and representation UK Working Lives

Among those employees who report having union or non-union representation (Figure 37), we find a fairly consistent proportion – around two-fifths – who report their representatives are good or very good in performing their roles. However, over a quarter consider their representatives to be doing a poor or very poor job.

Figure 37: Employee ratings of their representatives (%)

Seeking the views of employees 42 31 27

Representing employee views to senior managers 40 33 27

Keeping employees informed of management discussions or decisions 39 31 31

FigureVery 37:good Employee or good ratingsNeither of their good representatives nor poor Poor (%) or very poor

Base: employeesSeeking the with views workplace of employees representatives (n=944)42 31 27

Representing employee views FigureManagerial 38: Managerialto openness senior openness managers to to voiceemployee40 voice (%) 33 27

EmployeesKeeping employees tend to informed feel that of managers are good at seeking their views (43%) and Seeking the views of employees 39 31 31 respondingmanagement discussionsor toemployee suggestions or representatives decisions (40%). Managers43 are slightly28 worse, 29though, at allowing

employeesResponding or their to suggestions representatives from to influence final decisions (32%). Views on how well Very good or good Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor managersemployees orkeep employee employees representatives informed are40 slightly more31 mixed: 42%29 report their managers

areBase: goodemployeesAllowing in with this employeesworkplace respect, representatives or employee whereas (n=944) around a third report them as being poor (Figure 38). representatives to influence final decisions 32 33 35

Keeping employees informed of Figuremanagement 38: Managerial discussions openness or decisions to employee 42voice (%) 26 33

Seeking the views of employees Very good or goodemployee representatives Neither good nor poor43 Poor or very poor28 29

Base: all employeesResponding including to freelancerssuggestions with from only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417) employees or employee representatives 40 31 29

Allowing employees or employee 32 33 35 Figurerepresentatives 39: Managerial to influence openness final decisions to employee voice, by sector (% net positive)

30 Keeping employees informed of management discussions or decisions 42 26 33 25 25 Very good or good Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor 20 20 Seeking the views of employees Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417)or employee representatives 15 14 13 Responding to suggestions from 12 12 EmployeesFigure 39: Managerial in the public openness sector to employee are more voice, negative by sector in (% general net positive)employees about ortheir employee managers representatives 10 9 8 (Figure30 39). This is evident with respect to employees’ perceptionsAllowing employees of whether or employee managers 5 respond5 to suggestions from employees (or their representatives),representatives and to in influence particular final decisions 2 25 allowing25 employees (or their representatives) to influence final decisions. 0 Keeping employees informed of 20 management discussions or decisions 20 –2 Seeking the views of employees –5 or employee representatives 15 14 13 Responding to suggestions from –10 12 12 employees or employee representatives –12 10 9 8 –15 Allowing employees or employee Private Public 5 Voluntary 5 sector sector sector representatives to influence final decisions 2 Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% very poor or poor) 0 Keeping employees informed of Base: all employees, including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417)management discussions or decisions –2 –5

–10 Voice and representation 43 –12 –15 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector

Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% very poor or poor) Base: all employees, including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417) Figure 37: Employee ratings of their representatives (%)

Seeking the views of employees 42 31 27

Representing employee views to senior managers 40 33 27

Keeping employees informed of management discussions or decisions 39 31 31

Very good or good Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor

Base: employees with workplace representatives (n=944)

Figure 38: Managerial openness to employee voice (%)

Seeking the views of employees or employee representatives 43 28 29

Responding to suggestions from employees or employee representatives 40 31 29

Allowing employees or employee representatives to influence final decisions 32 33 35

Keeping employees informed of management discussions or decisions 42 26 33 UK Working Lives Very good or good Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor

Base: all employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417)

Figure 39: Managerial openness to employee voice, by sector (% net positive)

30

25 25 20 20 Seeking the views of employees or employee representatives 15 14 13 Responding to suggestions from 12 12 employees or employee representatives 10 9 8 Allowing employees or employee 5 5 representatives to influence final decisions 2 0 Keeping employees informed of management discussions or decisions –2 –5

–10 –12 –15 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector

Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% very poor or poor) Base: all employees, including freelancers with only one client, excluding other self-employed (n=4,417)

9 Health and well-being

Key findings UK jobs tend to have positive impacts on workers’ physical and mental health; mental health benefits are especially pronounced. However, work acts as a considerable stressor for a worrying proportion of us. • Workers tend to report positive feelings about their job, such as enthusiasm, although notable proportions also report boredom in their job. • Intense and stressful working conditions – including feeling exhausted, miserable or under excessive pressure – are reported by up to one in four workers. • Two in five workers report having experienced some form of work-related health condition in the last 12 months. • The most common health problems resulting from work are musculoskeletal, anxiety and sleep problems. Some important differences are found in impacts on mental and physical health by age and gender. • Satisfaction with life is a generally accepted overall measure of well-being. We find notable differences in reported satisfaction with life overall between occupational groups, with those in higher-level occupations reporting greater satisfaction levels.

The impact of work on health and broader well-being has become increasingly acknowledged as being central to our understanding of job quality and good work.111 Health and well-being is both a useful indicator of the job quality experienced by workers and can also be considered as reflecting an outcome of the quality of work encountered by individuals. International comparisons on health and well-being at work UK workers have slightly worse health and well-being at work than average, according to international measures of job strain and stress.112 The UK sits 16th in a list of 25 comparator

44 Health and well-being UK Working Lives

countries, alongside Hungary and Austria. Israel, Switzerland and New Zealand rank top; Australia, the United States and Norway come in the middle; and France, Slovenia and Japan rank bottom.

Table 8: Country rankings of an international index of health and well-being (job strain and stress) Health and Country well-being rank 1 Israel 2 Switzerland 3 New Zealand 4 Mexico 5 Denmark 6 Estonia 7 Chile* 8 Latvia* 9 Finland 10 Lithuania* 11 Czech Republic 12 Australia 13 United States 14 Norway 15 Hungary 16 United Kingdom 17 Austria 18 Iceland* 19 Germany 20 Sweden 21 Belgium 22 Spain 23 France 24 Slovenia 25 Japan *Due to absent data, population means are imputed for these figures. This maintains the ability to produce an overall ranking but makes the ranking of the country on this metric unreliable.

The UKWL survey collects data on a range of indicators of both physical and mental health, including overall positive or negative impact of work on our health, various states of mental health and the presence of a number of health conditions related to work. Impacts on mental and physical health Two in five workers (40%) believe work positively affects their mental health, more than the proportion seeing a negative effect (26%). For physical health, opinions are more split, with similar proportions reporting that work helps as harms them (Figure 40).

45 Health and well-being UK Working Lives

Figure 40: Impact of work on health (%)

8 6

24 31

40 Very positively 35 Positively Figure 40: Impact of work on healthNeither (%) positively nor negatively 21 28 Negatively 6 8 Very negatively 5 3 24 Mental Physical 31 health health

Impact of work on health 40 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Very positively 35 Positively The impacts of work on healthNeither can alsopositively be norconsidered negatively with respect to the subjective feelings workersFigure 41: haveEnergy in and their mental jobs. health A little at work under (%) a quarter of workers report feeling miserable and/ 21 28 Negatively or exhausted either always or oftenVery negatively in their jobs (Figure 41). In addition, around 12% report At my work 5I feel... Full of energy 24 45 31 feeling ‘under excessive3 pressure’, a measure that is considered as a general indicator of Mental Physical stress.113health These patternshealthEnthusiastic point toward13 incidence33 of intense working54 routines, identified as an

increasinglyImpact ofTime commonwork flies on whenhealth feature at work in11 certain areas37 of contemporary52 work, including some higher- paid jobs,114 and one that could have serious negative impacts on the health – both mental Base: all workers (n=5,136) Bored and physical – of workers, which may be52 manifest in health conditions.35 14 Miserable 59 30 12 Figure 41: Energy and mental health at work (%) Under excessive pressure 36 41 22

At my work I feel... FullExhausted of energy 2433 45 45 3122

Enthusiastic 13 33 54 Rarely or never Sometimes Often or always Time flies when at work 11 37 52 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Bored 52 35 14

Miserable 59 30 12 Figure 42: Health conditions due to work in the last year (%) Under excessive pressure 36 41 22 Backache or other bone, joint or muscle problems 29 Exhausted 33 45 22 Repetitive strain injury (RSI) 7

Skin problems 7 Rarely or never Sometimes Often or always Anxiety 25 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Panic attacks 6

Work-related health conditionsDepression 14 Figure 42: Health conditions due to work in the last year (%) Two in five workers (44%)Sleep report problems having experienced some form of work-related28 health conditionBackache or otherin the bone, last joint 12 or months. muscle problems These conditions may or may not have led to29 workers taking Alcohol or drug dependence 2 time off work. Repetitive strain injury (RSI) 7 Breathing problems 3 The most common physicalSkin healthproblems problems in7 the UKWL sample are musculoskeletal, Heart problems 2 including back and joint ache, reported by three in ten workers. Other physical effects Anxiety 25 of work include repetitiveHearing strain problems injury (RSI)2 and skin problems. Mental health problems, Panic attacks 6 though, Roadare alsotraˆc accidentquite pronounced, while commuting with2 a quarter of respondents reporting having Depression 14 Injury due to an accident 3 Sleep problems 28 OtherHealth2 and well-being 46 Base: all workers (n=5,136)Alcohol or drug dependence 2

Breathing problems 3

Heart problems 2

Hearing problems 2

Road traˆc accident while commuting 2

Injury due to an accident 3

Other 2 Base: all workers (n=5,136) Figure 40: Impact of work on health (%)

8 6

24 31

40 Very positively 35 Positively Neither positively nor negatively

21 28 Negatively Very negatively 5 3 Mental Physical health health UK Working Lives Impact of work on health

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure 41: Energy and mental health at work (%) experienced anxiety and 14% depression. Aside from musculoskeletal problems, difficulty

sleepingAt my work I isfeel... the secondFull of energymost reported24 health condition45 (28%), which31 can reflect both a mental and physical impact of work. A range of other conditions are reported, but all are relatively more marginalEnthusiastic in incidence13 (Figure33 42). 54 Time flies when at work 11 37 52 Quite stark differences are present by gender in the case of anxiety. A fifth of men report having experienced anxietyBored in the last year;52 however, for women35 this figure14 is higher, at

29%. Gender differencesMiserable are not as pronounced59 for other health30 conditions,12 although musculoskeletal effects are reported by fewer men (26%) compared with women (34%). Physical healthUnder excessive problems, pressure including36 musculoskeletal and41 RSI, are more22 common among older survey respondents,Exhausted as we might33 expect. Mental45 health problems,22 meanwhile, are more often reported by younger workers. We find, for example, that anxiety is experienced by around a Rarelythird or of never those aged Sometimes under 35, compared Often or always with only 18% of those aged 55 and over. Panic attacks are reported by around 9% of those aged under 35, compared with 5% Base: all workers (n=5,136) among the 45–54 age group and 4% of those aged 55 and over.

Figure 42: Health conditions due to work in the last year (%)

Backache or other bone, joint or muscle problems 29

Repetitive strain injury (RSI) 7

Skin problems 7

Anxiety 25

Panic attacks 6

Depression 14

Sleep problems 28

Alcohol or drug dependence 2

Breathing problems 3

Heart problems 2

Hearing problems 2

Road traˆc accident while commuting 2

Injury due to an accident 3

Other 2 Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Differences across occupational groups The impact of work on health varies across occupational groups (Figure 43). In particular, mid-level managers and professionals (social grade B) and junior managers and associate professionals (C1) report more negative effects on both their mental and physical health. In the prior case this may reflect intense working routines that create work-related stress: a quarter of workers in grade B occupations report always or often feeling ‘under excessive pressure’, a description that encapsulates the Health and Safety Executive’s definition of workplace stress.

47 Health and well-being UK Working Lives

Figure 43: Impact of work on health, by occupational group (%)

50 Mental health

40

30 35 30 31 33 20 29

10 10 8 7 10 8 0

–10 –19 –19 –19 –24 –23

–20 –4 –6 –5 –5 –5 –30

–40 A B C1 C2 D or E

50 Physical health

40

30

28 20 27 28 21 19 10

6 5 5 7 5 0

–10 Positively –26 –27 –29 –28 –27 Very positively –20 Negatively –2 –2 Very negatively –30 –3 –3 –4

–40 A B C1 C2 D or E

Base: all workers (n=5,136)

Figure10 44: The Mean scores CIPD for the Job Quality Job Index 2018–2019 Quality Index In0.9 this section we consider the different dimensions of job quality together. The focus in this section is on exploring the relationship between our dimensions of job quality and several 0.8 measures that capture the outcomes of job quality. 0.7 International comparisons of job quality We0.6 start with an international view that places the UK in the middle of a table of 25 comparator countries. As discussed in previous sections, according to our international 0.5 measures, the UK sits: 0.4 • above average for skills, autonomy and development (7th) and the stability of contracts (8th) •0.3 slightly above average in union density (10th), one measure of employee voice • average for relationships at work (12th) 0.2 2018 0.1 48 The CIPD Job Quality Index 2019 (2018 method) 0 2019 (revised method) Work–life Pay and Contracts Skills, Job Relationships Voice and Health and balance benefits autonomy complexity at work representation well-being and develpment Base: all employees (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

• slightly below average for pay (15th) and health and well-being (16th) • almost bottom for work–life balance (24th). To give a total ranking, we weight these different indices according to how important they are for job satisfaction in the UK.115 Overall, the UK comes 13th out of 25, exactly in the middle, with Germany one place above it and Lithuania one place below (see Table 9). Switzerland, Norway and Denmark come top in these rankings of good work and Spain, Japan and France are ranked bottom.116

Table 9: Country rankings of an international index of good work Good work rank Country 1 Switzerland 2 Norway 3 Denmark 4 Israel 5 Latvia 6 Iceland 7 Austria 8 United States 9 Finland 10 New Zealand 11 Estonia 12 Germany 13 United Kingdom 14 Lithuania 15 Belgium 16 Australia 17 Hungary 18 Mexico 19 Chile 20 Czech Republic 21 Sweden 22 Slovenia 23 Spain 24 Japan 25 France

UK Working Lives survey analysis Turning to the more comprehensive set of measures in UK Working Lives, we calculate job quality indexes for each of the seven dimensions of job quality. Explanation of how these are constructed can be found in the Appendix to this report.117 Below we look at how these vary between different groups, before analysing the relationships between these indices of job quality and four key outcomes: job satisfaction, enthusiasm, work effort and likelihood of quitting.

49 The CIPD Job Quality Index UK Working Lives

Work–life balance and flexible working The index for work–life balance includes measures of achieved work–life balance, measures that take account of the impact of paid work on our lives and vice versa. It also incorporates the presence of both formal and informal flexible working arrangements, and levels of overwork. Mean scores for the work–life balance index are marginally lower in higher-level occupations. Poor work–life balance is more common among mid-level managers and professionals (social grade B), who have a mean index score of 0.52, compared with 0.53 overall. This offers further evidence of the challenges present for these workers, who also report the highest workloads (section 6) and more negative impacts on health and well- being (section 9). The mixed results across occupations for the work–life balance index highlight that jobs that otherwise exhibit good characteristics can also have bad qualities.118 Pay and benefits The pay and benefits index includes either an objective or subjective measure of pay, and in addition factors in levels of pension contributions and reported worker benefits. The scores for the pay and benefits index are clearly linked to occupational level. Using the subjective method, those in higher-level occupations score much higher: 0.52 in social grade A and 0.47 in social grade B – than those in occupation grades D or E (0.40). These differences appear even starker using the objective pay method. Workers on insecure and temporary contracts also have lower scores on the pay and benefits index, reflecting not only the lower pay often associated with these jobs but also the lack of employee benefits in these precarious forms of work. Contracts Our index for the terms of employment dimension of job quality is calculated using details of job security and reported levels of underemployment. Average scores for the contracts index are highest among mid-level managerial and professional workers (social grade B: index score of 0.87) and junior managerial, clerical, administrative and professional workers (social grade C1: index score of 0.86). As per the scores for the majority of job quality dimensions, scores are lowest among grade D and E occupations (0.80). As we would expect, the inherent insecure nature of temporary, zero- hours and short-hours employment translates into lower scores for this index (mean 0.55) among workers on these contract types. Job design and the nature of work The job design and the nature of work dimension of job quality is split into two indexes. First, the nature of work index incorporates workload, levels of autonomy, resources available to workers, meaningfulness – that is, whether workers feel their work contributes to their organisation and/or society – and the suitability of workers’ qualifications and skills for the job. Second, a job complexity index is measured separately from indicators relating to how often a job involves problem-solving and complex, interesting and monotonous tasks. Workers in higher-level occupations have considerably higher index scores for the nature of work component: 0.62 in social grade A, compared with 0.51 in social grades D and E. These differences are even more pronounced for job complexity (0.69 for social grade A and 0.65 for grade B, compared with only 0.49 in social grades D and E). This points to large inherent differences in the content and nature of work conducted across occupational groups.

50 The CIPD Job Quality Index UK Working Lives

Relationships at work The relationships at work index consists of measures of the quality of relationships with others at work, psychological safety, which considers whether workers feel they can take risks and how blame and mistakes are handled, as well as how workers feel about line management. In addition, measures of trust and whether a worker has experienced conflict at work are incorporated into the index. We get a mixed picture with respect to mean values of this index across occupational groups. While there is a general trend of lower scores for this index in lower-level occupations as per the other indexes, scores for skilled manual workers (NRS social grade C2) are comparable, at 0.71, with those of higher-level occupations, for example social grade B at 0.72. Differences are more pronounced by work sector, where we find lower scores in the public sector. This suggests lower-quality relationships present in this sector, and is also at least partially attributable to incidence of conflict at work, as we find differences in the mean index score to be greater using the revised calculation method that includes this factor. Voice and representation Employee voice and representation is captured through evidence of direct (for example employee surveys, meetings with managers) and indirect (union and non-union representation) channels for workers to be heard. It also includes measures that reflect on the managerial culture within the workplace. Differences by occupational group follow the overall trend of the other indexes, with higher scores among higher-level occupations. Important also to note for this index are the stark differences by sector of employment. Those in the private sector score considerably lower (0.27) than workers in the public (0.40) or voluntary sectors (0.40). Voice and representation is also notably lower in temporary, zero-hours and short-hours employment (0.30), evidencing the challenge of workers being heard in these insecure jobs. Health and well-being The health and well-being index is constructed using measures of both physical and mental health. It incorporates subjective measures of how work affects physical and mental health as well as measures of health conditions, levels of energy and exhaustion, whether workers feel miserable, and work-related stress captured through a measure of the presence of excessive pressure at work. Mean scores for the health and well-being index are more evenly spread across occupational groups, with higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations (0.62) the only group scoring notably higher than the overall mean for this index. Job quality outcomes We begin our analysis of job quality outcomes by considering the overall patterns in our four outcome measures, with comparison included with the 2018 UKWL. Job satisfaction is a fairly standard indicator of the level of happiness of workers. We find around seven in ten workers report being either satisfied or very satisfied with their job. This is broadly consistent with patterns observed in the 2018 UKWL (64%) and with previous data from the CIPD Employee Outlook, although these data have been subject to some short-term volatility.

51 The CIPD Job Quality Index UK Working Lives

Figure 44: Job satisfaction (%)

2018 5 13 18 46 18 Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied 2019 4 10 17 46 23 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Figure 44: Job satisfaction (%) Satisfied Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very satisfied

2018 5 13 18 46 18 Very dissatisfied If we break down job satisfaction by occupational group,Dissatisfied we observe a clear relationship Figure2019 4 45:10 Job satisfaction,17 by occupational46 group (%)23 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied between occupation level and satisfaction: three-quarters of workers in social grades A and Satisfied B report satisfaction with their job, compared with around two-thirds of workers in group Base: Aall employees3 8 (2018:15 n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136)45 30 Very satisfied C2 and three in five workers in groups D and E. Figure 44: Job satisfaction (%) B 3 10 14 51 22 Figure2018 5 45: 13Job satisfaction,18 by occupational46 group (%)18 Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied 2019C1A 434 108 11 1517 18 4546 47 3023 21 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very satisfied C2B 35 1010 1416 5144 2422

FigureD orC1 E 445: Job1115 satisfaction,18 20 by occupational4743 group (%)2119

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied C2A 35 8 10 15 16 45 44 3024 Satisfied Very satisfied

DBase: or BEall employees34 1015 (n=5,136)14 20 51 43 2219

FigureC1Very 46:4 dissatisfied I11 am enthusiastic18 Dissatisfied about my47 jobNeither (%) satisfied nor21 dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 2018 2 12 33 37 16 Never Base:C2 all employees5 10 (n=5,136)16 44 24 Rarely 2019 2 11 33 37 17 Sometimes Often FigureD or E 446: I15 am enthusiastic20 about my 43job (%) 19 LevelsBase: all employees of enthusiasm (2018: n=6,009, is2019: another n=5,136) useful outcome indicatorAlways as it provides insight into the

feelings2018 2 12 of workers33 towards their37 job. Here we16 find 54%Never of workers are either ‘often’ or Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied ‘always’ enthusiastic about their job, while only 13% reportRarely feeling low levels of enthusiasm. Figure 47: Work e­ort: I am willing to work harder than I have to in order Meanwhile,2019Satisfied2 11 three33 in Veryfive satisfied workers 37report that they17 are willingSometimes to work harder than necessary to help my employer or organisation (%) inBase: order all employees to help (n=5,136) their employer or clients. Often Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Always 2018 5 12 28 47 8 Strongly disagree Figure 46: I am enthusiastic about my job (%) Disagree 2019 4 12 24 49 11 Neither agree nor disagree Figure 47: Work e­ort: I am willing to work harder than I have to in order AgreeNever to2018 help2 my12 employer33 or organisation (%)37 16 Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) StronglyRarely agree 2019 2018 25 11 12 3328 3747 17 8 StronglySometimes disagree DisagreeOften Base:2019 all4 employees12 (2018: 24n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) 49 11 NeitherAlways agree nor disagree Figure 48: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting job in the next year (%) Agree Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) VeryStrongly unlikely agree Figure2018 47: Work37 e­ort: I am willing24 to work21 harder than 13 I 13have to in order to help my employer or organisation (%) Unlikely 2019 40 25 17 12 6 Neither likely nor unlikely Strongly disagree Figure2018 5 48:12 Likelihood28 of voluntarily quitting47 job in the next8 year (%)Likely Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) VeryDisagree likely 2019 2018 4 12 37 24 24 49 21 1311 13 VeryNeither unlikely agree nor disagree UnlikelyAgree Base:2019 all employees (2018:40 n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136)25 17 12 6 NeitherStrongly likely agree nor unlikely Likely Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very likely 52 Figure 48: Likelihood of voluntarily quittingThe CIPD job in Jobthe next Quality year (%)Index 2018 37 24 21 13 13 Very unlikely Unlikely 2019 40 25 17 12 6 Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very likely Figure 44: Job satisfaction (%)

2018 5 13 18 46 18 Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied 2019 4 10 17 46 23 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very satisfied

Figure 45: Job satisfaction, by occupational group (%)

A 3 8 15 45 30

B 3 10 14 51 22

C1 4 11 18 47 21

C2 5 10 16 44 24

D or E 4 15 20 43 19

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied

Base: all employees (n=5,136)

Figure 46: I am enthusiastic about my job (%)

2018 2 12 33 37 16 Never UK Working Lives Rarely 2019 2 11 33 37 17 Sometimes Often Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Always

Finally,Figure 47: we Work consider e­ort: Ithe am willinglikelihood to work of hardervoluntarily than I havequitting to in orderin the next year as an indicator ofto helprelative my employer dissatisfaction or organisation with current(%) employment. We find that approximately the same proportion of workers indicate that they intend to quit their job, as do those who report 2018 5 12 28 47 8 Strongly disagree being dissatisfied with their job, unenthusiastic or unwillingDisagree to go the extra mile for their employer2019 4 12 or clients.24 This suggests49 that these outcomes11 Neitherare quite agree norstrongly disagree related to one another. This is confirmed by statistically significant correlationsAgree between these variables, whichBase: all employees are strong (2018: n=6,009, between 2019: n=5,136) job satisfaction and job enthusiasmStrongly (0.615),agree moderate between job enthusiasm and work effort (0.438), but somewhat weaker between remaining measures.119

Figure 48: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting job in the next year (%)

2018 37 24 21 13 13 Very unlikely Unlikely 2019 40 25 17 12 6 Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Base: all employees (2018: n=6,009, 2019: n=5,136) Very likely

The Job Quality Index and outcomes of job quality We explore the outcomes of job quality by focusing on how our seven dimensions relate to four key measures: how satisfied people are with their jobs overall; at a more emotional level, how enthusiastic they feel about their work day-to-day; in terms of motivation, how much effort they put in; and in terms of commitment to the organisation, how likely they are to quit (Figure 49; see Appendix for full results). We conduct regression analysis as this allows us to look at each unique association or relationship while controlling for other factors.

Figure 49: Job Quality Index and related outcomes (regression coecients)120

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

–0.5

–1.0 Work–life Pay and Contracts Nature Job Relationships Voice and Health and balance benefits of work complexity at work representation well-being

–1.5

Job satisfaction Job enthusiasm Work eˆort Likely to quit job

Base: all employees (n=5,136)

We find that all dimensions of job quality are relevant, that is, statistically significant, and positive with respect to job satisfaction. The nature of work, and health and well-being appearFigure 50: to Dierence have the in strongest CIPD Job Quality relationships Index, by with whether relative work flexiblysatisfaction (d values) with124 job, suggesting that these aspects of job quality may be at the centre of happiness in work. These dimensions, 0.6 as well as job complexity, are also important to reported0.55 levels of job enthusiasm, but we find that0.5 work–life balance, pay and benefits,0.48 and contracts are not statistically0.48 significant for this outcome, casting0.41 some doubt over their relevance to this outcome measure. 0.4

0.29 53 0.3 The CIPD Job Quality Index0.28

0.2 0.13 0.09 0.1

0.0 Work–life Pay and Contracts Nature Job Relationships Employee Health and balance benefits of work complexity at work voice well-being (subjective) Base: all employees (n=5,136)

Figure 51: Dierences in mean scores of CIPD Job Quality, by whether experienced conflict at work

Work–life Pay and The nature Job Relationships Voice and Health and balance benefits Contracts of work complexity at work representation well-being 0.00

–0.02 –0.012 –0.025 –0.04

–0.06 –0.060

–0.08

–0.091 –0.10 –0.098 –0.104 –0.12 –0.126 –0.14

–0.16 –0.151

Base: all employees (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

Five of our indexes have a positive relationship with reported levels of work effort, with aspects of the nature of work including skills, autonomy and development and job complexity appearing to have a particularly strong relationship. Intriguingly, we find that the contracts index has a negative relationship with work effort, that is, more secure jobs and/or those that do not result in underemployment are those in which workers report lesser willingness to go the extra mile for their employer. This could reflect workers in secure jobs feeling under less pressure to work harder than they have to, but equally could simply be a product of some permanent workers being overemployed and thus not being willing to put in any further additional effort. Finally, we find a negative relationship between all aspects of job quality and intention to quit, confirming that job quality has an important mediating effect on the turnover intention of workers. Higher scores in all of our job quality dimensions are associated with workers feeling it is less likely they will quit their job, with voice and representation the only non- Figure 49: Job Quality Index and related outcomes (regression coecients)120 significant result. 2.0 The latter is interesting, as it seems to downplay the classic notion proposed by Hirschman121

that1.5 employee ‘voice’ is a main alternative to quitting (‘exit’) or putting up with poor conditions (‘loyalty’); in the grand scheme of things, other aspects of job quality are more 122 important.1.0 However, as we discussed in last year’s UKWL survey, this analysis looks at the independent effect of voice, controlling for other aspects of job quality, that is, the intrinsic value0.5 of voice. Separate from this we can see that voice has an important influence on shaping these other aspects, that is, through its instrumental value (see section 8). 0 Work–life balance and flexible working

In –0.5line with the focus on work–life balance and flexible working in the 2019 UKWL, we consider in greater detail the relationship between flexibility in work and aspects of job quality. We observe differences in the mean values as a percentage of standard deviation –1.0 Work–life Pay and Contracts Nature Job Relationships Voice and Health and of the Jobbalance Qualitybenefits Index between thoseof work who workcomplexity flexiblyat workand thoserepresentation who dowell-being not (Figure

50).–1.5 There is a clear and consistent pattern of higher levels of job quality reported across all

dimensionsJob satisfaction among those Jobwho enthusiasm are able to workWork eˆort flexibly. It Likelyis likely to quit thatjob there is a level of dual causality in this relationship. Workers who are able to work flexibly benefit from improved Base:balance all employees between (n=5,136) work and life, which has wider work, lifestyle and well-being benefits;123 however, it is also likely that this simply reflects greater availability and use of flexible working in jobs that are better quality, as already noted in section 3.

Figure 50: Dierence in CIPD Job Quality Index, by whether work flexibly (d values)124

0.6 0.55

0.5 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.4

0.29 0.3 0.28

0.2 0.13 0.09 0.1

0.0 Work–life Pay and Contracts Nature Job Relationships Employee Health and balance benefits of work complexity at work voice well-being (subjective) Base: all employees (n=5,136)

Figure 51: Dierences in mean scores of CIPD Job Quality, by whether experienced conflict at work 54 The CIPD Job Quality Index

Work–life Pay and The nature Job Relationships Voice and Health and balance benefits Contracts of work complexity at work representation well-being 0.00

–0.02 –0.012 –0.025 –0.04

–0.06 –0.060

–0.08

–0.091 –0.10 –0.098 –0.104 –0.12 –0.126 –0.14

–0.16 –0.151

Base: all employees (n=5,136) UK Working Lives

To offer greater insight we perform a regression analysis that considers the relationship between availability of flexible working arrangements and levels of job quality (see Appendix for full results). We find weak but positive relationships with the pay and benefits, skills autonomy and development, job complexity and employee voice indexes. Alongside this, the analysis suggests that workers in the public and voluntary sectors are more likely to report greater availability of flexible working, while those in NRS social grade C2, D and E occupations have lesser availability. Combined, these findings suggest there is some weight to the assertion of greater availability, and in turn benefits, of flexible working arrangements in jobs that exhibit a number of other good qualities, including autonomy, complexity, and better pay and benefits. Finally, we perform separate analysis for men and women to take account of the differences we observed in the flexible working impacts reported by gender in section 3. We find that where there is greater availability and/or use of flexible working arrangements, this is associated with higher scores in the pay and benefits, the nature of work, and voice and representation indexes for both men and women. However, there are important gender differences. A positive relationship with the health and well-being index is only found among women, whereas for men we instead find a positive relationship with the job complexity index. These findings could reflect the positive quality of life impacts of flexible working we found reported by many women in section 3, and for men the positive relationship with job complexity may be indicative of the greater availability and use of flexible working in good jobs. Conflict at work We saw in section 7 that people’s experiences of conflict at work have large implications for their intention to quit. Given the importance of this, we analyse workplace conflict in further detail, in relation to the CIPD Job Quality Index. We assess how conflict relates to other dimensions of job quality through regression analysis, to allow us to control for other factors (Figure 51, see Appendix for full results). We find statistically significant negative relationships between experiences of conflict and our indexes, with only one exception (employee voice). We find a particularly strong negative relationship with health and well-being, highlighting how serious conflict is for our working lives. Unsurprisingly, we find a strong association between the presence of workplace conflict and workers’ assessment of social support and cohesion (the 2018 method of measuring relationships at work125). The positive relationship between conflict and job complexity reflects that differences of opinion and tension in relationships are more likely when work is not routine and straightforward.

Figure 51: CIPD Job Quality Index and whether experienced conflict at work (regression coecients)126

Work–life Pay and The nature Job Relationships Voice and Health and balance benefits Contracts of work complexity at work representation well-being –1.00 0.82

–0.50

0.00

–0.50 –0.27

–0.74 –0.67 –1.00 –0.80

–1.50 –1.59 –1.68 –2.00

Base: all employees (n=5,136) 55 The CIPD Job Quality Index UK Working Lives

The job complexity index is positive when controls are included in the analysis, while the relationship with the voice and representation index is insignificant. The latter of these two relationships is, therefore, not reliable. The result for complexity could reflect jobs that are complex and high pressure in nature being more likely to create incidence of conflict, but more research would need to be performed to better understand this relationship. Notwithstanding these two exceptions, our findings suggest that low job quality goes hand in hand with experiences of conflict at work. These findings also further expand our understanding of the relevance of aspects of job quality to the turnover intention of workers, which we found to be strongly related to both job quality dimensions and conflict at work.

11 Conclusion The UK Working Lives survey provides a snapshot of working life in the UK, offering insight into the dimensions of job quality, including through the analysis of the CIPD Job Quality Index, and related outcomes. This section outlines the central findings and conclusions from the analysis of the 2019 UKWL. In focus: work–life balance and flexible working Achieving work–life balance is undoubtedly a central focus of many workers, and has become increasingly acknowledged as a core dimension of job quality.127 In 2019 the UKWL survey gave specific focus to work–life balance and flexible working and this has been explored in depth in this report. Our analysis finds widespread availability of flexible working, but importantly quite considerable gaps between the availability and use of different flexible working arrangements.128 Flexi-time, reduced hours and working from home are most common. There is greater availability of some forms of flexible working, including flexi-time and working from home, among workers in higher-level occupations. There are a range of drivers of flexible working, with women more often reporting the provision of care as a primary driver. Increased leisure time and reducing/avoiding the commute are also commonly reported drivers. Despite relatively widespread availability, we find evidence of unmet demand for flexible working arrangements. In particular, workers show preferences for greater availability of flexibility over the arrangement of work time, including flexi-time and compressed hours, as well as working from home. Our analysis suggests that the use of flexible working arrangements offers workers substantial quality of life benefits; however, impacts on careers are more mixed. More negative impacts are reported by women and those using reduced hours arrangements, evidencing trade-offs among some flexible workers. Finally, while our work–life balance index was not found to be statistically relevant to job enthusiasm and work effort, we do find a positive relationship between work–life balance and both job satisfaction and lesser intention to quit job. These findings suggest that work– life balance and flexibility in work are important factors in the happiness and commitment of workers. In summary, our findings are indicative of flexible working delivering for some workers, but not for others. Workers in higher-level occupations, who we find to have jobs which are good in many other respects, are able to use flexible working to manage the work–life balance challenges encountered in these demanding forms of employment. However, we find a lack of equality in access to, and impacts of, flexibility. There is unmet demand for

56 Conclusion UK Working Lives

forms of flexibility which potentially offer the most benefits, including flexi-time and working from home. Meanwhile workers using reduced hours flexible working arrangements, often because of caring responsibilities, more often face negative career implications. Positive impacts on job quality can certainly be realised by enhancing access to flexible working arrangements, as well as more informal flexible working practices. Ensuring that there is greater equality in access across different job types and among different workers is one part of the solution. The other part is to make sure that, culturally, workplaces are supportive of the range of types of flexible working. We note in particular that arrangements that reduce workers’ hours are more likely to harm their career prospects and that women are more likely than men to use these arrangements. Developing appropriately inclusive and supportive organisational cultures in this respect may involve changing some deep-rooted attitudes. Qualitative research has found that attitudes to male workers reducing their hours can be very negative – for example, even labelling them as ‘lazy bastards’.129 Challenging such limiting traditional stereotypes about the gender division of labour is central to making progress in gender equality in the workplace. Other dimensions of job quality Across the remaining six dimensions of job quality considered in this report, we identify a set of core findings. Pay and benefits We find that while absolute levels of pay are certainly important to our working lives, workers who are happy with their pay are happy with their job overall. This suggests that perceptions of relative incomes and appropriateness of pay are key to the happiness of workers. Contracts The majority of workers continue to report permanent employment, and recent growth in permanent employment has outstripped growth in others forms of work. However, an important minority of workers are engaged in forms of non-standard work, including temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts, and it is among these workers where we find greater incidence of underemployment, often involving multiple insecure jobs. Job design and the nature of work The nature of work differs considerably by occupation level. Higher-level occupations exhibit a number of characteristics of good work, including greater autonomy, variety, complexity, and meaningfulness. Mid-level managerial, administrative and professional occupations, while also benefiting from a number of these characteristics, face problems associated with high workloads. Opportunities for skill and career development vary considerably across the labour market. These differences are important as we find almost half of workers report a skills mismatch, suggesting there is a need to enhance opportunities in order to better match workers with jobs. Relationships at work Relationships at work act to create a positive working environment. Conflict at work is all too common, however, and has negative consequences not just for the worker but for their employer, as it makes workers more likely to quit. Workers also remain concerned about the level to which managers are open to workers’ input in decision-making, and often feel that managers do not keep them adequately informed about organisational developments.

57 Conclusion UK Working Lives

Improving communication channels and the quality of relationships at work are relatively lower-cost methods of improving job quality and should be a key focus of employers. Health and well-being Finally, we find that work has positive impacts on both physical and mental health. However, it can also act as a considerable stressor where working conditions are intense and high-pressure, and where conflict occurs. Well-being is an increasingly high-profile aspect of paid work,130 and our findings suggest it is a central tenet of job quality. Differences in job quality The seven dimensions of job quality explored in this report all have relevance to the work outcomes we considered, although the relationships differ by dimension and job quality outcome. Job satisfaction is consistently associated with higher levels of job quality, while we also find that job enthusiasm and work effort are outcomes associated with a number of dimensions of job quality. Better-quality jobs are also likely to elicit lesser turnover intention among workers. These outcomes together generate a picture of job quality being highly important to the productivity, commitment and well-being of workers. We find important differences in the CIPD Job Quality Index across occupation groups and, for some dimensions, by work sector. We find a general trend of lower quality of work being experienced by workers in lower-level occupations, although workers in mid-level managerial, administrative and professional occupations also report a number of concerning characteristics, including high workloads and work–life conflict. It seems that for at least some of these workers the transition from lower-level to senior occupations is a challenging one indeed. Meanwhile, although working in the public sector generally appears to be associated with better job quality, public sector workers do fare worse in some respects, including lower quality of relationships at work, which in part relates to greater incidence of conflict at work. We also find key differences between traditional and other forms of work, with workers in temporary, zero-hours and short-hours employment subject to lower-quality jobs in a number of dimensions. Our analysis of the CIPD Job Quality Index provides evidence of the differing job quality encountered by workers across different types of work. We also find a number of differences by diversity characteristics, with gender appearing particularly relevant in this regard. Women’s working lives are still more often subject to interruptions associated with childrearing and other caring responsibilities. This translates into differing experiences of work, including in the use of flexible working arrangements and career progression. We also find that women are more likely to experience certain forms of conflict at work, including bullying and sexual harassment. Improving job quality in the UK It is not realistic to expect all jobs to be equal in all ways: in some cases, the differences we see in job quality are a natural reflection of different occupations. Moreover, if we look at broad categories of occupations – such as the NRS social grades – we see that they all contain some characteristics of good work and characteristics of poor-quality work. It seems most of us make some trade-offs; it is the balance between the good and bad characteristics that is central to how we experience our working lives. The broad associations we note above between good-quality work and productive organisations need to be unpacked and analysed in more detail, yet it is clear that within them there lies a huge opportunity to improve job quality. Some improvements will bring immediate mutual gains for workers and employers alike – for example, certain flexible working arrangements may be ‘no brainers’ for organisations to implement. Other

58 Conclusion UK Working Lives

improvements will undoubtedly have cost implications in the short run, but may deliver longer-term returns for employers through more productive and committed workers. But all improvements must be encouraged where possible. Good work is an achievable goal, but requires buy-in from both policy-makers and employers.131 To support policy-makers and employers as they foster good work, research needs to continue to identify ways to improve job design and conditions of work sustainably. This requires a more detailed understanding of the nature and quality of jobs across sectors, occupations and at different levels of the organisation. Tools such as the UK Working Lives survey provide a method to do this, both through further analysis of rich datasets and by employers themselves gathering data on their workforces. The findings in this report suggest more tailored policies based on understanding of jobs and workforces are likely to be most effective in reducing incidence of low-quality jobs through identification and enhancement of the dimensions of job quality.

12 Notes 1 Irvine, G., White, D. and Diffley, M. (2018) Measuring good work: the final report of the Measuring Job Quality Working Group. Dunfermline: Carnegie UK Trust. 2 Findlay, P., Warhurst, C., Keep, E. and Lloyd, C. (2017) Opportunity knocks? The possibilities and levers for improving job quality. Work and Occupations. Vol 44, No 1. pp3–22. Taylor, M., Marsh, G., Nicol, D. and Broadbent, P. (2017) Good work: the Taylor review of modern working practices. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Irvine et al (2018, pp4–5). 3 Stevenson, D. and Farmer, P. (2017) Thriving at work: the Stevenson/Farmer review of mental health and employers. London: Department for Work and Pensions 4 Karasek, R.A. and Theorell, T. (1990) Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books. 5 Bartling, B., Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (2012) Screening, competition, and job design: economic origins of good jobs. American Economic Review. Vol 102, No 2. pp834–64. 6 Connell, J. and Burgess, J. (2016) Strategic HRM and its influence on quality of work: evidence from nine Australian organisations in HRM and organisational effectiveness. In: Nankervis, A., Rowley, C. and Salleh, N.M. (eds), Asia Pacific human resource management and organisational effectiveness, pp171–92. London: Elsevier. 7 Holman, D. (2013) Job types and job quality in Europe. Human Relations. Vol 66, No 4. pp475–502. 8 Overell, S., Mills, T., Roberts, S., Lekhi, R. and Blaug, R. (2010) The employment relationship and the quality of work. The Good Work Commission. 9 Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010) On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review. Research in Organisational Behaviour. Vol 30. pp91–127. 10 Vidal, M. (2013) Low-autonomy work and bad jobs in postfordist capitalism. Human Relations. Vol 66, No 4. pp587–612. 11 Connell and Burgess (2016).

59 Notes UK Working Lives

12 Warhurst, C., Wright, S. and Lyonette, C. (2017) Understanding and measuring job quality: part 1 – thematic literature review. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Wright, S., Warhurst, C., Lyonette, C. and Sarkar, S. (2018) Understanding and measuring job quality: part 2 – indicators of job quality. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 13 Dundon, T., Martinez Lucio, M., Howcroft, D., Hughes, E., Keizer, A. and Walden, W. (2017a) Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence: research report part 1 – thematic literature review. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Dundon, T., Martinez Lucio, M., Howcroft, D., Hughes, E., Keizer, A. and Walden, W. (2017b) Power dynamics in work and employment relationships: the capacity for employee influence: research report part 2 – indicators of the employment relationship. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 14 These dimensions of job quality were identified in research conducted on behalf of the CIPD and summarised in Warhurst et al (2017) and Wright et al (2018). Further details of the construction of the Job Quality Index can be found in Sarkar and Gifford (2018) and in the Appendix that accompanies this report. Sarkar, S. and Gifford, J. (2018) UK working lives: Appendix 2 methodology. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 15 Warhurst et al (2017) and Wright et al (2018). 16 National Readership Survey. (2016) Social grade. 17 Our sample excludes pensioners and the unemployed, so we group grades D and E together. 18 Gifford, J. (2013) Social technology, social business? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Green, A. (2017) Implications of technological change and austerity for employability in urban labour markets. Urban Studies. Vol 54, No 7. pp1638–54. 19 Quinones, C. (2018) Evaluating the impact of a brief mindfulness intervention to reduce early signs of compulsive internet use for long-hours workers. CIPD Applied Research Conference Paper. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 20 Beatson, M. (2019) Megatrends: flexible working. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 21 Brinkley, I. and Boys, J. (2019). Flexible Working in the UK. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 22 McCartney et al (2019). TITLE & AUTHORS TO BE CONFIRMED. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 23 See Appendix. The international ranking of work quality compares the UK’s position with a group of 25 comparator economies, including the US, France, Germany and Japan. We match international data points to the seven dimensions of quality work used in the UKWL survey. 24 Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2019). Quarterly labour force survey, July– September, 2018. [data collection]. 3rd edition. UK Data Service. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Office for National Statistics, Social Survey Division. SN: 8407. 25 Wheatley, D. and Bickerton, C. (2016) Time-use and well-being impacts of travel-to-work and travel-for-work. New Technology, Work and Employment. Vol 31, No 3. pp238–54.

60 Notes UK Working Lives

26 Wheatley, D. (2017a) Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work, Employment and Society. Vol 31, No4. pp567–85. 27 Wheatley, D. (2012) Work–life balance, travel-to-work, and the dual career household. Personnel Review. Vol 41, No 6. pp813–31. 28 As our question on flexible working asks whether respondents have used an arrangement in the last 12 months, we remove those with a job tenure less than 12 months from our analysis where we consider job-specific details, for example occupation, autonomy present in current job. This ensures that the details of the job being discussed reflect the current employment of the respondent. 29 Atkinson, C. and Hall, L. (2009) The role of gender in varying forms of flexible working. Gender, Work and Organisation. Vol 16, No 6. pp650–66. 30 Wheatley, D. (2017b) Autonomy in paid work and employee subjective well-being. Work and Occupations. Vol 44, No 3. pp296–328. 31 ONS (2019). 32 Hall, L. and Atkinson, C. (2006) Improving working lives: flexible working and the role of employee control. Employee Relations. Vol 28, No 4. pp374–86. 33 Carmichael, F., Hulme, C., Sheppard, S. and Connell, G. (2008) Work–life imbalance: informal care and paid employment in the UK. Feminist Economics. Vol 14, No 2. pp3–35. 34 Minimise/reduce the commute is extracted from ‘other reason’ as the most commonly occurring response among our sample. 35 Lewis, S. and Humbert, L. (2010) Discourse or reality? Work life balance, flexible working policies and the gendered organisation. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Vol 29, No 3. pp239–54. 36 Wheatley (2017b). 37 Ibid. 38 Wheatley (2012). 39 Bulger, C., Matthews, R. and Hoffman, M. (2007) Work and personal life boundary management: boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation– integration continuum. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Vol 12, No 4. pp365–75. 40 Fagan, C., Lyonette, C., Smith, M. and Saldaña-Tejeda, A. (2012) The influence of working time arrangements on work–life integration or ‘balance’: a review of the international evidence. Conditions of Work and Employment No 32. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Lewis and Humbert (2010). 41 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. 42 Black, P., Burton, S., Hunter, J., Lawton, C., Pickford, R. and Wheatley, D. (2017) Out of the ordinary: exploring the lives of ordinary working families. Nottingham: Nottingham Civic Exchange, Nottingham Trent University. 43 Kahneman et al (2006). 44 Living Wage Foundation. (2019) What is the real living wage? Online article. 45 Office for National Statistics (ONS). (2018a) Employee earnings in the UK: 2018. Newport: Office for National Statistics. 46 Black et al (2017). Mentzakis, E. and Moro, M. (2009) The poor, the rich and the happy: exploring the link between income and subjective well-being. Journal of Socio-economics. Vol 38, No 1. pp147–58.

61 Notes UK Working Lives

47 Lupton, B., Rowe, A. and Whittle, R. (2015) Show me the money! The behavioural science of reward. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 48 Black et al (2017). 49 Spearman’s rho correlation. See Appendix for more details on methods. 50 Spearman’s rho correlation. See Appendix for more details on methods. 51 Gill, K. (2018) Austerity won’t be over until…public servants get the pay rise they deserve. Trades Union Congress (TUC). 52 Gregory, A. and Milner, S. (2009) Trade unions and work–life balance: changing times in France and the UK? British Journal of Industrial Relations. Vol 47, No 1. pp122–46. Rubery, J., Keizer, A. and Grimshaw, D. (2016) Flexibility bites back: the multiple and hidden costs of flexible employment policies. Human Resource Management Journal. Vol 26, No 3. pp235–51. 53 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. We use two international measures: the share of part-time workers who do not choose to work part-time; and temporary employment as a percentage of employees. 54 Atherton, A., Faria, J., Wheatley, D., Wu, D. and Wu, Z. (2016) Financial hardship and the decision to moonlight: second job holding by the self-employed. Industrial Relations Journal. Vol 47, No 3. pp279–99. 55 Green, A. and Livanos, I. (2015) Involuntary non-standard employment and the economic crisis: regional insights from the UK. Regional Studies. Vol 49, No 7. pp1223–35. 56 ONS (2019). 57 Beatson, M. (2018) Megatrends: more selfies? Self-employment in the UK. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 58 CIPD. (2018a) The road to good work. Discussion paper. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/ good-work 59 Atkinson, C. and Crozier, S. (2017) Fragmented time and domiciliary care quality: ‘no one sets out to provide bad care, but you’re dragged to it, dragged into the gutter’. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 60 Green, F. (2011) Unpacking the misery multiplier: how employability modifies the impacts of unemployment and job insecurity on life satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Health Economics. Vol 30, No 2. pp265–76. 61 De Stefano, V. (2016) The rise of the just in time workforce: on-demand work, crowdwork, and labor protection in the gig-economy. Comparative Labor Law and Policy. Vol 37. pp471–504. 62 Wales, P. and Amankwah, A.A. (2016) Trends in self-employment in the UK: 2001 to 2015. Newport: Office for National Statistics. 63 De Stefano (2016, p472). 64 CIPD. (2017) To gig or not to gig? Stories from the modern economy. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 65 Huws, U. and Joyce, S. (2016) Crowd working survey: size of the UK’s ‘gig economy’ revealed for the first time [online]. Brussels: FEPS. 66 Green (2011). 67 Atherton et al (2016). 68 McBride, J., Smith, A. and Mbala, M. (2018) ‘You end up with nothing’: the experience of being a statistic of ‘in work poverty’ in the UK. Work, Employment and Society. Vol 32, No 1. pp210–218. 62 Notes UK Working Lives

69 ONS (2019). 70 Atherton et al (2016). 71 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. We include measures of the proportion of professional roles in the economy (Standard Occupational Codes 1 to 3), whether employees can work independently, the extent companies invest in training and employee development, and whether employees received training to improve job skills in the past 12 months. 72 Green, F. (2006) Demanding work: the paradox of job quality in the affluent society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kalleberg (2012). 73 Greenhaus, J.H., Ziegert, J.C. and Allen, T.D. (2012) When family-supportive supervision matters: relations between multiple sources of support and work–family balance. Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol 80, No 2. pp266–75. 74 Gifford, J. (2018) UK working lives: the CIPD job quality index survey report 2018. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 75 Green, F., Felstead, A., Gallie, D. and Henseke, G. (2018) Work intensity in Britain: first findings from the skills and employment survey 2017. Cardiff: Cardiff University. 76 Wheatley, D. (2017c) Time well spent: subjective well-being and the organisation of time. London: Rowman and Littlefield International. 77 Glavin, P. and Schieman, S. (2012) Work–family role blurring and work–family conflict: the moderating influence of job resources and job demands. Work and Occupations. Vol 39, No 1. pp71–98. 78 Choi, S., Leiter, J. and Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (2008) Contingent autonomy technology, bureaucracy, and relative power in the labor process. Work and Occupations. Vol 35, No 4. pp422–55. 79 Wheatley (2017c). 80 Ibid. 81 Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol 22, No 3. pp309–28. 82 Greenhaus et al (2012). 83 Spencer, D.A. (2009) The political economy of work. London: Routledge. 84 Edgell, S. (2012) The sociology of work: continuity and change in paid and unpaid work. London: Sage. Spencer (2009). 85 Holman (2013). 86 Piper, A. (2015) Heaven knows I’m miserable now: overeducation and reduced life satisfaction. Education Economics, Vol 23, No 6. pp677–92. 87 Lawton, C. (2015) How job and skill shortages affect the UK. London: BBC. OECD. (2015) The future of productivity. Paris: OECD. Brinkley, I. and Crowley, E. (2017) From ‘inadequate to ‘outstanding’: making the UK’s skills system world class. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 88 Spearman’s rho correlation. See Appendix for more details on methods. 89 Choi et al (2008). 90 Age categories are broader in this analysis to ensure statistical significance in the patterns reported.

63 Notes UK Working Lives

91 Lawton (2015). 92 Connell and Burgess (2016). 93 Blundell, R., Dearden, L., Meghir, C. and Sianesi, B. (1999) Human capital investment: the returns from education and training to the individual, the firm and the economy. Fiscal Studies. Vol 20, No 1. pp1–23. Brinkley and Crowley (2017). 94 Ng, T. and Feldman, D. (2012) Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta-analytical data. Personnel Psychology. Vol 65, No 4. pp821–58. 95 Chiaburu, D.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2008) Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of co-worker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 93, No 5. pp1082–1103. 96 Deery, J., Walsh, J. and Guest, D. (2011) Workplace aggression: the effects of harassment on job burnout and turnover intentions. Work, Employment and Society. Vol 25, No 4. pp742–59. Findlay, P., Thompson, P., Cooper, C. and Pascoedeslauriers, R. (2017) Creating and capturing value at work: who benefits? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 97 Lancee, B. and Radl, J. (2012) Social connectedness and the transition from work to retirement. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. Vol 67, No 4. pp481–90. 98 McDonald, S. and Mair, C. (2010) Social capital across the life course: age and gendered patterns of network resources. Sociological Forum. Vol 25, No 2. pp335–59. 99 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. 100 Gifford, J. (2015) Getting under the skin of conflict: tracing the experiences of employees. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 101 Dromey, J. (2015) ICE and voice 10 years on: the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations in the UK and Europe. London: IPA. CIPD. (2018b) Whistleblowing Q&As. Webpage. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 102 Galupo, M.P. and Resnick C.A. (2016) Experiences of LGBT microaggressions in the workplace: implications for policy. In: Köllen, T. (ed.) Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations. Cham: Springer. Offermann, L.R., Basford, T.E., Graebner, R., Degraaf, S.B. and Jaffer, S. (2013) Slights, snubs, and slurs: leader equity and microaggressions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal. Vol 32, No 4. pp374–93. 103 Deery et al (2011). 104 Aselage, J. and Eisenberger, R. (2003) Perceived organisational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organisational Behavior. Vol 24, No 5. pp491–509. 105 GEO. (2018) National LGBT survey summary report. London: Government Equalities Office. 106 Wilkinson, A., Donaghey, J., Dundon, T. and Freeman, R.B. (eds) (2014) Handbook of research on employee voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 107 Connell and Burgess (2016). 108 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. 109 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS). (2018) Trade union membership 2017: statistical bulletin. Crown Copyright, May 2018.

64 Notes UK Working Lives

110 Ibid. 111 Stevenson and Farmer (2017); Taylor et al (2017). 112 See Appendix: International ranking of good work. The measure of job strain is a combination of high job demands and limited job resources. The measure of stress is a simple measure of how often employees find their work stressful. 113 Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2008) Working together to reduce stress at work: a guide for employees. Sudbury: HSE. 114 Gallie, D., Felstead, A., Green, F. and Inanc, H. (2014) The quality of work in Britain over the economic crisis. International Review of Sociology. Vol 24, No 2. pp207–24. 115 See Appendix for detail on the weighting. 116 These are approximate rankings based on available data and a small number of indicators. Nonetheless, they give us some insight into how the quality of jobs varies between countries. 117 The indexes are constructed using methods consistent with the 2018 UKWL survey, which are outlined in Gifford (2018) and Sarkar and Gifford (2018), with several revisions associated with changes to the survey and the focus of this year’s report. These are described in the Appendix to this report. 118 Kalleberg (2012). 119 Spearman’s rho correlation. See Appendix for more details on methods. 120 OLS regression analysis using Job Quality Indexes and control variables. Results are not shown where not statistically significant at p<0.1. 121 Hirschman, A.O. (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 122 Gifford (2018). 123 Wheatley (2017a). 124 These figures represent Cohen’s d, the difference in mean scores as a proportion of the expected standard deviation. D is considered small at values of 0.2, medium at 0.5, large at 0.8 and very large at 1.2 or above. 125 The 2018 index for Relationships at Work assesses social support and cohesion; it does not include the measures of conflict at work. We include this measure in the analysis to show how experiences of conflict relate to other aspects of relationships at work. 126 Regression analysis: binary probit model used as dependent variable has two categories. Coefficients are indicative of direction and relative size of relationship between experiences of conflict at work and dimensions of job quality. 127 Connell and Burgess (2016). 128 Wheatley (2017a). 129 Kelland, J. (2017) ‘Fatherhood forfeits’ and ‘motherhood penalties’: An exploration of UK management selection decision-making on parent applicants. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 130 Stevenson and Farmer (2017); Taylor et al (2017). 131 Taylor et al (2017); CIPD (2018a).

65 Notes Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201 E [email protected] W cipd.co.uk Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797) Scotland (SC045154) and Ireland (20100827)

Issued: June 2019 Reference: 7878 © CIPD 2019