SURVEY REPORT | 2018

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 more than 145,000 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

Survey report UK Working Lives

Contents

Foreword 2

Introduction 3

Pay and benefits 7

Terms of employment 13

Job design and the nature of work 20

Social support and cohesion 27

Health and well-being 30

Work–life balance 34

Employee voice 39

Bringing the dimensions together 43

Conclusion 48

References 50

1 UK Working Lives

1 Foreword

Work can, and should, be a force for good, for all. But what does good work look like? As the professional body for HR and people development, we champion better work and working lives. The growing agenda around good work couldn’t be more central to that purpose. Good work or job quality has been talked about over many years and was highlighted by Matthew Taylor in his review of Modern Working Practices (July 2017) as being a common goal for all forms of working. Evidence shows that we are not utilising effectively the skills of our workforces, that we have underinvested in the workplace, and that the general quality of people management needs to improve. These are all drivers of slow productivity growth, together with the growing concerns about stress and well-being at work. In the context of the changing world of work – from advances in technology to more choice in where and how we work – and in a post-Brexit economy, how we create more good jobs has never been more important. However, it’s important to have an evidence-based understanding of what defines good work. We worked closely with academics and researchers, including the Institute for Employment Research at Warwick University, to draw together research on good work and define seven dimensions that affect job quality, which have all been shown to be key drivers of productivity, well-being and engagement. Unsurprisingly, many of them are very human in nature, like having a good relationship with your line manager, or feeling part of a community. That’s why we’ve produced this comprehensive measure of job quality and the UK Working Lives survey 2018. This will be an annual survey, against which we can track progress and help inform the debate, in support of the UK Government’s intention to raise awareness and understanding of good work across the economy. While the overall findings suggest reasonable satisfaction with work and the jobs people do, there are significant underlying systemic issues which we need to address. There are clear concerns from workers in lower-skilled jobs, where over 40% don’t see opportunities to develop their skills, and from middle and senior managers who feel stressed and overworked. This is a heady mix, with over-stressed managers passing that stress down, which impacts productivity. Our previous research shows that stress is already the biggest source of workplace absence. We must find ways to work smarter and not just harder. Through policy and practice, we need to encourage more investment in skills, and provide support to businesses to help them understand and manage their people, their workplaces, and their organisations effectively. We recognise the crucial role that people professionals, from HR to L&D, can and should play in this agenda. This report is as much about helping them to understand what good work looks like in their organisations and where they can have the biggest impact, as it is about understanding the dynamics of what work means in today’s market. The Taylor Review reminded us of the importance of better work for all as a key economic and social driver, and the Government has demonstrated their its commitment to that agenda. We hope that the UK Working Lives survey will make an Peter Cheese important and sustained contribution to improving Chief Executive job quality. CIPD

2 Foreword UK Working Lives

2 Introduction

This survey builds on previous surveys of UK employees – including by the CIPD and others – to apply a new Job Quality Index with the aim of encapsulating and assessing the quality of UK jobs today. Background and rationale As recognised in the government-commissioned Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices (Taylor et al 2017), measuring job quality is a hugely important task. There is a wealth of rich, qualitative research that increases our understanding of working life and a wide range of measurements relating to job quality, but improving job quality systematically requires a cohesive and reasonably comprehensive suite of measures that shed light on and track the health of the jobs market. The nineteenth-century physicist and engineer Lord Kelvin put it thus: ‘When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science’ (cited in Van der Zee 2001, p5). At a more practical level, the celebrated management consultant Peter Drucker famously crystallised this idea in the maxim, ‘what gets measured gets managed’ (which is sometimes misinterpreted as saying what can’t be measured isn’t worth attention). Measurement is not the be-all and end-all, and some things – for example, the process of innovation – do not lend themselves to being easily measured. But there is a huge amount we can do to measure human capital and related aspects of work and employment, and it is essential that we do so (Houghton 2017). To date, there have been many measurements that capture aspects of job quality – these include national statistics (for example from the Labour Force Survey), bespoke funded surveys (such as the Skills and Employment Survey and the Workplace Employment Relations Study) and research consultancies – but there is a great deal of divergence in what should be covered and few attempts to map job quality comprehensively (Warhurst et al 2017). This survey is designed to fill this gap. The CIPD Job Quality Index This survey builds on previous surveys of employees – from the CIPD and elsewhere – to assess the state of job quality in the UK today. Building a full assessment of job quality will always benefit from piecing together data from different sources, as they have different strengths and limitations. For example, some surveys have random sampling and are more representative than our quota sample, but may be run only every five years or so. This has been the case for the UK Skills and Employment Survey (SES) and the Workplace Employment Relations Study (WERS) in the past. On the other hand, official statistics such as the Labour Force Survey have the benefits of both frequency and representation, yet lack the scope of coverage that can be achieved with a survey dedicated to job quality. We also need to consider data drawn from employers or HR practitioners, as they are often best placed to describe current people management practices. Furthermore, it is

3 Introduction UK Working Lives

relevant to look at the macro-level impacts that organisations and sectors have on society in creating sustainable, well-paid employment. A range of measures exist at macro national and international levels (Wright et al 2018) and doubtless new sources will evolve. At a meso level, the Good Economy is a recently developed tool giving insight into the quality and sustainability of jobs across sectors (Hepworth 2018). The UK Working Lives survey is designed to plug a current gap in the available data. Applying the CIPD’s newly developed Job Quality Index, we map the key dimensions of job quality, assessing how these vary between different groups of workers and exploring the relative importance of different dimensions. Research approach Since 2009, the CIPD’s Employee Outlook has regularly surveyed UK employees about their working lives. To inform this new survey, the CIPD commissioned reviews on the following questions: • From the perspectives of workers, what constitutes good or poor job quality, and what are the opportunities and pitfalls in measuring it (Warhurst et al 2017, Wright et al 2018)? • What capacity do workers have to influence their job quality and what can we learn about the balance of power between employers and employees (Dundon et al 2017a, 2017b)?1 Based on the latter two reviews and in consultation with academics, colleagues and government officials, we have developed a survey of employees that sets out to capture the key dimensions of job quality. The survey was carried out by YouGov using its UK panel of approximately 350,000 adults in work, being run from December 2017 to January 2018 using an online questionnaire. A targeted sample of 6,009 workers was surveyed. The quota used and subsequent weighting give a sample which, based on the latest ONS figures, is representative of the UK workforce in terms of gender, full- or part-time work status, organisation size within each sector, and industry. Dimensions of job quality Our survey covers seven dimensions of job quality, which are summarised in Table 1. For each of these dimensions, we compute a job quality index, summarised at the end of the relevant section. Further detail is presented in the appendix to this report, available at www.cipd.co.uk/workinglives It is worth noting that the dimensions include some aspects of job quality that are objective – that is to say, what is good for one person will be good for anyone – and others that are subjective – that is, they depend on the person’s preferences, situation, or stage of life. For example, no one would contest that more pay is better than less pay, but is a full- time contract necessarily better than part-time work or irregular hours? The answer to this is likely to vary with one’s life stage. The same part-time job could be a poor offer for someone who is a main household earner, or trying to 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 seen their children leave home. Further, there are some aspects of work – such as finding work meaningful – that we would all agree are good, but which will vary according to people’s personalities or belief systems.

1 Each review looks at thematic insights from existing research and assesses existing measures that relate to these areas. They are available at www.cipd.co.uk/jobquality

4 Introduction UK Working Lives

Table 1: Dimensions of job quality

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

Source: based on Warhurst et al (2017) and Wright et al (2018).

Most of our indices centre on subjective aspects of job quality. The main objective index is that of pay and benefits; and within the nature of work, we distinguish a separate objective index for job complexity. It is important to distinguish components of job quality from things that it affects. A primary measure among the outcomes is job satisfaction, but we also consider people’s enthusiasm for their jobs, work effort and intention to quit. All of these are important factors for both workers and employers alike, but we distinguish them as outcomes rather than aspects of job quality. In section 10 we look at how they are related to the CIPD Job Quality Index. Occupational groups It is also worth noting that, throughout much of the analysis that follows, we refer to occupational groups as an explanatory factor of different levels of job quality. The groups we use are the National Readership Survey (NRS) social grades, summarised in Table 2. This is an established and convenient measure of occupational social class that gives us a set of categories that is meaningful but concise and easy to interpret. Our survey figures for the different NRS groups are roughly representative of the NRS survey itself, with two exceptions. First, they over-represent senior managers and professionals (grade A), which helps us to do more detailed analysis at this level. Second, because we exclude pensioners and the unemployed, we have very low numbers of grade E. We thus merge this group for our analysis with grade D. Job centrality Through most of our adult lives, work takes up the greatest proportion of our waking hours. In this sense, there is no doubting the centrality of work in our lives. But how much importance do we place on our work? Our survey shows that overall, people tend to place a positive value on their jobs, but there is a fair amount of divergence. Almost half of all workers (47%) do not think that ‘a job is just a way of earning money’ (34% agree) and more than half (59%) say they would enjoy having a paid job even if they did not need the money (21% disagree).

5 Introduction UK Working Lives

Table 2: Occupational groups (NRS Social Grade)

NRS 2016* (%) UKWL 2018 (%) A – Higher managerial, administrative and professional 4 19 B – Intermediate managerial, administrative and professional 23 23 C1 –  Supervisory, clerical and junior managerial, administrative 28 30 and professional C2 – Skilled manual workers 20 16 D – Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers 15 11 E –  State pensioners, casual and lowest grade workers, 10 1 unemployed with state benefits only N not available 6,009

*NRS figures are for January to December 2016. Number of respondents not presented for this data but is typically 34,000 per wave. www.nrs.co.uk/nrs-print/lifestyle-and-classification-data/social-grade/

Figure 1: Work centrality (%) Figure 1: Work centrality (%) A job is just a way of 10 25 18 36 11 earning money – no more A job is just a way of I would enjoy having a paid job 10 25 18 36 11 earning money – no more 11 48 18 14 7 2 even if I did not need money I would enjoy having a paid job 11 48 18 14 7 2 even if I did not need money Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree DisagreeStrongly agree StronglyAgree disagree NeitherDon’t agree know nor disagree

Base: all employees (including workers andDisagree self-employed); Stronglyn=6,009 disagree Don’t know

Base: all employees (including workers and self-employed); n=6,009 Figure 2: ‘A job is just a way of earning money’, by occupational group (%) Figure 2: ‘A job is just a way of earning money’, by occupational group (%) NRS social grade NRS social gradeA 24 16 60 A 24 16 60 B 33 17 51 B 33 17 51 C1 37 18 46 C1 37 18 46 C2 39 23 37 C2 39 23 37 D or E 45 20 35 D or E 45 20 35 Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree DisagreeStrongly agreeor strongly or agree disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Base: all employeesDisagree (n=1165 or (A), strongly n=1386 (B),disagree n=1812 (C1), n=942 (C2), n=704 (D or E))

Base: all employees (n=1165 (A), n=1386 (B), n=1812 (C1), n=942 (C2), n=704 (D or E))

Figure 3: Considering my responsibilities and achievements in Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in higher level occupational groups place more importance Figurmy job,e 3: I feelConsidering I get paid my appr responsibilitiesopriately (%) and achievements in onmy theirjob, I feelwork. I get They paid areappr lessopriat likelyely (%) to see a job as just a way of making money, and slightly more63 likely to 9say they would19 enjoy working23 even 13if they did not need the money. The same63 is true for9 workers aged19 65 or over,23 73% of whom13 say they would enjoy working Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree regardless of financial need (this compares with 58% of those aged 55 to 64). This reflects DisagreeStrongly agree StronglyAgree disagree Neither agree nor disagree the fact they have chosen to work beyond state pension age; and indeed, we find that this Disagree Strongly disagree ageBase: allgroup employees tends (n=6,009) to be happier with most aspects of their jobs. Base: all employees (n=6,009) Such variations in work centrality are worth bearing in mind as we look at job quality: not all aspects will be equally important to everyone.

6 Figure 4: Perceptions of pay across pay bands (%)Introduction Figure 4: Perceptions of pay across pay bands (%)

12 23 12 39 23 17 53 55 39 18 17 53 55 18 18 18 19 18 70 60 19 18 70 Paid appropriately 60 43 PaidDisagree appropriately or strongly disagree 28 28 43 NeitherDisagree agree or strongly nor disagree disagree 28 28 StronglyNeither agree agree nor or agreedisagree Pay relative Less than Full NLW Real LW 2x Real LW 3x Real Strongly agree or agree to the Living full National but less than but less than but less than LW or more WagePay relative* LivingLess thanWage RealFull LivingNLW 2xReal Real LW LW 2x3x RealReal LWLW 3x Real to the Living full National but Wageless than but less than but less than LW or more Wage* Living Wage Real Living 2x Real LW 3x Real LW *Categories based on: £7.50 per hour (full WageNational Living Wage); £10.20 London and £8.75 outside London (Real Living Wage); £20.40 London and £17.50 outside London (2x Real Living Wage); £30.60 London and £26.25 outside London (3x Real Living Wage). *Categories based on: £7.50 per hour (full National Living Wage); £10.20 London and £8.75 outside London (Real Living Wage); Base:£20.40 all London employees and £17.50 outside London (2x Real Living Wage); £30.60 London and £26.25 outside London (3x Real Living Wage).

Base: all employees UK Working Lives

Structure of this report The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • The next seven sections present our survey results on each of the main dimensions. • In section 10, we look across the dimensions at their relative importance for key outcomes. • In the final section we draw together our conclusions and identify areas for future research. Separately, appendices are available that present detail on the survey method, the survey questionnaire, detail on the construction of the job quality indices, and tables of analysis. These are available at www.cipd.co.uk/workinglives

3 Pay and benefits

Key findings • Workers tend to regard themselves as appropriately paid, but more than a third (36%) do not. Strong employee voice is associated with pay that is seen to be fairer. • Overall, women are slightly more likely to feel underpaid than men, which can be accounted for by occupations and sectors in which they are more likely to work. It will be interesting to see if these perceptions change in the future, as reporting raises awareness of the gender pay gap. • Most employees saving for a pension with their employer receive a contribution from their employer of 6% or less. • The most common non-pension benefits are social (for example Christmas parties) and enhanced leave packages. The most valued benefits appear to be health care and insurance benefits and social benefits.

Pay and pensions are distinct from other aspects of job quality in that they concern the exchange value of work rather than the scope and form of work itself. Nonetheless, they are a fundamental aspect of job quality and an obvious place to start. We consider subjective as well as objective measures of pay, and as well as pensions, we look at a range of other benefits. Objective measures of pay The Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) reports that median weekly pay in the UK was £550 in April 2017 (ONS 2017a). For the quality of life that jobs afford us, it is useful to look at pay in relation to the Living Wage. At the time of this survey, the legal National Living Wage (NLW) for those 25 or over was £7.50 per hour (by the time of publication this will have risen to £7.83) and the voluntary or Real Living Wage was £10.20 per hour in London and £8.75 outside. Analysis by KPMG (2017) conducted shortly before the last rate increase showed that 21% of UK workers earned less than the Real Living Wage. Illegal rates of pay below the minimum are far fewer, calculated by the Office for National Statistics as 1.3% of jobs (ONS 2016). Our data shows a median pay of £511.80 per week (£26,612 per annum), pointing to some bias in our figures. Pay is complex to calculate accurately in a survey, for several reasons: people may know their pay in different terms, including hourly, weekly, monthly or annual; they may not report these figures accurately; and they may not accurately report how

7 Pay and benefits Figure 1: Work centrality (%)

A job is just a way of 10 25 18 36 11 earning money – no more I would enjoy having a paid job 11 48 18 14 7 2 Figurevene if 1: I didWork not ceneedntr moneyality (%)

A job is just a way of Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree 10 25 18 36 11 earning money – no more Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know I would enjoy having a paid job 11 48 18 14 7 2 Base:even all employeesif I did not (including need money workers and self-employed); n=6,009

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Figure 2: ‘A job is just a way ofDisagree earning moneStronglyy’, by disagree occupationalDon’t group know (%)

Base:NRS all employeessocial (including workers and self-employed); n=6,009 grade A 24 16 60 Figure 2: ‘A job is just a way of earning money’, by occupational group (%) B 33 17 51 NRS social grade C1 37 18 46 A 24 16 60 C2 39 23 37 B 33 17 51 D or E 45 20 35 C1 37 18 46

Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree C2 39 23 37 Disagree or strongly disagree D or E 45 20 35 Base: all employees (n=1165 (A), n=1386 (B), n=1812 (C1), n=942 (C2), n=704 (D or E))

Strongly agree or agree NeitherUK agree Working nor disagree Lives Disagree or strongly disagree Figure 3: Considering my responsibilities and achievements in Base: all employees (n=1165 (A), n=1386 (B), n=1812 (C1), n=942 (C2), n=704 (D or E)) my job, I feel I get paid appropriately (%)

639 19 23 13 Figure 3: Considering my responsibilities and achievements in my Stronglyjob, I feel agree I get paid apprAgreeopriately (%)Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 639 19 23 13 Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 4: Perceptions of pay across pay bands (%)

12 23 Figure 4: Perceptions of pay across pay bands (%) 39 17 53 55 18 12 23 18 39 17 53 55 19 18 18 70 60 Paid appropriately 4318 Disagree or strongly disagree 28 28 Neither agree nor disagree 19 18 70 60 PaidStrongly appropriately agree or agree Pay relative Less than Full NLW Real LW 2x Real LW 3x Real 43 Disagree or strongly disagree to the Living full National but less than but less than but less than LW or more 28 28 Wage* Living Wage Real Living 2x Real LW 3x Real LW Neither agree nor disagree Wage Strongly agree or agree *Categories based on: £7.50 per hour (full National Living Wage); £10.20 London and £8.75 outside London (Real Living Wage); £20.40Pay Londonrelative and £17.50Less outside than LondonFull (2x NLW Real LivingReal Wage); LW £30.602x LondonReal LW and £26.253x Real outside London (3x Real Living Wage). to the Living full National but less than but less than but less than LW or more Base:Wage all employees* Living Wage Real Living 2x Real LW 3x Real LW Wage

many*Categories hours based on:they £7.50 work,per hour (fullso National robustly Living Wage);calculating £10.20 London one and rate£8.75 outside from London another (Real Living requires Wage); considerable cross-checking£20.40 London and £17.50 and outside verification. London (2x Real Living For Wage); space £30.60 we London do notand £26.25 take outside an Londonextensive (3x Real Livingapproach Wage). to Base: all employees assessing pay in this survey, so we treat our objective figures on pay with caution and defer to official statistics. Subjective aspects of pay There is a strong subjective aspect to pay, as what constitutes good pay for one job, or for someone at one point in their career, may be low pay for another. Thus, we look at people’s perceptions of their pay, asking whether it is ‘appropriate’ given their responsibilities and achievements in their job. There is inevitably some bias within this, as people tend to overestimate their worth in what is termed ‘endowment bias’ (Lupton et al 2015) or the ‘above average effect’ (Kahneman 2011) but it remains a useful indicator of pay. Our data show that almost half of workers (45%) think their pay is appropriate and just over a third (36%) do not. This is a slightly positive picture, but notably less positive than people’s overall job satisfaction (64% positive; see section 10). Looking at the interaction between objective (or absolute) and subjective (or relative) aspects of pay, Figure 4 shows that they are clearly related, even though we ask people to assess their pay in relation to their responsibilities and achievements.2 It is particularly interesting to see how pivotal the Real Living Wage appears to be: above this, people tend

2 Our measure of pay in relation to Living Wage is based on hours actually worked and thus includes unpaid overtime. We include workers under the age of 25, who are not eligible for the NLW, nevertheless comparing them against the same rates. 8 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

to view their pay as fair; below it they tend to view it as unfair. In short, from high earners to low, employees do not regard the fairness of pay purely in terms of job roles and market forces (that is, the market value of their skills and abilities). The Living Wage rates may not be common knowledge for most employees, but the cost of living seems to be in the back of their minds when gauging their pay; and although different people will have different costs of living, there is some alignment between this and the Minimum Income Standard on which the Real Living Wage is based (CRSP undated). ‘Employees do not regard the fairness of pay purely in terms of job roles and market forces … the cost of living seems to be in the back of their minds.’

Pay across occupational and other groups We see very marked differences in pay satisfaction across job types, with senior managers and professionals most satisfied (NRS grade A, 58% reporting they are paid appropriately) and a sliding scale down to those in semi-skilled, unskilled and casual work feeling least satisfied (33%). This may be largely explained by the differences in income levels (see above). Across contract types, the greatest difference is between self-employed (38% of whom do not think they are appropriately paid) and others; those on permanent contracts and those on atypical contracts (including temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts) are similarly satisfied with their pay. We can see further variations in perceptions of pay across demographic groups. A hugely topical question at the moment is the gender pay gap, as UK regulation on gender pay gap reporting has started to come into force. The ASHE data shows that the median UK gender pay gap was 18.4% at April 2017 (ONS 2017a). Looking at pay satisfaction, we find that overall, women are slightly more likely to feel underpaid (39%) than men (33%). It will be interesting to see if this figure increases over coming years, as more reporting leads to greater awareness of the extent of current disparities. Perceptions of pay show a slight positive trend across age groups, with workers aged 18–24 more likely to feel underpaid (44%) than workers aged 35–64 (36% to 37%). However, there is a much greater difference among those working beyond state pension age, who are substantially happier with what they earn (24% underpaid). Looking across other personal characteristics, we generally see only small differences. Those without a degree are slightly more likely to feel underpaid (38%, compared with 36% on average), as are those with disabilities (42%). We see that pay satisfaction is slightly higher in the private sector (35% not paid appropriately) than the public and voluntary sectors (both 41%), although as we see next, this is at least partly offset by differences in pension contributions. Pensions Our survey shows that 72% of workers (excluding the self-employed) are saving for a pension through their employer. Of those who know, most (70%) receive an employer contribution of 6% of their salary or less; nearly one in five (18%) receive a contribution of 7–10% and nearly one in eight (12%) receive a contribution of 11% or more. We see clearly marked differences across sectors, with more generous pensions in the public sector. For example, half (50%) of public sector workers receive a pension contribution from their employer of 7% or more, compared with just one in four (24%) in the private sector and 35% in the voluntary sector.

9 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

Figure 5: As a proportion of your salary, how much does your employer contribute into your company pension? (%) % 35

30 30

25 22

20 18 16 15

10 8

5 4 2

0 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% 16% or more Base: employees saving through a company pension plan (n=3,460)

Figure 6: Employee benefits other than pensions (%) OtherIn the last 12employee months, have you benefits made use of the following employee benefits, and if not, are they available to you? Apart from pensions, a range of employee benefits are offered, although less universally Social benefits 15 34 so. The most commonly offered are social benefits, such as Christmas or summer parties (availableEnhanced to 48% leave ofbenefits workers) and17 enhanced leave (45%),28 which includes paid bereavement leave, emergency eldercare support, or more than 20 days’ paid annual leave (excluding Food benefits 7 31 bank holidays). Health care and insurance benefits 17 19 Looking at other benefits, nearly two in five workers are provided free or subsidised food or drinkTransport (38%); benefits and similar11 numbers are offered19 health care and insurance benefits,

suchCareer as death-in-service development benefits or life 14assurance, flu 12jabs, dental or health insurance (35%); or transport benefits, such as free or subsidised on-site car parking, travel season ticket loan, or companyWell-being carbenefits (30%). About18 a quarter of6 workers are offered career development benefits, suchTechnology as paid benefits study 7leave or having15 professional subscriptions paid (26%); well- Available, not used being benefits, such as subsidised gym membership, massage or exercise classes (24%); or Financial assistance benefits 9 2 Used technology benefits, such as a mobile phone for personal use, or home computer (22%). TheBase: employees least common in organisations in of ourmore thanlist one was person financial (n=4,985) assistance benefits – for example, relocation assistance, or homeworker allowance – which are available to just one in ten workers (9%). Figure 7: Which benefits are most important? All these benefits are more commonly offered to permanent employees than those on rho Correlations84 of benefits used and satisfaction with benefits atypical0.30 contracts (temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts; see section 4). The differences0.2 7here are substantial, typically a factor of two or three. The greatest differences 0.25 are0.25 in health benefits (available to 40% of permanent workers and 10% on atypical 0.22 0.22 contracts) and career development0.21 benefits (29% and 8%). The most consistently offered benefits0.20 are food and drink (available0.19 to 40% of permanent employees and 30% of atypical workers) and social benefits (51% and 32%).0.17 0.15 0.15

0.10 0.09

0.05 Pay and benefits 10 0

Social Transport insurance Technology Well-being Health care and Food and drink Enhanced leave Financial assistance Career development Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) Figure 5: As a proportion of your salary, how much does your Figuremploey 5:er As co ntributa proportione into yofour your compan salaryy, hopensionw much? (%) does your employer contribute into your company pension? (%) % 35% 35

30 30 30 30

25 25 22 22 20 18 20 16 18 15 16 15

10 8 10 8

5 UK Working4 Lives 5 2 4 2 0 0 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% 16% 0% 1% 2–3% 4–6% 7–10% 11–15% or16% more Base: employees saving through a company pension plan (n=3,460)or more Base: employees saving through a company pension plan (n=3,460) Figure 6: Employee benefits other than pensions (%) Figure 6: Employee benefits other than pensions (%) In the last 12 months, have you made use of the following employee benefits, and if not, are they available to you? In the last 12 months, have you made use of the following employee benefits, and if not, are they available to you? Social benefits 15 34 Social benefits 15 34 Enhanced leave benefits 17 28 Enhanced leave benefits 17 28 Food benefits 7 31 Food benefits 7 31 Health care and insurance benefits 17 19 Health care and insurance benefits 17 19 Transport benefits 11 19 Transport benefits 11 19 Career development benefits 14 12 Career development benefits 14 12 Well-being benefits 18 6 Well-being benefits 18 6 Technology benefits 7 15 Technology benefits 7 15 Available, not used Financial assistance benefits 9 2 Available,Used not used Financial assistance benefits 9 2 Used Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) Figure 7: Which benefits are most important? Figure 7: Which benefits are most important? rho Correlations84 of benefits used and satisfaction with benefits 84 0.30rho Correlations of benefits used and satisfaction with benefits 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

0.10 0.09 0.10 0.09

0.05 0.05

0

0

Social Social Transport insurance Technology Well-being Transport Food and drink Health careinsuranc and e Technology Well-being Enhanced leave Food and drink Financial assistance Health care and Career developmentEnhanced leave Financial assistance Base: employees in organisations of more than one personCareer (n=4,985 development) Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985)

Figure 8: Satisfaction with the range of employee benefits oered, by occupational group (%)

NRS social grade A 51 31 19

B 47 31 22

C1 40 35 25

C2 31 38 31

D or E 32 39 29

Very satisfied/satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied

Base: employees in organisations of more than one person 11 Pay and benefits Figure 9: Working status and contract type (%) 1

6 Contract type 12 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 0.5 Temporary employment 3 4 Zero-hours contract work

Short-hours contract work 74 Running my own business

Freelancer or independent contractor

Other

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 10: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week None (work at least as many hours as want)

84 5 523 Up to 5 hours

More than 5, up to 10 hours Base: all employees (n=6,009) More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours

Figure 11: Job security (%) How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months? Very likely 49 25 29 27 7 Likely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Neither likely nor unlikely

Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know

Figure 12: Confidence in the labour market (%) How easy or di cult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?

Very easy 522 24 31 18 Fairly easy Base: all employees (n=6,009) Neither easy nor di cult

Fairly di cult

Very di cult UK Working Lives

Overall, employees tend to be satisfied with their benefits (41% positive and 25% negative), but this is notably less positive than people’s overall job satisfaction (64% positive, as noted above; see section 10). To gauge which employee benefits are valued most, we correlate each of them with overall satisfaction with employee benefits. The results, shown in Figure 7, suggest that all contribute to satisfaction, but the most valued are health care and insurance benefits and social benefits, followed by transport, technology and food and drink benefits. Financial assistance seems to have the least impact on satisfaction with benefits. Looking at which groups of employees are most satisfied with the benefits they receive apart from pensions, the clearest differences are across occupation type, with more senior managers and professionals being the happiest with their benefits and manual workers being the least happy. Unsurprisingly, we find that permanent employees are more satisfied with the benefits they receive than those on temporary, zero-hours and short- hours contracts. We see slight differences with satisfaction with benefits across sectors, with lower satisfaction in the public sector (38% ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, compared with 42% in the private sector and voluntary sector). Pay and benefits index We conduct regression analysis to test the relationships between subjective pay (appropriateness) and other variables while controlling for other factors: in other words, to analyse differences while keeping key variables constant.3 The factors, or covariates, we include in this regression and those for the other indices include: occupational group (NRS social grade), contract type (standard permanent, atypical or self-employed), gender, age, disability, sexual orientation, education level, ethnicity, organisation size, sector and region. When we control for factors including what jobs they do, we find women are no more likely to feel underpaid than men. Thus, the general difference we see in pay satisfaction is because women tend to have different (for example, less senior) jobs. This will be a deliberate choice for some, but due to bias in recruitment or promotion for others. Further analysis is warranted on this area, especially as previous research shows women to have lower pay expectations than men (for example, Smith 2009, Davison 2014). Also, as noted above, it be interesting to see whether gender differences in pay satisfaction change in the future, as better reporting raises awareness of the gender pay gap. We find that employee voice has a strong relationship with pay satisfaction. The coefficient of 0.26 shows that a shift from the lowest to the highest score in our voice index (that is, a 0 to 1 increase; see section 9) corresponds to a 26% increase in pay satisfaction (also measured by a 0 to 1 index). Although this does not demonstrate a causal relationship, it shows that there is a relationship between the two aspects of job quality. The best interpretation of this is that the ability to express one’s voice at work – through channels for voice and receptiveness of managers and open culture – either increases people’s pay and/or makes people more satisfied with the pay they have.

3 Detail of the regression analyses are presented in the appendix to this report, available at www.cipd.co.uk/workinglives

12 Pay and benefits UK Working Lives

4 Terms of employment

Key findings • Men, the young and the less educated are more likely to work on atypical contracts (mainly temporary or zero-hours). • Three per cent of the working population are on zero-hours contracts and just over 1% has their main job in the gig economy. • One in six workers is underemployed. This problem is most common among atypical workers, who on average are underemployed by five hours per week. • Jobs typically offer skills development but career progression is more complicated.

The employment contract is a fundamental aspect of job quality as it determines the rights and responsibilities of employers and workers and thus goes a long way to determining the security of work. It informs opportunities for skill and career development and also includes pay – although because this is such a substantial issue in its own right, we consider this separately (see section 3). Contract type Three-quarters of our respondents (74%) have permanent employment contracts, either full-time or part-time. Nearly one in five (18%) of our sample is self-employed, which is an overestimation on the official statistics of 15% (ONS 2018). And 7% work on atypical contracts,Figure 8: Satis befa ctionit temporary with the r ange(3.6%), of empl zero-hoursoyee benefits (2.9%) oer ed,or short-hoursby occupational contracts, group (%) where up to eightNRS socialhours’ work each week is guaranteed (0.5%). grade ComparingA these three51 broad groups31 of employment19 contracts across different groups of workers, the most marked differences lie across age bands. The youngest workers (18–24) B 47 31 22 are much more likely to have atypical work contracts, and the oldest (65+) are most likely to be C1self-employed40 or have temporary,35 zero-hours25 or short-hours contracts.

In lineC2 with other31 research (Beatson38 2018), we31 also see that across occupational groups,

theD mostor E likely32 to be self-employed39 are higher29 managerial, administrative or professional workers (NRS social grade A) and skilled manual workers (grade C2). We find men are more likelyVery than satisfied/satisfied women to be self-employedNeither satisfied nor or dissatisfied have atypical contracts; and the self- employed Dissatisfied/verytend to have dissatisfied higher levels of education and those on atypical contracts tend to haveBase: employees lower in levels. organisations of more than one person

Figure 9: Working status and contract type (%) 1

6 Contract type 12 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 0.5 Temporary employment 3 4 Zero-hours contract work

Short-hours contract work 74 Running my own business

Freelancer or independent contractor

Other

Base: all employees (n=6,009) 13 Terms of employment Figure 10: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week None (work at least as many hours as want)

84 5 523 Up to 5 hours

More than 5, up to 10 hours Base: all employees (n=6,009) More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours

Figure 11: Job security (%) How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months? Very likely 49 25 29 27 7 Likely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Neither likely nor unlikely

Unlikely Very unlikely Don’t know

Figure 12: Confidence in the labour market (%) How easy or di cult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?

Very easy 522 24 31 18 Fairly easy Base: all employees (n=6,009) Neither easy nor di cult

Fairly di cult Very di cult UK Working Lives Figure 8: Satisfaction with the range of employee benefits oered, by occupational group (%)

NRS social grade A 51 31 19

We discussB self-employment47 at length31 in our report,22 More Selfies? A picture of self- employment in the UK (Beatson 2018), including its growth over recent years and potential C1 40 35 25 to explain the UK’s poor productivity performance. C2 31 38 31 Distinct from contract type, we also ask about the gig economy, which we describe as: D or E 32 39 29 ‘...work arranged through an online platform covering a variety of on-demand customer services. TheseVery satisfied/satisfied services include (butNeither are satisfied not nor limited dissatisfied to) taxi services and ride sharing (for example Uber,Dissatisfied/very BlaBlaCar, dissatisfied and so on), vehicle rental (for example EasyCar), food or goods deliveryBase: employees (for in organisations example of Deliveroo,more than one person City Sprint), as well as platforms that link people for other services (for example TaskRabbit, Upwork, and so on).’ WhetherFigure 9: W gigorking economy status and workers contract aretype self-employed (%) or not is often unclear, with cases being 1 settled in employment tribunals over recent months. Deliveroo’s decision to class riders as self-employed was upheld because they could pass on jobs to other people (Ghosh 2017), whereas Uber lost6 its case on the same Contractpoint, typebeing told by a court that it works like a 12 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) traditional0.5 cab firm and must classify its drivers as workers (Shead 2017). Temporary employment Although 3a great deal of focus is given to the gig economy, it remains a very small part of the4 economy. Our survey identifiesZero-hours just 3% contract of the work workforce being gig workers Short-hours contract work (having done some work74 in the gig economy in the last year), with half of these (1.4% overall) having their main job in it. This is slightlyRunning my less own businessthan the figure the CIPD (2017a) has identified previously of 4% being gig workers.Freelancer or We independent cannot contractor tell any definite trend from such small numbers, but it may be that theOther gig economy has peaked in the UK, as some evidence suggests it already has done in the USA (Beatson 2018). Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 10: Underemployment (%) Hours underemployed per week None (work at least as many hours as want)

84 5 523 Up to 5 hours

More than 5, up to 10 hours Base: all employees (n=6,009) More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours

UnderemploymentFigure 11: Job security (%) How likely do you think it is that you could As well as contract type, another source of insecuritylose your concerns job in the next not 12 months? having as much work as Very likely one49 would 25need. We calculate29 this by27 looking7 at the difference between how many hours they usually work per week and how much they wouldLikely ideally like to work. Base: all employees (n=6,009) Neither likely nor unlikely Based on this calculation, we see that underemployment is a problem for about one in six Unlikely workers (15%). Ignoring overwork, workers are on average underemployed by 1.6 hours Very unlikely per week. A far more common issue than underemployment is overwork, with 63% of employees working more hours than they would likeDon’t to. know However, the two problems are qualitatively quite different, with underemployment having direct implications for people’s Figure 12: Confidence in the labour market (%) How easy or di cult do you think it would be for you pay and living standards and overwork being a questionto find another of job work–life at least as good balance. as your currentWe thus one? look

at overwork separately in section 8. Very easy 522 24 31 18 Unsurprisingly, the clearest trends in underemploymentFairly easy are across contract types, with Base: all employees (n=6,009) atypical workers being much more likely to struggleNeither to find easy norenough di cult work. Our data shows that on average, those on temporary, zero-hoursFairly di cult and short-hours contracts are underemployed by five hours per week. ComparingVery this di cult with Labour Force Survey data

14 Terms of employment Figure 8: Satisfaction with the range of employee benefits oered, by occupational group (%)

NRS social Figurgradee 8: Satisfaction with the range of employee benefits oered, by occupational group (%)

NRS Asocial 51 31 19 grade AB 4751 31 31 2219 UK Working Lives C1B 4047 35 31 2522

C2C1 31 40 38 35 3125

D orC2 E 3132 3839 3129

D or E Very satisfied/satisfied32 39 Neither satisfied nor29 dissatisfied suggests this may be an overestimation,4 but it is clearly more than the figure for those on Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied Very satisfied/satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied standardBase: employees permanent in organisations of contracts more than one person(mean of 1.2 hours per week underemployed). Dissatisfied/very dissatisfied We can also see large differences in age groups, with younger workers more likely to be Base: employees in organisations of more than one person underemployedFigure 9: Working status (mean and 3.5 co nthoursract type per (%) week); and across occupational groups, with those in unskilled manual or1 casual work (grade D and E) experiencing the most underemployment (meanFigure 9: 2.9 Working hours status per week).and cont Weract typealso (%)find that workers with disabilities are slightly more likely to be underemployed1 (mean 2.0 hours per week). At a national level, men, private 6 Contract type sector workers, and the lower educated are more likely to be underemployed, but these 12 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) 0.5 trends may be better6 explained by occupationalContract type group. Temporary employment 3 12 Work as a permanent employee (full-time or part-time) Job0.5 and4 labour market insecurity Zero-hours contract work Temporary employment A substantial3 minority of workers (13%) thinksShort-hours that contract they arework likely or very likely to lose their 4 74 Zero-hours contract work job in the next year. Some employees mayRunning see redundancy my own business as a windfall and opportunity Short-hours contract work to move on to better things,74 but the broaderFreelancer story or thatindependent this highlights contractor is one of (at least perceived) insecurity. However, figures fromRunning our myEmployee own business Outlook suggest that this is less Other than has been the case over recent years followingFreelancer or independentthe global contractor financial crisis. For a similar butBase: allmore employees specific (n=6,009) question, the figure peakedOther in 2011, when 21% of employees thought they were likely to lose their job as a result of the economic climate. Base: all employees (n=6,009) AtFigur a ebroad 10: Under level,emplo ouryment data (%) suggests that perceivedHours job underemployed security is per strongly week influenced by None (work at least as many hours as want) contractFigure 10: type:Under emplo25% ymentof atypical (%) workers see themselvesHours underemployed as at risk per of week losing their job in 84 5 523 Up to 5 hours the next year, compared with 14% of standard permanentNone (work employees at least as many and hours 9% as want) of the self- More than 5, up to 10 hours employed.Base: all employees It (n=6,009) is also slightly related to sector (16% of public and voluntary sector workers 84 5 523 Up to 5 hours feeling insecure, compared with 13% of private sectorMore workers)than 10, up to but 15 hours not by other variables, More than 5, up to 10 hours suchBase: all asemployees occupational (n=6,009) group. More than 15 hours More than 10, up to 15 hours More than 15 hours Figure 11: Job security (%) How likely do you think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months? Figure 11: Job security (%) HowVery likely likely do you think it is that you could 49 25 29 27 7 lose your job in the next 12 months? Likely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Very likely 49 25 29 27 7 Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Very unlikely Unlikely Don’t know Very unlikely Don’t know Figure 12: Confidence in the labour market (%) How easy or di cult do you think it would be for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?

Figure 12: Confidence in the labour market (%) HowVery easy easy or di cult do you think it would be for you 522 24 31 18 to find another job at least as good as your current one? Fairly easy Base: all employees (n=6,009) Very easy 522 24 31 18 Neither easy nor di cult Fairly easy Base: all employees (n=6,009) Fairly di cult Neither easy nor di cult Very di cult Fairly di cult Very di cult

4 Our data shows that 57% of those on zero-hours contracts want more hours, but data from the Labour Force Survey (ONS 2017b) shows a figure of less than half of this (27%). The difference may be because of error as a result of the small number of zero-hours contract workers in our sample (177).

15 Terms of employment UK Working Lives

We also look at workers’ confidence in the labour market, specifically how confident they are that they could find another job at least as good as their current one. This says nothing about people’s current job security, but is a good gauge of how serious an issue job insecurity is for them. We see no trends in this across different occupational groups or sector, suggesting the perceived labour market outlook is fairly consistent. But what of people who feel doubly insecure, both in their current job and in the labour market? We find almost no relationship between these variables (a very small correlation of 0.03), but it is interesting to look at the intersection of these two important factors. We find that one in twelve workers (8%) faces this double whammy of being likely to lose their current job and feeling unconfident in their position in the external labour market. Another important factor in people’s position in the labour market concerns job tenure. Many workers will build up entitlements or pay increments that go with the job over time, and longer-serving employees may be less confident of finding as good a job as their current one because they can’t transfer these across. Our data seems to confirm this effect. For example, 39% of workers employed up to one year are confident of finding another job as good, but this figure reduces steadily, down to just 17% for those employed more than 15 years. Development opportunities Being able to develop one’s knowledge and skills is an important aspect of jobs. Alongside external activities such as studying, learning on the job is central to personal advancement and career progression. It is also important for the wider economy, building a workforce that is more productive in current roles and better able to take on more value-adding roles. But it is arguably a neglected aspect of UK skills policy, where the dominant focus has been on increasing the supply of skills (Brinkley and Crowley 2017), and where it has focused on the workplace and often been limited to young people and apprenticeships, rather than lifelong learning. And even on apprenticeships, which the new levy introduced in 2017 aims to support further, it appears that many employers may not be making major changes, but instead ‘reconfigure their existing training into apprenticeships’ (CBI 2017). Clearly, there are differing views on how much responsibility employers have to help develop workers’ skills. We find that typically UK employees believe their jobs serve them well in helping them develop skills, but not in developing their careers. This is an interesting contrast. It may reflect that people feel there are limited opportunities for promotion in their line of work, so becoming more skilled in the job does not necessarily help people materially. It also gives some weight to the view that in order to progress in one’s career, the best bet is often to move jobs, as there are usually more opportunities in the external labour market than in one’s current organisation. In either case, it suggests that nearly half of jobs (43%) fail to provide decent career development, with one in six workers (16%) being in jobs that offer little or none at all. Turning to how opportunities for personal development vary across groups, our main finding is that there are marked differences across occupational groups, with higher social grades consistently faring better. Here, we present figures for net agreement (the difference between ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ on the one hand and ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’ on the other hand). Among senior managers (NRS social grade A), net agreement that jobs provide good opportunities to develop their skills is +40%, whereas among those in unskilled and casual work (grades D and E), this figure is –13%. Sizable differences also exist for career development opportunities: net agreement of –6% for grade A and –32% for grades D and E.

16 Terms of employment UK Working Lives

In short, high-skill, high-responsibility positions help people develop further, whereas those in low-skill jobs have far less adequate routes to develop. As a result, there is a real risk that some may effectively be trapped in low-level jobs, regardless of what other jobs are available in the labour market. Of course, not all workers in lower-skilled jobs may want to progress to more advanced jobs, but it is important that the opportunities are there. Aside from occupational groups, we also find sectoral differences, with greater opportunities for development in the public sector than private and voluntary sectors. This may be because the public sector has more professional-grade workers than the private sector. It may also be that, in the face of effective pay freezes driven by austerity measures, many public sector employers are boosting options for progression as a recruitment and retention tool.

Figure 13: Personal and career development (%)

FigurMy jobe oers 13: Personal good opportunities and career to developdevelopment my skills (%)

My93 job oers good8 opportunities to develop27 my skills17 10 Strongly agree Agree 938 27 17 10 Strongly agree Neither agree nor disagree My job oers good prospects for career advancement Agree NeitherDisagree agree nor disagree My52 job oers1 good prospects31 for career advancement28 16 DisagreeStrongly disagree 521 31 28 16 Base: all employees (n=6,009) Strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 14: Personal and career development, by occupational group (net agreement)

Figur% e 14:NRS Personal social grade and career development, by occupational group (net agreement) 50 % NRSAB social grade C1 C2 D or E 50 40 ABC1 C2 D or E 40 40 40 32

30 32 30 20 15 My job o ers good opportunities 20 to develop my skills 15 My job o ers good opportunities 10 8 toMy develop job o ers my good skills prospects for 10 career advancement 8 My job o ers good prospects for 0 career advancement

0 –6 –10 –7 –6 –10 –7 –13

–20 –13 –22 –20 –30 –22 –27 –32 –30 –27 –40 –32

–40Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree)

Base:Net agreement: all employees (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base:Figur alle employees 15: Personal and career development, by sector (net agreement)

Figur% e 15: Personal and career development, by sector (net agreement) 50 Private Public Voluntary % sector sector sector 50 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector 40 Terms of employment 17 37 40 37 30 24 30 20 24 15 20 15 10 My job o ers good opportunities 5 to develop my skills 10 My job o ers good opportunities 5 0 toMy develop job o ers my good skills prospects for career advancement 0 My job o ers good prospects for career advancement –10

–10 –20 –20 –20 –20 –30 –28

–30 –28 –40

–40Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees Figure 13: Personal and career development (%)

My job oers good opportunities to develop my skills

938 27 17 10 Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree My job oers good prospects for career advancement Disagree 521 31 28 16 Strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 14: Personal and career development, by occupational group (net agreement)

% NRS social grade 50 ABC1 C2 D or E

40 40

32 30

20 15 My job o ers good opportunities to develop my skills 10 8 My job o ers good prospects for career advancement

0

–6 –10 –7

–13

–20 –22

–30 UK –27Working Lives –32

–40

Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees

Figure 15: Personal and career development, by sector (net agreement)

% 50 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector

40 37

30 24

20 15

10 My job o ers good opportunities 5 to develop my skills

0 My job o ers good prospects for career advancement

–10

–20 –20

–30 –28

–40

Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees

Across contract types, standard permanent employees predictably fare better in both skill development and career development (net agreement with the statements, +17% and –14%) compared with those on temporary or zero-hours contracts (0% and –32%). Interestingly, the picture appears especially polarised for the self-employed: their jobs tend to be very good at helping them develop skills (+35%) but very poor at helping them advance their careers (–24%). One explanation for this is that they may develop a range of wider skills as part of running a business, but their options to diversify in the type of work they do may be more limited than for employees working on standard permanent contracts. It seems there are a number of factors at play in shaping the development opportunities that jobs offer. But one challenge stands out: namely the risk that workers become trapped, in particular, in unskilled and casual work, but also to some extent in lower-level professional jobs and skilled manual work. The supply of training and development opportunities within the job are clearly an important part of meeting this challenge, as well as careers advice and support to help people to find lines of work that offer better opportunities for progression. However, this is not enough. It is also important to look at the demand for skills, in both job design and the effective application of skills used in the workplace. We look at these issues of job complexity and skills utilisation in section 5.

18 Terms of employment UK Working Lives

Figure 16: Personal and career development, by contract type (net agreement)

Standard Temporary, Self- permanent zero-hours employed employee and % short-hours 40 contracts 35

30

20 17 My job o ers good opportunities to develop my skills 10 My job o ers good prospects for career advancement 0 0

–10

–14 –20

–24 –30 –32

–40

Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees

Figure 17: Workload (%) In a normal week, is the workload in your job...? Terms of employment index Far too much We compute a job quality index (0 to 1) for terms of employment based on contractual 6 23 59 81 Too much stability (contract type and job security), underemployment and development About right opportunities.Base: all employees (n=6,009) We conduct regression analysis on this to look at what is related to terms of employment while controlling for other factors (thatToo is, little keeping other things constant). Far too little In particular, we find a moderate relationship between our employee voice index (see sectionFigure 18: 9) W orkload,and terms by sect of oremployment (%) (coefficient 0.15, meaning a 0 to 1 increase in the voice index corresponds to a 15% increase in the terms of employment index). This meansPrivate that,sector where27 there are more channels62 for voice and11 greater managerial openness Far too much or too much to employeePublic sector views, workers43 will have generally50 better terms7 of employment. This may be because employee voice influences terms of employment positively,About althoughright it may also Voluntary sector be that employers who40 do better in one also53 do better in7 the other.Too little or far too little ABase: range all employees of things are weakly related to terms of employment. Across occupational groups, those in unskilled and casual jobs (NRS grades D and E) score 3% lower on the terms ofFigur employmente 19: Workload, index by oc thancupational senior gr oupmanagers (%) and professionals (grade A). Workers with disabilitiesNRS social have slightly poorer terms of employment, scoring 2 percentage points lower in thegrade index. We also see slightly worse terms of employment in micro organisations (fewer A 28 64 8 than ten employees). B 35 57 8 These relationships do not show causal relationships with terms of employment but do give C1us a better29 picture of where 60they tend to be better12 or worse. Far too much or too much C2 29 62 9 About right D or E 28 60 13 Too little or far too little

Base: all employees 19 Terms of employment UK Working Lives

5 Job design and the nature of work

Key findings • Three in ten workers say that their workload is too much, and mid-level managers and professionals are most likely to be overworked, suggesting a ‘squeezed middle’ in occupational grades. • Underutilisation of skills and knowledge seems to be a much greater problem than workers being underequipped, and making better use of existing skills may also be a good opportunity to help redress the lack of career development noted by many workers. • The great majority of employees feel their work is useful for the organisation, but far fewer are motivated by their organisation’s purpose or feel the work they do is useful work for society. • Employee voice is positively related to the nature of work, but even more closely related is social support and cohesion.

We split the intrinsic characteristics of work into two broad dimensions: first, in this section, we look at job design and the nature of work itself; second, in the next section, we look at the social aspects of work, in particular social support and cohesion. Within job design and the nature of work, we identify six component parts: workload, autonomy, resources, job complexity, skills match, and the meaningfulness of work. Workload and pressure We benefit from the security of having as much work as we need to make a living (see section 4), yet also from not spending too many of our waking hours at work (see section 8). But separate from both these points is the question of work intensity; that is, how much we have to do within the working day. Clearly, having too little to do is undesirable, both from the point of view of organisational productivity and the individual’s sense of doing meaningful work, but given the central contribution of stress towards poor health, we consider being overworked as the more serious concern for employees. One in twenty workers (6%) are overwhelmed by their current jobs, reporting that they have ‘far too much’ work. While not at epidemic levels, this is nonetheless a substantial problem, as over time these workers risk burnout. More generally, three in ten workers (30%) have workloads that are to some extent unmanageable (either ‘too much’ or ‘far too much’). This shows work pressure to be an important issue. Employers need to ensure people have manageable workloads. This could involve addressing unrealistic targets, poor people management, or indeed poor personal planning, in which case interventions such as coaching and training in self- management may help. High work pressure is more common among full-time employees (40%) and less common for those on part-time contracts (20%), temporary, zero-hours and short-hours contracts (16%), and the self-employed (15%). This suggests that these latter options can be effective ways for employees to take control of their workloads. Although they are more likely to

20 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

Figure 16: Personal and career development, by contract type (net agreement) Figure 16: Personal and career development, by contract type (net agreement) Figure Standard16: PersonalTemporary, and career deSelfvelopment,- by contract type (net agreement) permanentStandard Temporary, zero-hours employedSelf- employee and % permanentStandard Temporary, zero-hours employedSelf- permanentemployee short-hours zero-hoursand employed 40% employee short-hourscontractand s be40% underemployedshort-hourscontract ands can35 face undue pressure in some cases, in general terms, work intensity40 is one contractrespects in 35which atypical workers and the self-employed tend to be in a better30 position. 35 30 It30 is interesting to see that unmanageable workloads are fairly constant across all 20 17 occupational groups except for mid-levelMy managers job o ers good and opportunities professionals (NRS grade B), who 20 17 are20 much17 more likely to be overworked. MytoThis develop job o erssuggests my good skills opportunities the existence of a ‘squeezed middle’ 10 toMy develop job o ers my good skills opportunities My job o ers good prospects for in10 occupational grades, for example becauseto develop mid-level my skills managers have to grapple with career advancement 10 My job o ers good prospects for day-to-day challenges0 in ensuring front-linecareerMy job deliverables, advancemento ers good prospects at thefor same time as engaging with0 higher-level0 organisational strategy.career Our advancement findings on health and well-being give some 0 0 further0 support for this view (see section 7). –10 It–10 is not uncommon for HR or senior leaders to lament ‘middle management’ as a problem area–10 which,–14 for example, is most resistant to organisational change. Our data points to –20 –14 –14 them–20 having more to deal with, so a lesson for some employers may be to shift their focus to–20 how they can better support–2 4these critical links between strategy and operations. –30 –24 –24 Looking–30 at different–32 work contexts, we find that voluntary sector and especially public –30 –32 sector–40 workers are more–32 likely to have unmanageable workloads than private sector workers.–40 This may be an effect of austerity measures and the constant drive to do more with–40Net agreement: less public (% strongly spending. agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base:Net agreement: all employees (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Net agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Base: all employees Base: all employees Figure 17: Workload (%) In a normal week, is the workload in your job...? Figure 17: Workload (%) In a normal week, is the workload in your job...? Figure 17: Workload (%) In a Farnormal too muchweek, is the workload in your job...? Far too much 6 23 59 81 FarToo toomuch much 6 23 59 81 Too much 6 23 59 81 TooAbout much right Base: all employees (n=6,009) About right Base: all employees (n=6,009) AboutToo little right Base: all employees (n=6,009) Too little TooFar toolittle little Far too little Far too little Figure 18: Workload, by sector (%) Figure 18: Workload, by sector (%) FigurPrivatee 18: sector Workload, by27 sector (%) 62 11 Private sector 27 62 11 Far too much or too much Private sector 27 62 11 Public sector 43 50 7 Far too much or too much Public sector 43 50 7 AboutFar too right much or too much VoluntaryPublic sector 43 50 7 About right 40 53 7 Too little or far too little Voluntary sector 40 53 7 About right Voluntary sector Too little or far too little Base: all employees 40 53 7 Too little or far too little Base: all employees Base: all employees Figure 19: Workload, by occupational group (%) Figure 19: Workload, by occupational group (%) NRSFigur sociale 19: Workload, by occupational group (%) NRSgrade social NRSgrade socialA 28 64 8 grade A 28 64 8 AB 2835 6457 8 B 35 57 8 C1B 2935 6057 128 C1 29 60 12 Far too much or too much C2C1 29 60 12 29 62 9 Far too much or too much C2 29 62 9 FarAbout too right much or too much D orC2 E 2829 6062 139 About right Too little or far too little D or E 28 60 13 About right Too little or far too little D or E 28 60 13 Base: all employees Too little or far too little Base: all employees Base: all employees

21 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

Autonomy and self-determination Alongside opportunities for voice and representation (see section 9), a central way in which workers can more directly shape their working life is through the autonomy, self- determination, or discretionary decision-making that they are granted. Overall, employees are reasonably empowered to directly shape their jobs, especially in how they do their work and how fast they work. These aspects are probably the most important for meaningful, enjoyable and manageable work, and in most cases will also be the aspects in which managers have most flexibility. Workers’ direct influence over what tasks they do and when they work are less pronounced, but in many cases the scope of the job may make it difficult for it to be otherwise.

Figure 20: Job autonomy (%)

In general, how much influence do you have over the following?

27 31 38 47

35 23

30 30 17 A lot 21 19 Some 17 29 A little 18 13 7 None How you do The pace at The tasks you The time you start your work which you work do in your job or finish your working day Base: all employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985)

The greatest differences in autonomy are across types of contract and types of job. Unsurprisingly, the self-employed and, overlapping with this category, senior managers Figure 21: Adequate work resources (%) (NRS social grade A) have the most scope for job autonomy. Computing a 0 to 1 index

fromTime the four questions61 shown in Figure15 20, senior24 managers have a mean score of 0.72, compared with 0.61 on average and 0.47 in unskilled and casualStrongly work agree (grades or agree D and E). Equipment 72 15 13 Contract type is also a major factor of influence: using the sameNeither index, agree nor those disagree on temporary, Space 13 13 zero-hours and short-hours74 contracts score on average a meanDisagree of 0.53,or strongly whereas disagree standard

permanentBase: all employees employees in organisations of score more than 0.61 one person and (n=4,985) the self-employed score 0.78. Thus, although those on atypical contracts benefit similarly to the self-employed in having more manageable workloadsFigure 22: Job (see comple above),xity (%) they are poles apart when it comes to job autonomy. TheIn general, value how of often empowerment does your main job or involve job theautonomy following? is well established. In particular, the job demands–resourcesSolving unforeseen 9 (JD–R)29 model highlights the62 importance of autonomy in enabling problems on your own employees to cope with greater work demands (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). Interesting tasks 15 37 48 However, autonomy and increased discretion to make decisions can alsoRarely be or exposing.never Complex tasks 20 34 46 A recent meta-analysis finds that, without appropriate support and guidance,Sometimes too much Learning new things 41 ‘empowerment’ can leave20 people out39 of their depth (Lee et al 2018a, 2018b).Often or always The authors

provideBase: all employees evidence (n=6,009) that empowering leadership can be interpreted as avoiding work or difficult decisions, and create intensification and increased stress for others, so it is crucial that empowerment goes hand in hand with support. This particularly seems to be the case forFigur routinee 23: Person–job work tasks, mat ch:as qualificationsopposed to andcreative skills (%)tasks and organisational citizenship behaviour (that is, discretionary behaviour beyond the defined role, for example helping colleagues).

32 22 Job design39 and the nature of work

64 50

Over-qualified Over-skilled

Right level Right level

Under-qualified 11 Under-skilled 4

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 20: Job autonomy (%)

In general, how much influence do you have over the following? UK Working Lives 27 31 38 47

35 23

Resources 30 As well30 as being appropriately empowered17 to shape our jobs, we obviously need the A lot right resources to be able to carry21 out our work (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). We consider three aspects19 to this: (1) whether workers haveSome the right equipment to do their 17 29 job effectively; (2) whether they usually have enough Atime little to get their work done within 18 13 their allocated7 hours; and (3) whether they have a suitableNone space, such as an office or workshop.How you do In allThe three pace at areas,The mosttasks you workers The time agree you start that they have adequate resources, but your work which you work do in your job or finish your the picture is notably worse for time resource,working day on which three in five workers (61%) agree withBase: all the employees question in organisations and of one more thanin fourone person (24%) (n=4,985) disagree. By contrast, about one in eight workers (13%) report that they do not have adequate equipment or space.

Figure 20:21: A Jobdequa autteonom worky (%)resources (%)

In general, how much influence do you have over the following? Time 61 15 24 Strongly agree or agree Equipment 72 15 13 27 31 Neither agree nor disagree 38 Space47 13 13 74 Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: all employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) 35 23 JobFigur ecomplexity 22: Job comple30 xityand (%) skills 30 TheIn general, complexity how often does of ayour job main and job skillsinvolve requiredthe following 17to? do it are important to job quality for two A lot reasons. First, at a micro level,21 employees benefit from having a good fit between their Solving unforeseen 199 29 62 problems on your own Some skills 17and knowledge and those required by29 the job: being overskilled risks boredom and A little Interesting tasks 15 1837 48 stagnation; being 13underskilled risks underperformance and stress. Second, at a macro level, 7there is some consensus that economies benefitNone from a higher-skilledRarely or never jobs market, How youComplex do tasksThe pace20 at The tasks 34you The time you start 46 althoughyour work debateswhich you on work how dothis in yourcan job be achievedor finish your and whether the UKSometimes is progressing Learning new things working day 41 towards it are longstanding20 and in39 some respects still unresolved (forOften example, or always see Lloyd Base: all employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) andBase: all Payne employees 2002, (n=6,009) Keep 2003, O’Connor 2015). A central point of contention is whether an hourglass labour market is being created, with aFigur hollowinge 23:21: APerson–jobdequa outte of w orkmatmid-level rch:esour qualificationsces skilled (%) jobs and skillsand (%)an increasing divide between the haves and the have-nots. It has been argued that there is a trend of employers either automating mid-levelTime jobs or moving61 them abroad 15(for example,24 Twycross et al 2016, Jacobs 2015). Strongly agree or agree 32 However,Equipment there are fairly72 persuasive39 arguments15 that,13 although there are changes afoot, the hollowing-out argument is overly simplistic: new jobs areNeither created, agree nor existing disagree jobs can be Space 13 13 paid more (or less) and overall74 wage distribution is relativelyDisagree stable or strongly(McIntosh disagree 2013, Taylor

etBase: al all 2017).employees They in organisations may ofbe more different, than one person but (n=4,985) mid-level jobs remain.

Figur64e 22: Job complexity (%) 50

In general, howOver-qualified often does your main job involve the followingOver-skilled? Right level Right level Solving unforeseen 9 29 62 problems on your own Under-qualified 11 Under-skilled 4 Interesting tasks 15 37 48 Base: all employees (n=6,009) Rarely or never Complex tasks 20 34 46 Sometimes Learning new things 41 20 39 Often or always

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 23: Person–job match: qualifications and skills (%)

32 23 Job design39 and the nature of work

64 50

Over-qualified Over-skilled

Right level Right level

Under-qualified 11 Under-skilled 4

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 20: Job autonomy (%)

In general, how much influence do you have over the following?

27 31 38 47

35 23

30 30 17 A lot 21 19 Some 17 29 A little 18 13 7 None How you do The pace at The tasks you The time you start your work which you work do in your job or finish your working day Base: all employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985)

Figure 21: Adequate work resources (%)

Time 61 15 24 Strongly agree or agree Equipment 72 15 13 Neither agree nor disagree Space 13 13 74 Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: all employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985)

Figure 22: Job complexity (%)

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

Solving unforeseen 9 29 62 problems on your own

Interesting tasks 15 37 48 Rarely or never Complex tasks 20 34 UK Working Lives46 Sometimes Learning new things 41 20 39 Often or always

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 23: Person–job match: qualifications and skills (%)

32 39

64 50

Over-qualified Over-skilled

Right level Right level

Under-qualified 11 Under-skilled 4

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

We assess job complexity by asking respondents about the type and level of tasks they undertake in their roles. This has the advantage of being simpler to collect than detailed analysis of job content, although as a subjective measure, it will vary to some degree with personal expectations. However, as we would expect, we do see a consistent trend across occupational groups, with senior management jobs being the most complex (mean score of 0.68 from a 0 to 1 index formed from our four question items) through to unskilled and casual work being the least complex (mean 0.49). At a broader level, employees tend to report moderate levels of job complexity. A little more than one in ten have jobs that are consistently interesting (11%), complex (12%) or involve learning (11%), and 15–20% report that their jobs are rarely or never stimulating in these ways. Having to solve unforeseen problems on one’s own is more common, with nearly one in five jobs (18%) always requiring this.

Regarding person–job match, we see that workers typically consider that they have the right level of qualifications (64%) and skills (50%) to do their job. However, one in three workers (32%) reports being overqualified and three in five (39%) report they have the skills to cope with more demanding duties. The proportion of workers lacking the right qualifications or skills is much lower (4% and 11% respectively). There is some recent research (CBI 2017) indicating that many employers believe there will be a shortage of the talent needed to fill the higher-skilled jobs over the coming years. While by no means denying a lack of skills shortages, our data from workers themselves suggests there is currently a good deal of untapped talent, and thus opportunities for better skill utilisation and meeting skills gaps. Of course, as already mentioned, people tend to overestimate their ability and market value (Kahneman 2011, Lupton et al 2015), but equally we know that managers’ assessments of workers are also fraught with bias (Gifford 2016), so in this case, employees’ views are as likely to be trustworthy as those of their employers. In sum, our data suggests that over-qualification and over-skilling is a more significant issue for people in UK workplaces than not having the necessary skills or qualification to do their jobs. Making better use of existing skills will not only help solve lagging productivity (Haldane 2017), but will also provide workers in low-skill jobs opportunities to develop their skills and career – opportunities which are often currently lacking (see section 4).

24 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

Meaningful work Having a clear sense of meaning in our work is widely recognised as important for all workers. This is a view upheld by different schools of thought, including the broadly ‘unitarist’ perspective of employee engagement (Truss et al 2013, MacLeod and Clarke 2009) and ‘pluralist’ sociological perspectives (Edgell 2012, Sennett 2008).5 The inverse of meaningful work has been labelled – originally by Karl Marx – as worker alienation (Edgell 2012), whereby people feel disconnected from the fruit of their work or the purpose for which they work. Worker alienation is seen not only to be detrimental for worker well-being (Shantz et al 2014) but also to reduce motivation and effort and make employees more likely to quit (Tummers et al 2015). Our focus on meaningful work centres on the ‘sense of pride and achievement at a job well done’, in particular when it matters not just to oneself but also to others (Bailey and Madden 2016). We find employee views here to be very positive regarding their place in the organisation: three in four workers (74%) feel that they do useful work for their organisation or (for the self-employed) their clients. Workers are less convinced about the value they create for society more broadly, although nonetheless generally positive: about half feel they do useful work for society (48%) and, in line with this, that they are highly motivated by the core purpose of their organisation or clients (47%). Differences across occupational groups are fairly consistent. On organisational value, 82% of senior managers (NRS social grade A) and 65% in unskilled or casual work (grades D and E) feel they do useful work for the organisation. Similarly, 65% (grade A) and 33% (grades D and E) are highly motivated by their organisational purpose. Differences regarding the societal value of work are less consistent, with skilled manual workers (grade C2) having a greater sense of doing useful work (50% agree) for society than supervisory, clerical and junior professional workers (grade C1; 40%), but otherwise the broad trend holds. Net agreement figures are shown in Figure 25. To some extent it is to be expected that senior managers can more tangibly see the contribution their work makes to organisational strategy and purpose, but this does not fully justify the differences we see here. An often-cited story is that of the janitor sweeping the floor at NASA, who, when asked by John F. Kennedy what he did, answered, ‘I’m helping put a man on the moon.’ This nicely illustrates that even apparently menial jobs can be full of meaning. Where this is not the case, it may be due to a poor job–person match, or indeed a failure of leadership to communicate a clear line of sight between employees’ roles and the organisation’s purpose. But we should also recognise that there can be such a thing as unsatisfying, alienating work, just as there is work that does not serve a clear social purpose. Understanding the dynamics in meaningful work, the trade-offs that workers make, and the role that employers can be expected to play is an important area for further research. On the one hand it is a higher-order aspect of job quality, at the opposite end from the fundamental basics that must be covered (Warhurst et al 2017) but on the other hand, it is a deeply human aspect of work and should not be considered a luxury.

5 The unitarist perspective argues that the good of the organisation is for the good of the employee (we’re all in this together), whereas pluralism argues that employers and workers have different legitimate concerns (we can disagree and need to work through our disagreements).

25 Job design and the nature of work UK Working Lives

Figure 24: Meaningful work (%)

FigurUsefule work 24: Meaningfulfor work (%) 74 15 11 the organisation Useful work for Useful work 74 15 11 Strongly agree or agree the organisation 48 for society* 27 25 Useful work NeitherStrongly agree agree nor or agreedisagree Motivated 48 27 25 for society* 47 30 22 by purpose DisagreeNeither agree or strongly nor disagree disagree Motivated 47 30 22 Base: byemployees purpose not running their own business (n=4,998) except *all employees (n=6,009) Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) except *all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 25: Meaningful work, by occupational group (net agreement) (%)

Figure 25: MeaningfulNRS social grade work, by occupational group (net agreement) (%) % ABC1 C2 D or E 80 NRS social grade % 73 ABC1 C2 D or E 8070 68 73 62 68 60 6070 62 51 60 6050 49 41 51 50 49 40 36 41 4030 27 36 27

30 27 27 17 Useful work for the 20 15 13 organistaion 10 17 Useful work for the 2010 15 Useful work for society* 13 organistaion 10 1 100 MotivatedUseful work by for purpose society* 1 Net0 agreement: (% strongly agree or agree) – (% disagree or strongly disagree) Motivated by purpose

NetBase: agreement: employees not (% running strongly their agree own orbusiness agree) except – (% *alldisagree employees or strongly disagree)

Base: employees not running their own business except *all employees

NatureFigure 26: ofQuality work of r elationshipsindices (% very good or good) We compute two job quality indices for job design and the nature of work. First, our main Figure 26: Quality of relationships (% very good or good) nature ofColleagues work indexin your teamcaptures subjective aspects that are relative to91 the individual worker: Colleagues in your team 91 job demandsSta who and you resources; manage meaningfulness of work; and the person–job90 match for qualifications and skills. This is a question of job–person match. Second, we compute an Sta who you manage 90 indexCustomers, for clientsthe objectiveor service users aspect of job complexity; this is more of an87 economic consideration, relatingCustomers, to clients how or servicehigh- users or low-skilled a jobs market the UK creates. 87 Other colleagues at your workplace 86

WeOther conduct colleagues at regression your workplace analysis to look at what is related to the nature86 of work while Suppliers 80 controlling for other factors. One of the strongest relationships is with our employee voice Suppliers 80 indexYour (anline manager increase or supervisor of 0 to 1 in this index leading to a 19 percentage80 point increase in the

natureYour line of manager work). or An supervisor explanation of this is that strong worker voice80 helps people to ensure Other managers at your workplace they have appropriate demands and resources, and make better76 use of their skills. Other managers at your workplace 76 ButBase: employeeseven more in organisations closely of more related than one isperson our (n=4,985 social) support and cohesion index (a 0 to 1 increase correspondingBase: employees in organisations to a 44 of more percentage than one person point(n=4,985 )increase in the nature of work index). This is interesting, suggesting that work relationships – in particular with line managers but also withFigur eothers 27: Psy chological– may be safety more (%) important in enhancing the nature of work than employees

beingFigurMistakese 27:able held Ps ytochological shape theirsafety jobs (%) by expressing their concerns, ideas and requests. 18 22 60 against one Mistakes held However, in both18 these cases,22 we must recognise60 that the relationshipStrongly may agree not or agree be causal, and againstExclusion one 23 19 58 progressive employers simply serve their workers well in both theseStronglyNeither aspects agree agree nor or of agreedisagree job quality. Exclusion 23 19 58 Social support 65 17 18 Looking at other factors we see that, compared with the privateNeitherDisagree sector, agree or strongly public nor disagree disagree and Social support 65 17 18 voluntary ‘If I make a mistake, sector my workers manager or view supervisor the will nature hold it against of their me.’ work more positively Disagree or strongly(coefficient disagree 0.04) and ‘People see in mytheir team jobs sometimes as more reject otherscomplex for being (0.04 dierent.’ for public and 0.03 for the voluntary sector).  ‘No‘If I makeone in a my mistake, team wouldmy manager deliberately or supervisor act in a waywill hold that itundermines against me.’ my eorts.’  ‘People in my team sometimes reject others for being dierent.’ 26 Base: ‘No oneemployees in my includingteam would freelancers deliberately with only actJob one in client, adesign way excluding that underminesand those the running mynature their eorts.’ own of business work (n=4,998) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998) UK Working Lives

Higher occupational groups also fare better than lower – for example, those in unskilled and casual work (NRS grades D and E) score 7 percentage points lower in the nature of work index than senior managers and professionals (grade A) and 10% less in the job complexity index. And partly related to this, atypical workers do less well than standard permanent employees (coefficient –0.04). However, the trend in education levels is split. For example, workers with degrees unsurprisingly have more complex jobs than those without (coefficients 0.02 for undergraduates and 0.05 for postgraduates), but in other respects the nature of their work seems to be worse (–0.03 and –0.02). This illustrates how the two aspects do not necessarily align: one can have a high- skilled job that is not ideal in job demands and resources, or meaningfulness.

6 Social support and cohesion

Key findings • Social support and cohesion are important factors that relate closely to other aspects of job quality as well as key outcomes. • Most people view their work relationships as positive, especially those they have with colleagues in the same team, and feel safe in their work culture – for example, not experiencing a blame culture. • Employees generally view their line managers positively, but there are important areas of relative weakness, including giving feedback, supporting learning, fostering team cohesion and being trustworthy. • Social support and cohesion varies across demographic groups (ethnicity, gender and disability) suggesting that, as well as interventions such as team-building activity, employers may do well to try to foster a more inclusive culture at work.

Following on from job design and the nature of work, the second dimension we identify as part of the intrinsic characteristics of work is social support and cohesion. Support includes the practical helpfulness of colleagues and how ‘safe’ people feel in their team environments – for example to express themselves openly or present new ideas. Cohesion essentially relates to how well employees get on with the people they work with, including their boss and colleagues but also clients, suppliers and anyone else. Because of the centrality of this relationship to our working lives, we include specific items on line management. General views of work relationships Employees are generally positive about their work relationships. For example, 80% of employees rate their relationship with their managers positively, and 91% do so for their relationships with team colleagues. Poor relationships with line managers (7%) and team colleagues (1%) are rare. We can see from Figure 26 that workers are more positive about colleagues and people they manage than with their boss, and more positive about relationships with people with whom they work more closely. Psychological safety The idea of psychological safety can be seen as whether there is a blame culture or some ‘mistake tolerance’. It primarily refers to whether people feel able to take risks within a team, but also relates to other factors such as learning behaviour and ultimately performance (Edmondson 1999). It has received particular attention of late because Google’s Project Aristotle identified it as the primary drivers of team effectiveness (Google 2016). 27 Social support and cohesion Figure 24: Meaningful work (%) Figure 24: Meaningful work (%) Useful work for 74 15 11 the organisation Useful work for Useful work 74 15 11 Strongly agree or agree the organisation 48 for society* 27 25 Useful work Strongly agree or agree 48 Neither agree nor disagree forMotivated society* 27 25 30 22 by purpose 47 DisagreeNeither agree or strongly nor disagree disagree Motivated 30 22 by purpose 47 Disagree or strongly disagree Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) except *all employees (n=6,009) Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) except *all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 25: Meaningful work, by occupational group (net agreement) (%) Figure 25: Meaningful work, by occupational group (net agreement) (%) NRS social grade % ABNRS social grade C1 C2 D or E 80% 73 ABC1 C2 D or E 80 70 73 68 62 70 68 60 60 62 60 60 51 50 49 51 50 41 UK Working Lives 49 40 41 36 40 36 30 27 27 30 27 27 17 Useful work for the 20 15 13 organistaion 17 Useful work for the 20 10 15 10 13 Usefulorganistaion work for society* 10 In10 line with the general views on work relationships, we find that1 most employeesUseful work for society*feel 0 Motivated by purpose psychologically safe. About three in five disagree that their managers1 would hold their Motivated by purpose Netmistakes0 agreement: against (% strongly them agree (60%)or agree) or– (% that disagree people or strongly in theirdisagree) teams ‘sometimes reject others NetforBase: agreement: beingemployees different’ not (% running strongly their agree(58%); own orbusiness agree) and except – two-thirds(% *alldisagree employees or strongly(65%) disagree) agree that ‘no one in my team would deliberatelyBase: employees not actrunning in their a wayown business that except undermines *all employees my efforts’.

Figure 26: Quality of relationships (% very good or good) Figure 26: Quality of relationships (% very good or good) Colleagues in your team 91 Colleagues in your team 91 Sta who you manage 90 Sta who you manage 90 Customers, clients or service users 87 Customers, clients or service users 87 Other colleagues at your workplace 86 Other colleagues at your workplace 86 Suppliers 80 Suppliers 80 Your line manager or supervisor 80 Your line manager or supervisor 80 Other managers at your workplace 76 Other managers at your workplace 76 Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985) Base: employees in organisations of more than one person (n=4,985)

Figure 27: Psychological safety (%) Figure 27: Psychological safety (%) Mistakes held 18 22 60 against one Mistakes held 18 22 60 against one Strongly agree or agree Exclusion 23 19 58 NeitherStrongly agree agree nor or agreedisagree Exclusion 23 19 58 Social support 17 18 65 DisagreeNeither agree or strongly nor disagree disagree Social support 17 18 65 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 dierent.’ ‘If I make a mistake, my manager or supervisor will hold it against me.’  ‘No one in my team would deliberately act in a way that undermines my eorts.’  ‘People in my team sometimes reject others for being dierent.’ Base: ‘No oneemployees in my includingteam would freelancers deliberately with only act one in client, a way excluding that undermines those running my their eorts.’ own business (n=4,998) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998)

Figure 28: Quality of line management (%) My boss…

respects me as a person 74 16 9

treats me fairly 73 17 10

is supportive if I have a problem 71 17 11 recognises when I have done a 68 18 14 good job helps me in my job 59 23 19 can be relied 56 25 19 upon to keep their promise is successful in 55 26 19 getting people to work together supports my 54 27 19 learning and development provides useful 54 25 22 feedback on my work

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

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,997)

Figure 29: Impact of work on health (%)

5 28 9 Social support and cohesion 27

35

40

31 Very positive

Positive

No impact 20 24 Negative 4 4 Very negative Mental Physical health health

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 30: Energy and mental health at work (%) At my work I feel…

full of energy 25 45 30

under excessive pressure 38 40 22 Rarely or never exhausted 36 42 22 Sometimes miserable 11 59 30 Often or always

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 31: Health conditions due to work in the last year (%)

Backache or other bone, joint or muscle problems 29

Anxiety or depression 22

Skin problems 7

Repetitive strain injury (RSI) 6

Breathing problems 3

Hearing problems 2

Heart problems 1

Injury due to an accident 1

Other 3

None of these 53

Base: all employees (n=6,009) UK Working Lives

Line management Unsurprisingly, the most positive rating on line management is for the basic courtesy of showing respect (74% positive). But we also see very high ratings for bosses being fair (73%); for managerial support, or as it is often termed, ‘perceived supervisor support’ (71%); and for giving recognition of good work (68%). Although generally positive, the greatest areas for improvement in line management lie in giving useful feedback (22% negative), an important factor in performance (Gifford 2016); supporting learning and development (19%); fostering team cohesion (19%); and being trustworthy (19%). When social support is lacking Overall, our results show that in most respects, social support and cohesion are normal features of working life. However, there is no room for complacency, as their absence can be palpable. For example, case study research in policing suggests that, as well as tangible managerial support, facilities such as canteens and gyms that facilitate social interaction can help workers cope with what by most standards can be incredibly high-pressure work environments (Hayday et al 2007). But it is not just in high-pressure environments that social support and cohesion are critical. More widely, there is good evidence that they are major factors that support productivity in knowledge work (AWA 2014). Further, a lack of cohesion and support not only undermines effort and creates stress, but also goes hand in hand with interpersonal conflict (Fevre et al 2012, Gifford 2015). Even a single incident of conflict, or workers feeling undermined, unsupported or disrespected can have a serious impact on working life and amount to a violation of the psychological contract (Aselage and Eisenberger 2003). Social support index We compute a job quality index (0 to 1) for social support and cohesion that draws together the quality of work relationships, psychological safety and the quality of line management. We conduct regression analysis to look at what relates to social support and cohesion while controlling for other factors. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we see stronger social support and cohesion in micro organisations, with organisations of 50 or more employees rating 7% lower on the social support index, and even small organisations (10 to 49 employees) rating 6% less. Compared with white British workers, other white workers and ethnic minority workers see slightly weaker social support and cohesion (coefficients of –0.03 and –0.04 respectively). We also see that men experience slightly less social support than women; and those with a disability also experience less social support (in both cases a difference of 2 percentage points). Controlling for other factors, we see no differences in social support and cohesion across occupational groups or sectors. As discussed in section 10 and referenced at the close of various other sections, social support and cohesion is a recurring feature that is related to other aspects of job quality and to key outcomes, such as job satisfaction. Apart from organisation size – with the greatest difference being at the smallest level, above or below ten employees – the main differences are across demographic groups (ethnicity, gender and disability). This suggests that, as well as direct interventions to build cohesion and trust – such as meaningful team- building activity – employers or managers may do well to focus on measures that aim to improve an inclusive culture at work.

29 Social support and cohesion UK Working Lives

7 Health and well-being

Key findings • Being well is working well: health and well-being is the single most important aspect of job quality in terms of key outcomes. • Overall, work tends to have a positive impact on people’s health and well-being, but substantial proportions of people see negative, potentially quite serious, impacts. The most common conditions are musculoskeletal and anxiety or depression. • At a broad level, poor well-being at work is most often experienced by middle managers, which may be a sign of the dual pressures of working with organisational strategy and day-to-day deliverables. • Social support and cohesion is strongly related to health and well-being, suggesting that the state of relationships with bosses and others may be crucial factors in either supporting good well-being or, on the flipside, contributing to health problems.

In the broadest sense of the term, employee well-being lies at the heart of job quality, all dimensions relating to it in one way or another. But it is also relevant to look specifically at how work affects the mental and physical health aspects of well-being. Impact on mental and physical health Perhaps the most obvious place to start is to recognise that good work has a positive impact on our well-being. In her influential review of the health of the working-age population, Carole Black wrote, ‘For most people, their work is a key determinant of self- worth, family esteem, identity and standing within the community, besides, of course, material progress and a means of social participation and fulfilment’ (Black 2008, p4). Overall, we see a slightly positive impact from work on people’s mental health (44% positive, 25% negative) and an even spread of views of how work affects people’s physical health (33% positive, 27% negative). We find, for example, that more people frequently feel ‘full of energy’ at work (30%) than rarely or never feel this (25%). However, there are substantial numbers for whom work is toil. More than one in five workers always or often feel exhausted (22%) or ‘under excessive pressure’ (also 22%). Exhaustion can be physical or mental, but the latter finding is especially pointed, as it reflects the Health and Safety Executive’s definition of stress as ‘the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or other types of demand placed on them’ (HSE 2008). Moreover, one in ten workers (11%) reports regularly feeling miserable at work. While this is a small minority, it represents a huge number of people nationally and indicates a serious problem for these people. The generally slightly positive findings on the impact of work on health do not mask the serious issue that our data points to. Many jobs have occasional points of pressure that people, by and large, cope with well. It is the relentless tension that does the damage, whether this occurs from relationships, workload or alienation. In our forthcoming survey, we look at what employers are doing to support well-being at work and what they believe helps (Suff 2018).

30 Health and well-being Figure 28: Quality of line management (%) My boss…

Figurerespects 28: Quality me as ofa person line management (%) 74 16 9 My boss… Figure 28: Qualitytreats ofme line fairly management (%) 73 17 10 respects me as a person 74 16 9 Myis supportive boss… if I have a problem 71 17 11 recognises whentreats I have me done fairly a 73 17 10 respects me as a person 6874 18 16 149 good job is supportive if I have a problem 71 17 11 helpstreats me in me my fairly job 59 73 23 17 19 10 recognises when I have done a can be relied 68 18 14 is supportive if I have agood problem job 56 71 25 17 19 11 upon to keep their promise recognises whenhelpsis I mesuccessfulhave in donemy job ina 59 23 19 55 68 26 18 19 14 getting people to workcan goodtogetherbe relied job supports my 56 25 19 upon to helpskeep theirme in promise my job 5459 27 23 1919 learning andis development successful in UK Working Lives providescan be useful relied 55 26 19 getting people to work together 5456 2525 2219 uponfeedback to keep their supportson my promise work my is successful in 54 27 19 learning and development 55 26 19 getting peopleStrongly toprovides work agree together useful or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree supports my 54 25 22 feedback on my work 54 27 19 Base: employeeslearning andincluding development freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,997) provides useful Strongly agree or agree Neither 54agree nor disagree Disagree25 or strongly disagree22 Figure 29:feedback Impact on of my w workork on health (%) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,997) 5 9 Strongly agree or agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree or strongly disagree Figure 29: Impact of work on health (%) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,997) 27 5 9 Figure35 29: Impact of work on health (%) 275 9 35 4027 35 31 Very positive

40 Positive 31 NoVery impact positive 20 2440 NegativePositive 31 Very positive 4 4 VeryNo impact negative 24 20 Positive Mental Physical Negative health health No impact 4 4 Very negative Base: all 20employees (n=6,009)24 Mental Physical Negative health health Figure 430: Energy4 and mentalVery health negative at work (%) AtBase: my Mentalall work employees I feel…Physical (n=6,009) health health Figure 30:full Energy of energy and mental25 health at work (%)45 30 Base: all employees (n=6,009) At my work I feel… 38 40 22 Figurunder eexcessive 30: Energy pressure and mental health at work (%) full of energy 25 45 30 Rarely or never At my work I feel…exhausted 36 42 22 under excessive pressure 38 40 22 Sometimes 25 45 30 full miserableof energy 11 59 30 OftenRarely or or always never exhausted 36 42 22 under excessive pressure 38 40 22 Base: all employees (n=6,009) Sometimes miserable 11 Rarely or never 59 30 Often or always Figure 31: Healthexhausted conditions due36 to work in the last year42 (%) 22 Sometimes Base: all employees (n=6,009) Backache ormiserable other bone, 59 30 11 29 Often or always Figurjointe 31:or muscle Health problems conditions due to work in the last year (%) Base: all employees (n=6,009) Anxiety or depression 22 Backache or other bone, Figurjointe 31: or muscleHealth problems conditions due to work in the last year (%) 29 Skin problems 7 BackacheAnxiety or or other depression bone, 22 Repetitivejoint or strain muscle injury problems (RSI) 6 29 Skin problems 7 AnxietyBreathing or problemsdepression 3 22 Repetitive strain injury (RSI) 6 7 HearingSkin problemsproblems 2 Breathing problems 3 Repetitive strain injury (RSI) Heart problems 1 6 Hearing problems 2 Breathing problems 3 Injury due to an accident 1 Heart problems 1 Hearing problemsOther 23 Injury due to an accident 1 HeartNone problems of these 1 53 Other 3 Base:Injury all employees due to an(n=6,009) accident 1 None of these 53 Other 3 Base: all employees (n=6,009) None of these 53

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

31 Health and well-being UK Working Lives

Work-related health conditions The overall impact of work on health is a useful metric, but more specific measures are also important. We thus look at how work has caused or contributed towards a range of health conditions. Consistent with previous data (Sinclair 2016), we find that musculoskeletal conditions and anxiety or depression are the most common work-related health problems. Respectively, 29% and 22% of workers report that in the last year, they have experienced these health problems ‘due to work or where work was a contributing factor’. Other health conditions are much less common, as can be seen in Figure 31. Just 1% of workers have suffered workplace injuries in the last year (this does not include road traffic accidents while commuting to or from work). Differences across occupational groups and contract type There are some clear differences in worker well-being for different occupational groups, but interestingly, the relationship is not linear; rather, we see a u-shaped trend. Thus, senior managers and professionals (NRS social grade A) report the most positive impact of work on mental health (51% positive, 22% negative), those in unskilled and casual work (D and E) see a slightly less positive impact (46% positive, 22% negative), but the worst-off group is intermediate-level managers and professionals (grade B; 40% positive and 28% negative). Similarly for physical health, we see the most positive picture among the top and bottom occupational grades and the worst-off group as middle managers. This is corroborated by some other trends. In line with our findings on workload (see section 5), we find that levels of stress (‘excessive pressure’) and work-related anxiety or depression are most common among mid-level managers and professionals (grade B). However, as we would expect, we see that musculoskeletal conditions are more common among manual workers (grades C2, D and E). Levels of exhaustion appear to combine these two trends, being more common among mid-level managers and manual workers. Well-being is an aspect of job quality where temporary workers report much more positive results than permanent workers. For example, temporary workers are significantly more likely to report that work impacts positively on both their mental and physical health than permanent staff. Temporary staff are also much less likely to report they are always or often under excessive pressure than permanent employees.

Figure 32: General impact of work on health, by occupational group (net positive)

Mental health Physical health % % 30 29 30

25 24 25 21 20 20 16 15 15 12 12 12 11 10 10

5 3 5 0 0 ABC1 C2 D or E 5 –4 NRS social grade ABC1 C2 D or E NRS social grade Net positive = (% very positive or positive) – (% negative or very negative) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Health and well-being 32 Figure 33: Impact of work on health, by contract type (net positive) Mental health Physical health % % 50 50 45

40 40

31 30 30

19 19 20 20

11 10 10

0 0 0 e e

Self-employed Self-employed

Permanent employe Permanent employe short-hours contracts short-hours contracts Temporary, zero-hours and Temporary, zero-hours and

Net positive = (% very positive or positive) – (% negative or very negative) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 34: Negative impacts of work on stress and happiness, by occupational group (%) % 40 38 35 35

30 28 27 27 26 25 25 25 25 23 23 22 21 21 21 21 20 20 19 19 17 NRS social grade

15 A

B 10 C1

5 C2

0 D or E Always or often under Always or often Anxiety or depression Musculoskeletal excessive pressure exhausted in last year conditions in last year Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 32: General impact of work on health, by occupational group (net positive) Figure 32: General impact of work on health, by occupational group (net positive) Mental health Physical health Mental% healt h Physical% health 30% 29 30% 30 29 30 25 24 25 25 21 24 25 20 20 21 20 16 20 15 15 12 16 12 12 15 15 11 10 12 12 10 12 11 10 10 5 3 5 5 3 5 0 0 ABC1 C2 D or E 0 0 5 –4 ABNRS socialC1 gradeC2 D or E UK Working Lives 5 AB–4 C1 C2 D or E NRS social grade ABNRS socialC1 gradeC2 D or E Net positive = (% very positive or positive) – (% negative or very negative) NRS social grade Base:Net positive all employees = (% (n=6,009)very positive or positive) – (% negative or very negative) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 33: Impact of work on health, by contract type (net positive) FigurMentale 33: health Impact of work on health, byPhysical contra healtct typeh (net positive) Mental% health Physical% health 50% 50% 45 50 50 45 40 40 40 40 31 30 30 31 30 30 19 19 20 20 19 19 20 20 11 10 11 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 e d 0 e d e e

Self-employed Self-employed

Self-employed Self-employed Permanent employe Permanent employe short-hours contracts short-hours contracts PermanentTemporary, employe zero-hours an PermanentTemporary, employe zero-hours an short-hours contracts short-hours contracts Net positiveTemporary, = (% zero-hours very positive and or positive) – (% negativeTemporary, or veryzero-hours negative) and Base:Net positive all employees = (% (n=6,009)very positive or positive) – (% negative or very negative) Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 34: Negative impacts of work on stress and happiness, by occupational group (%) Figur% e 34: Negative impacts of work on stress and happiness, by occupational group (%) 40% 38 40 35 38 35 35 35 30 28 27 27 26 30 28 27 25 25 25 27 25 23 23 26 25 25 22 25 25 21 21 21 21 23 23 20 22 19 20 21 19 21 21 21 17 20 20 19 19 NRS social grade 17 NRS social grade 15 A 15 BA 10 B 10 C1 5 C2C1 5 C2 0 D or E 0 Always or often under Always or often Anxiety or depression Musculoskeletal D or E excessive pressure exhausted in last year conditions in last year Always or often under Always or often Anxiety or depression Musculoskeletal Base: all employeesexcessive (n=6,009) pressure exhausted in last year conditions in last year Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Health and well-being index We compute a job quality index (0 to 1) for health and well-being based on mental and physical health – both the incidence of specific work-related health conditions and overall self-assessed impact. As we discuss further in section 10, this is the dimension of job quality that is most closely related to key outcomes, in particular on job satisfaction and day-to-day enthusiasm for the job. This confirms well-being as constituting the heart of job quality. We also conduct regression analysis to look at how other aspects of job quality and situational and demographic factors relate to health and well-being.

33 Health and well-being UK Working Lives

We find that social support and cohesion is by far the most strongly related factor to health and well-being: a 0 to 1 increase in our social support index sees a huge 41 percentage point increase in the well-being index (coefficient 0.41). We also see relationships between health and well-being and employee voice (coefficient 0.08) and autonomy (0.07), but these are much weaker in comparison. We can’t show causal relationships in this data, but a sensible reading is that social support and cohesion makes a more direct contribution to how we feel in mind and body than exercising our voice to influence decisions, or having the autonomy to be able to directly shape aspects of our jobs. Our analysis here also raises a note of caution over the above findings on occupational group, as differences between mid-level and senior managers become weaker and statistically insignificant when we control for a range of other demographic and organisational factors. This does not deny this general trend in work-related well-being at a broad level, but further analysis needs to be conducted in this area to explore differences between groups and how these differences interact with other factors. It may be, for example, that greater autonomy and better flexibility options ease the pressure that mid-level managers face. But at an individual and group level, it seems that good line management and supportive relationships in general appear to be the key, potentially both to supporting healthy working lives and avoiding situations that are unhealthy.

8 Work–life balance

Key findings • UK employees work longer than their European counterparts and typically work five hours per week more than they would like. Commuting time typically adds 3 hours 45 minutes a week to this. • Formal HR practices supporting work–life balance are relatively commonplace, but less common than a supportive culture that supports work–life balance informally. • The most overworked group are mid-level managers and professionals, highlighting that all types of jobs can be improved in some respects. • However, work–life balance is the least important dimension of job quality in relation to key outcome variables.

Work–life balance concerns how we manage competing priorities in our jobs and careers on the one hand, and our leisure time, family and other personal relationships on the other hand. It relates to questions of part-time or full-time work contracts (section 4), job intensity (section 5) and health and well-being (section 7), but is distinct from them. The idea of work–life balance is also complicated by two factors in particular: first, the recognition of housework and caring for family members as work (Edgell 2012); and second, an observed erosion of the boundary between work and personal life, in particular because of mobile and social technology (Gifford 2013, Whiting et al 2014). We do not cover these aspects of working life in this survey for reasons of space, but they are areas that we recognise as worthy of research in their own right. Still, these factors do not lessen the importance of basic questions of work–life balance: whether we work more hours in the week and days in the year than we would like to, and can fulfil commitments and ambitions for our careers, as well as our personal and family lives.

34 Work–life balance UK Working Lives

Hours worked per week An essential aspect of work–life balance is the amount of time we spend working. Our survey shows that the median number of hours worked per week is 37, slightly lower than government statistics, which puts the figure at 39 hours (ONS 2017a). The UK stands out as having one of the biggest shares of long-hours jobs in the EU and the longest average working week, with a mean figure of 42.3 hours (Eurostat 2018). This compares with 37.8 hours in Denmark, which is the shortest. Working hours are fairly consistent across occupational groups, though slightly lower for those in manual or casual work (NRS social grades C2, D and E). We also find that, whereas women tend to work longer hours when they have dependent children at home, men tend to work less. This may reflect a convention, still current for many, for mothers to take time out of work to raise children than fathers. It will be interesting to see whether this dynamic changes over coming years, as regulation supporting men to take more parental leave takes hold. Hours overworked To assess work–life balance, we look at how many hours people work in relation to what they would ‘freely choose’ to work ‘while taking into account the need to earn your living’. We focus here only on overwork, not looking at those who work fewer hours than they would like. We look at underemployment separately in section 4. The average (median) employee works five hours per week more than they would like. In total, nearly two-thirds of employees (63%) would like to reduce their hours. Whether this constitutes an epidemic of overwork depends on what we consider reasonable. On the one hand, over half of workers (53%) work no more than five hours per week more than they would like, an amount we can consider manageable if not ideal. On the other hand, one in four people (27%) work ten hours or more per week beyond what they would like, which is a problem worth taking seriously.

Figure 35: Hours worked, by occupation group (mean hours) NRS social grade A 34

B 36

C1 34

C2 32

29 D or E 29

Total 34

Actual hours usually worked per week, including paid or unpaid overtime Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 36: Hours worked, by gender and children at home (mean hours)

Male, no children 31

Male, children 35

Female, no children 36

Female, children 33

34 Total 34

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Work–life balance 35 Figure 37: Hours overworked per week (%)

37 16 21 10 16

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 employees (n=6,009)

Figure 38: Daily commuting time (%)

37 32 25 5 2

30 minutes or less 31–60 minutes 61–120 minutes 121–180 minutes 181 minutes or more

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 39: Balancing work and personal life (%)

Job a ects personal Job a ects personal 26 21 53 commitments Personal commitments Strongly agree or agree Personal commitments 7 13 80 a ect job Neither agree nor disagree Hard to relax in personal Hard to relax in personal 26 17 57 time because of job Disagree or strongly disagree

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 35: Hours worked, by occupation group (mean hours) NRS social grade A 34

36 B 36

34 C1 34

32 C2 32 29 D or E 29

34 Total 34

Actual hours usually worked per week, including paid or unpaid overtime Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 36: Hours worked, by gender and children at home (mean hours)

Male, no children 31

35 Male, children 35

36 Female, no children UK Working Lives36 33 Female, children 33 34 Total 34

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 37: Hours overworked per week (%)

37 16 21 10 16

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 employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 38: Daily commuting time (%)

37 32 25 5 2

30 minutes or less 31–60 minutes 61–120 minutes 121–180 minutes 181 minutes or more Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

AsFigur discussede 39: Balancing in section work and 4, personalworking life too (%) much is a far more common problem than not

havingJob a ects enough personal work (experienced by 15% of our sample), although the two problems are Job a ects personal 26 21 53 qualitativelycommitments quite different. Personal commitments Strongly agree or agree Personal commitments 7 13 80 a ect job We see a general split across occupational groups between professional,Neither administrative agree nor disagree Hard to relax in personal 26 17 57 and managerial workers26 (grades A,17 B and C1), who57 tend to be more overworkedDisagree or strongly than disagree time because of job Disagree or strongly disagree those in manual or casual work (grades C2, D and E). Within the former groups, the most Base: all employees (n=6,009) overworkedBase: all employees (n=6,009)group are mid-level managers and professionals (grade B), who on average work 8.6 hours per week more than they would like; in contrast, the mean6 figure for senior managers (grade A) is 8.0 hours and for junior management and professional workers (grade C1) is 8.1 hours. Commuting time We can consider that for most, commuting is similar to overwork, in that it’s time we would rather be doing something else. With the median total daily commute at 45 minutes, we see that workers typically spend slightly less time commuting than overworking (3 hours 45 minutes a week, compared with 5 hours). Two-thirds of workers (68%) typically commute for an hour or less a day, while just 7% of workers commute for more than two hours a day and a very small minority (1.5%) usually commute more than three hours a day. Overall this seems more manageable than the figures for overwork, but there are some variations to note. In particular, workers living in the London area commute markedly more than others: a mean of 84 minutes a day (7 hours a week) compared with an overall mean of 59 minutes. Workers in Wales commute the least, with a mean of 50 minutes a day. We also see some difference across occupational groups, with those in higher-level jobs commuting more (67 minutes a day for grades A and B) than those in lower-level jobs (44 minutes a day for grades D and E).

6 In line with the work–life balance index (see below), to calculate the mean we recode negative values (that is, underemployment) as zero.

36 Work–life balance Figure 35: Hours worked, by occupation group (mean hours) NRS social grade A 34

B 36

C1 34

C2 32

D or E 29

Total 34

Actual hours usually worked per week, including paid or unpaid overtime Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 36: Hours worked, by gender and children at home (mean hours)

Male, no children 31

Male, children 35

Female, no children 36 UK Working Lives Female, children 33

Total 34

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 37: Hours overworked per week (%) Balance Perhaps37 even more 16important21 than10 these16 objective measures of how much time work takes up is whether people are able to manage the competing priorities of job and personal life.None We ask workers about three aspects of this: whether they find it difficult to fulfil theirUp commitmentsto 5 hours outside of work because of the amount of time they spend working; conversely,More than 5, whetherup to 10 hours they find it difficult to do their job properly because of commitments More than 10, up to 15 hours outsideMore than of 15work; hours and whether they find it difficult to relax in personal time because of work. TheBase: allresults employees show (n=6,009) that work tends to take priority over personal lives: employees are much more likely to say that their job affects their personal commitments (26% of workers) than theFigur othere 38: Daily way c roundommuting (7%). time One (%) in four workers (26%) also finds it hard to relax outside of

work because37 of their job.32 25 5 2 Looking in more detail at the first of our three indicators, predictably, we find that those 30 minutes or less with children living with them at home are more likely to see work encroaching on their 31–60 minutes personal61–120 minutes lives, mothers (35%) more so than fathers (31%). We also see some variation across121–180 occupational minutes groups, with senior and mid-level managers and professionals more likely181 minutesto see or workmore encroach on their personal lives (29%) and those in unskilled manual and

casualBase: all employees work (n=6,009)less likely (18%).

Figure 39: Balancing work and personal life (%)

Job a ects personal 26 21 53 commitments Strongly agree or agree Personal commitments 7 13 80 a ect job Neither agree nor disagree Hard to relax in personal 26 17 57 time because of job Disagree or strongly disagree

FigurBase: alle employees 40: Managing (n=6,009) personal commitments, by gender and children at home (%)

FigurMale,e 40:no children Managing personal commitments,19 by gender and children at home (%)

Male, children 31 Male, no children 19 Female, no children 28 Male, children 31 Female, children 35 Female, no children 28 All 26 Female, children 35 % Di cult to fulfil personal commitments because of work All 26 Base: all employees (n=6,009) % Di cult to fulfil personal commitments because of work

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 41: Flexible working arrangements (%)

Figure 41: FlexibleFlexi-time working arrangements (%) 33 9

Working from home 34 6 Flexi-time 33 9 Option to reduce working hours 11 23 Working from home 34 6 Compressed hours 9 15 Option to reduce working hours 11 23 Job-sharing 2 10 Compressed hours 9 15 Available, not used Term-time working 4 7 Job-sharing 2 10 Used Available, not used Base: employeesTerm-time including freelancers,working excluding4 those7 running their own business (n=5,215) Used 37 Base: employees including freelancers, excluding those runningWork–life their own business balance (n=5,215)

Figure 42: Informal flexibility in working hours (%)

Very easy Figure 2842: Informal flexibility36 in working14 hours11 (%)11 Fairly easy Di culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Very easy 28 36 14 11 11 Neither easy nor di cult Base: all employees (n=6,009) Fairly easy Di culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Fairly di cult Neither easy nor di cult Very di cult Base: all employees (n=6,009) Fairly di cult

Very di cult

Figure 43: Channels for voice available to workers (%)

One-to-one meetings Figure 43: Channels for voice avwithailable your lineto wmanagerorkers (%) 56

One-to-oneTeam meetings 47 with your line manager 56 Employee survey 37 Team meetings 47 All-department or all- 24 organisationEmployee meetings survey 37 19 All-departmentTrade orunion all- 24 Online forum or chatorganisation room for employees meetings 11 (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) Trade union 19 Online forum or chatEmployee room for focus employees groups 11 11 (for example an enterprise socialNon-union network, sta such association as Yammer) or 6 consultation committee Employee focus groups 11 Non-union sta associationOther or 2 6 consultation committee None of the above 22 Other 2 Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998) None of the above 22

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998) UK Working Lives

Flexible working arrangements What HR practices do workers have access to help them achieve a decent work–life balance?Figure 40: ManagingThe most personal commonly commitments, available by genderoptions and are childr flexi-timeen at home (the (%) ability to choose the start and finish time of the working day) (available to 42% of workers) and working from

homeMale, noin children normal working hours (40%).19 One in three (34%) have the chance to reduce their working hours (for example full-time to part-time) and one in four (25%) the option to workMale, childrencompressed hours (the same number of hours31 per week across fewer days). Job-sharingFemale, no children (sharing a full-time job with someone)28 and working only during school term times are less common options, being available to 12% and 11% respectively. Female, children 35

Analysis on Alltrend data suggests a stalling of26 part-time working and support for flexible working over recent years, as well as an apparent growth of always-on working (Beatson forthcoming). %It Di cultwill thus to fulfil be personal interesting commitments to becausesee whether of work and, if so, how these figures changeBase: all employees in years (n=6,009) to come. Apart from formal HR arrangements, it is also important to understand informal flexibility; in other words, whether the workplace culture is supportive of work–life balance.Figure 41: FleTo xiblegauge working this, arr weangements ask people (%) how easy it is for them ‘to arrange to take an hour or two off during working hours to take care of personal or family matters’. Encouragingly,Flexi-time the clear majority of workers33 (64%) consider this to be9 easy in their current Workingjobs, but from inflexiblehome jobs are not uncommon,34 with more than one6 in five workers (22%) indicating that it is difficult (11% ‘very difficult’). Option to reduce working hours 11 23

Overall, therefore,Compressed hoursworkers seem9 to receive15 more informal support for balancing personal and professional commitments than formal support through established HR processes. Our measure Job-sharingfor these two2 aspects10 are not comparable, as the informal side only Available, not used refers to Term-timetaking occasionalworking 4 hours7 out of the working day. Nonetheless, the contrast is Used interesting to note. An area for further research would be how these two interact: for example,Base: employees to including see freelancers,whether excluding they those naturally running their complement own business (n=5,215 each) other as mechanisms for supporting work–life balance, or whether the need for informal arrangements is a sign that formal provision is actually insufficient.

Figure 42: Informal flexibility in working hours (%)

28 36 14 11 11 Very easy Fairly easy Di culty of taking time o for personal or family matters Neither easy nor di cult

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Fairly di cult

Very di cult

Work–life balance index We compute a job quality index (0 to 1) for work–life balance based on the number of hoursFigure 43:overworked, Channels for whether voice available work to encroaches workers (%) on personal life and vice versa, and HR practices supporting work–lifeOne-to-one balance. meetings We conduct regression analysis to look at what 56 factors are related to work–lifewith your balance line manager while controlling for other factors. Team meetings 47 We see that work–life balance is slightly worse in the public sector than private Employee survey 37 (3 percentage points in the work–life balance index). We also see a consistent trend across All-department or all- 24 occupational groups, with organisationsenior managers meetings and professionals (NRS social grade A) having the worst work–life balance and thoseTrade union in unskilled and 19casual work (grades D and E) faring Online forum or chat room for employees the best in this respect (9 percentage points lower11 in the index than grade A). Related to (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) this, those working on atypical contracts have better work–life balance (by 10%). Employee focus groups 11 Non-union sta association or 6 consultation committee Work–life balance 38 Other 2 None of the above 22

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998) UK Working Lives

The results are similar to those for health and well-being, in that the greatest influence on health and well-being appears to be the level of social support and cohesion: a 0 to 1 increase in this index corresponding to a 34 percentage point increase in the well- being index (coefficient 0.34). We also see clear relationships with worker autonomy or self-determination (coefficient 0.13). Employee voice is less closely related (coefficient 0.03). Again, we should note that we are not showing causality here, but our findings are consistent with a view that social support and cohesion makes a much greater direct contribution to how we can balance our work and personal lives compared with employee voice and even the scope for self-determination. Even more so than our findings on work-related well-being, our findings on work–life balance show that job quality can be improved in all types of jobs. Although workers in higher-level occupations fare better in most aspects of job quality, they fare worst in work– life balance. However, as we discuss in section 10, the different dimensions of job quality are not equivalent, and work–life balance seems to be the least consequential in important outcomes of job quality, such as enthusiasm, effort and intention to quit.

9 Employee voice

Key findings • Informal and direct channels for employee voice are most common, especially meetings with line managers and teams. • Managerial culture tends to be seen as good at inviting employee opinions and slightly worse at responding to those opinions and allowing them to inform decisions. • Nonetheless, most workers are satisfied with the opportunities they have to express their views to senior management. • We confirm the importance of employee voice as primarily instrumental – how it affects other aspects of job quality – more than being inherently valuable as part of what makes work human.

Employee voice concerns the opportunities to directly speak to managers or communicating through representatives and the incentives, disincentives and culture that surround these processes. But on what basis is it relevant for job quality? There are two basic justifications or arguments for employee voice. First, and most usually, it is regarded as having instrumental value, being one of the most significant ways that people can influence their employment and ensure a good quality of working life (Wilkinson et al 2014). Second, it can also be seen as having intrinsic value, with a degree of self-determination being fundamentally important to us as humans (Erdal 2011). For its intrinsic value, voice sits very clearly as a component of job quality, but for its instrumental value, it can be viewed less as a component and more as a central factor that influences job quality. We discuss our evidence in light of this distinction. It is also worth noting that employee voice is seen as creating value not just for employees themselves but also for the organisation. First, through suggestion schemes and management processes for continuous improvement, employee ideas can be harnessed to directly inform business operations or strategy. Second, voice is seen to be a major driver of motivation and employee engagement (Robinson and Gifford 2014, Truss et al 2013).

39 Employee voice Figure 40: Managing personal commitments, by gender and children at home (%)

Male, no children 19

Male, children 31

Female, no children 28

Female, children 35

All 26

% Di cult to fulfil personal commitments because of work

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 41: Flexible working arrangements (%)

Flexi-time 33 9

Working from home 34 6

Option to reduce working hours 11 23

Compressed hours 9 15

Job-sharing 2 10 Available, not used Term-time working 4 7 Used

Base: employees including freelancers, excluding those running their own business (n=5,215)

Figure 42: Informal flexibility in working hours (%)

28 36 14 11 11 Very easy Fairly easy Di culty of taking time o for personal or family matters UK Working LivesNeither easy nor di cult Base: all employees (n=6,009) Fairly di cult

Very di cult

Figure 43: Channels for voice available to workers (%)

One-to-one meetings with your line manager 56 Team meetings 47

Employee survey 37 All-department or all- 24 organisation meetings Trade union 19 Online forum or chat room for employees 11 (for example an enterprise social network, such as Yammer) Employee focus groups 11 Non-union sta association or 6 consultation committee Other 2

None of the above 22

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=4,998)

The idea of employee voice is particularly current, yet it relates closely to other established concepts in employment relations, including workplace democracy and employee involvement and participation. Furthermore, although the form of voice can be either direct (speaking with management) or indirect (through employee representatives), it remains an indirect form of influence. As such, it sits alongside ways that workers can directly shape their jobs – that is, autonomy, empowerment or self-determination (see section 5) – and we should look at voice and choice in conjunction. Employees’ capacity for influence depends on a complex mixture of factors (Dundon et al 2017a). In this survey, we centre on two broad aspects of employee voice: the institutional mechanisms or channels that facilitate it; and the behavioural norms or culture that determine how open management is to employee voice and how willing employees are to exercise it. Channels for voice We consider a range of channels for employee voice. Looking first at ways workers can engage directly with management and colleagues, the two most common channels are one-to-one meetings with line managers (noted by 56% of employees) and team meetings (47%). These are also the most local or low-level forms of communication. By contrast, all-department or all-organisation meetings are much less common, with one in four employees (24%) being able to attend these. In-house surveys are a common channel, with 37% of employees being able to express their views through these. Focus groups are notably less common, being available to just 11% of employees. Enterprise social networks – that is, online discussion forums or interactive intranets (Gifford 2014, Silverman et al 2013) – are also available to 11% of employees. While far from ubiquitous, it seems they are becoming more common: in a 2013 survey, we found that just 4% of employees worked in organisations with an enterprise social network (Gifford 2013). Turning to indirect channels for voice, our survey shows that the most common are trade unions, available to one in five employees (19%). Our survey shows that non-union staff associations or consultation committees are much less common, with 6% of employees having access to these. Comparing this with other data sources, the 2016 Labour Force

40 Employee voice UK Working Lives

Survey shows that 23.5% of UK employees were union members (BEIS 2017); and the Workplace Employment Relations Study (2011 WERS) showed that 22% of workplaces had recognised trade unions and 7% had joint consultation committees (van Wanrooy et al 2013). Employees who had union or non-union representatives tended to be consistently positive about how well they performed their role. Nearly half of employees rated them as good or very good at seeking the views of employees (45%), at representing employee views to senior management (46%) and at keeping employees informed of management discussionsFigure 44: Empl oroy decisionsee ratings of(43%), their r eprwhereasesentativ roughlyes (%) one in four (26 to 29%) rated them as poor or very poor. Seeking the views 45 28 27 of employees Figure 44: Employee ratings of their representatives (%) Representing employee views 46 28 26 to senior management Seeking the views Keeping employees informed of 4345 2728 2927 management discussionsof or employees decisions Representing employee views 46 28 26 to senior management Very good or good Keeping employees informed of Neither good43 nor poor 27 29 management discussions or decisions Poor or very poor Very good or good Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=1,329) Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=1,329)

Figure 45: Managerial openness to employee voice (%)

Seeking employee views 42 28 30

Figure 45: ManagerialResponding openness to to employee voice (%) 39 30 31 employee suggestions

SeekingAllowing employee employees views 33 42 31 28 3630 to influence decisions Responding to 39 30 31 employee suggestions Very good or good Allowing employees Neither33 good nor poor 31 36 to influence decisions Poor or very poor Very good or good Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) Neither good nor poor Poor or very poor Managerial openness to voice Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) To examine the culture of employee voice, we draw on questions from WERS on how receptive managers are to employee views (van Wanrooy et al 2013). We find that Figurmanagerse 46: Pe arerceiv bettered openness at seeking to empl theoyee views voice, ofby employeessector (net positiv or employeee) representatives (42% very good or good), slightly worse at responding to suggestions (39%) and worse again % at allowing employees or employee representatives to influence final decisions (33%). Figur15e 46: Perceived openness to employee voice, by sector (net positive) This trend13 is similar 13to the last WERS findings (2011) although more negative overall: the 12 comparative12% WERS figures are 52%, 47% and 35%. 15 Looking9 13 across the three13 questions, our data shows that the culture of employee voice is 12 most12 positive in the private sector6 and least positive in the voluntary sector. 6 Seeking employee views Interestingly,9 we also find that heterosexual employees tend to have a more positive outlook3 on the openness of managers to employeeResponding voice thanto employee gay, suggestionslesbian, bisexual and 1 6 6 other sexual orientations. This may reflect that theyAllowing have employees unmet to concerns influence decisions relating to 0 Seeking employee views diversity and inclusion. We do not find significant differences across other demographic 3 Responding to employee suggestions groups–3 (gender,–2 disability,1 or ethnicity) or indeed across contract types. 0 –4 Allowing employees to influence decisions –6 –3 –2 –7 Employee voice –9 41 –4 –6 –12 –7 –9 –15 –15 –12 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector –15 Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% poor or–15 very poor) Base: employeesPrivate including freelancersPublic with only one client,Voluntary excluding those running their own business sector sector sector

Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% poor or very poor) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business Figure 44: Employee ratings of their representatives (%)

Seeking the views 45 28 27 of employees Representing employee views 46 28 26 to senior management Keeping employees informed of 43 27 29 management discussions or decisions

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

Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business (n=1,329)

Figure 45: Managerial openness to employee voice (%)

Seeking employee views 42 28 30

Responding to 39 30 31 employee suggestions

Allowing employees 33 31 36 to influence decisions

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

Base: employees not running their own business (n=4,998) UK Working Lives

Figure 46: Perceived openness to employee voice, by sector (net positive)

% 15 13 13 12 12

9

6 6 Seeking employee views

3 Responding to employee suggestions 1 0 Allowing employees to influence decisions

–3 –2 –4 –6 –7 –9

–12

–15 –15 Private Public Voluntary sector sector sector

Net positive rating = (% very good or good) – (% poor or very poor) Base: employees including freelancers with only one client, excluding those running their own business

Figure 47: Satisfaction with opportunities to express views to senior management (%)

17 40 26 12 6

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

Base: employees with channels for voice (n=3,878)

SatisfactionFigure 52: Mean scwithores for employee Job Quality Indevoicex, by occupational group (NRS social grade) Finally, we take a look at employees’ satisfaction with the opportunities they have to express views0.8 to senior management. Excluding the self-employed and workers who have no voice channels,0.7 we find that employees tend to be satisfied (56%) with the opportunities they have to express their views to senior management. As we would expect, satisfaction with employee0.6 voice decreases as organisational size increases.

Employee0.5 voice index We compute a job quality index (0 to 1) for employee voice based on the number of direct 0.4 channels available, the availability and quality of representation and the culture of voice

(openness0.3 of managers). We conduct regression analysis to look at what is related to employee voice while controlling for other factors. 0.2 First, looking at factors that may influence employee voice, we find that workers experience0.1 better opportunities for expressing their voice if they are working in public sector organisations (coefficient 0.04, or 4 percentage points more in the voice index than 0 Pay and Terms of Nature Job Social Health and Work–life Voice benefits employment of work complexity support well-being balance Employee voice 42 NRS social grade A B C1 C2 D or E

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 48: Job satisfaction (% ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’)

% 80

75

70

65

60

55

50 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: CIPD Employee Outlook (2009 to 2017); CIPD UK Working Lives (2018) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 49: I am enthusiastic about my job (%)

16 37 33 12 2

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Base: all employees (n=6,009) UK Working Lives

private sector organisations) and higher-level occupational groups (coefficient –0.03 for NRS grades D and E compared with A). We also see that non-white workers experience lessFigur opportunitye 47: Satisfaction for with voice opportunities (0.03 compared to express with views white to senior workers). management (%) The17 strongest relationship40 we see26 is between12 6 social support and cohesion and employee voice (coefficient 0.48). This should not be surprising in some ways, as we have identified Very satisfied voice as having social and normative aspects. Nonetheless it reinforces the importance Satisfied of lineNeither management satisfied nor dissatisfied and culture, as well as channels of communication and process, in enablingDissatisfied employees to influence management decisions. As Verydiscussed dissatisfied at the close of previous sections of this report, we can see that employee voiceBase: employees appears with channels to be for an voice important (n=3,878) mechanism or practice in influencing other aspects of job quality. However, as we discuss in section 10, in several respects voice does not seem to beFigur a ekey 52: Meancomponent scores for of Job what Quality constitutes Index, by ocjobcupational quality. gr Thisoup supports(NRS social the grade justification) of voice for its instrumental value as a lever of job quality, more than its inherent value as a process 0.8 that makes work a more pleasant or humane experience. 0.7 100.6 Bringing the dimensions together 0.5 In this final section before we conclude, we look across the seven dimensions of job quality 0.4 to compare their relative importance for some key outcomes of job quality and comment on some0.3 relationships between them.

Outcomes0.2 of job quality We consider four levels of outcomes of job quality that have implications for workers and 0.their1 employers: job satisfaction, people’s enthusiasm for their jobs, work effort, and intention to quit. 0 Pay and Terms of Nature Job Social Health and Work–life Voice Job satisfactionbenefits isemployment included asof worka fairly complexity standard supportgeneric assessmentwell-being balance of how happy workers are with their working lives. In line with previous data from the Employee Outlook, we find that two-thirdsNRS social grade of workersA (64%)B are satisfiedC1 withC2 their Djob or E overall (18% ‘very satisfied’ andBase: all46% employees ‘satisfied’), (n=6,009) while just 18% are dissatisfied.

Figure 48: Job satisfaction (% ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’)

% 80

75

70

65

60

55

50 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: CIPD Employee Outlook (2009 to 2017); CIPD UK Working Lives (2018) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 49: I am enthusiastic about my job (%)

16 37 33 12 2 43 Bringing the dimensions together Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 47: Satisfaction with opportunities to express views to senior management (%)

17 40 26 12 6

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

Base: employees with channels for voice (n=3,878)

Figure 52: Mean scores for Job Quality Index, by occupational group (NRS social grade)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Pay and Terms of Nature Job Social Health and Work–life Voice benefits employment of work complexity support well-being balance

NRS social grade A B C1 C2 D or E

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 48: Job satisfaction (% ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’)

% 80

75

70

65

60

55 UK Working Lives 50 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Source: CIPD Employee Outlook (2009 to 2017); CIPD UK Working Lives (2018) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 49: I am enthusiastic about my job (%)

16 37 33 12 2

Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never

Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 50: Work eort (%) Figure 50: Work eort (%) I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help my employer or organisation/client(s) I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help my employer or organisation/client(s) 8 47 28 12 5 8 47 28 12 5 Strongly agree AgreeStrongly agree NeitherAgree agree nor disagree DisagreeNeither agree nor disagree StronglyDisagree disagree Strongly disagree Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 51: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting in the next year (%) Figure 51: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting in the next year (%) 6 13 21 24 37 6 13 21 24 37 Very likely LikelyVery likely NeitherLikely likely nor unlikely UnlikelyNeither likely nor unlikely VeryUnlikely unlikely Very unlikely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 53: Job Quality Index and related outcomes Figure 53: Job Quality Index and related outcomes Enthusiasm gives us a sense of how people feel going in to work day-to-day at an 0.5 emotional0.5 or affective level. Work effort reflects a primary ‘business benefit’ of job quality. Just over half of workers (53%) say that they ‘always’ or ‘often’ feel enthusiastic about their 0.4 jobs.0.4 In most cases, this appears to translate into effort, as 55% of employees report they are willing to work harder than necessary to help their employer or clients. 0.3 Intention0.3 to quit is both a proxy for discontent (in general terms if not always) and something0.2 that has direct impact on the employer. The same proportion as those who 0.2 are dissatisfied say that they are likely to quit their job in the next year (18%). In reality,Job satisfaction it seems0.1 that a fair number of these won’t actually leave their jobs, as only 13% of workersEnthusiasmJob satisfaction have0.1 tenure of less than a year, but it still highlights an important way in which jobEortEnthusiasm quality Eort impacts0 on people and the organisations they work for. Unlikely to quit 0 Health and Terms of Nature Social Pay and Job Voice Work–life Unlikely to quit JobHealthwell-being quality and employment acrossTerms of occupationalofNature work supportSocial groupsPaybenefits and complexityJob Voice Work–lifebalance The well-beingbroad trendemployment in Figure of work 52 illustratessupport thatbenefits jobs tendcomplexity to be better qualitybalance for higher-level Regression analysis: coe cients show percentage point increase in outcome for a 0 to 1 change in the dimension index. occupations,RegressionResults not analysis:shown where coe cients such not significant as show senior-level percentage at p<0.1. point managersincrease in outcome and for aprofessionals, 0 to 1 change in the dimension and lowerindex. for more junior workers,ResultsBase: all not employees shown manual where (n=6,009) not workers, significant at p<0.1.and lowest in casual and unskilled work. This is a consistent Base: all employees (n=6,009) relationship across most dimensions of job quality. The clearest exception is work–life balance,Figure 54: whichRelationships is worse betw ineen higher-level voice, autonom occupations,y and social suppportbut in particular and other dimensionsfor middle of managers. job quality Figure 54: Relationships between voice, autonomy and social suppport and other dimensions of job quality 0.5 44 0.5 Bringing the dimensions together 0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 Pay and benefits 0.2 TermsPay and of benefits employment 0.2 NatureTerms of of employment work 0.1 JobNature complexity of work 0.1 HealthJob complexity and well-being Health and well-being 0 Work–life balance 0 Work–life balance

0.1 0.1 Voice Autonomy Social support Regression analysisVoice on the main dimensions of the JobAutonomy Quality Index, except autonomy, whichSocial is asupport sub-index Regressionof the nature analysis of work on index. the main Results dimensions not shown of thefor relationshipJob Quality Index,between except autonomy autonomy, and nature which ofis awork sub-index index; of*result the nature not significant of work index.at p<0.1. Results not shown for relationship between autonomy and nature of work index; *resultBase: all not employees significant (n=6,009) at p<0.1. Base: all employees (n=6,009) Figure 47: Satisfaction with opportunities to express views to senior management (%) UK Working Lives 17 40 26 12 6

Very satisfied Satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied SomeDissatisfied aspects of health and well-being – such as stress – and related to this, work pressure,Very dissatisfied are also worse for middle managers, but this does not translate to our overall indexBase: employees measurements. with channels for voice (n=3,878)

Figure 52:50: MeanWork sceortores (%)for Job Quality Index, by occupational group (NRS social grade)

I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help my employer or organisation/client(s) 0.8 8 47 28 12 5 0.7 Strongly agree 0.6 Agree Neither agree nor disagree 0.5 Disagree Strongly0.4 disagree

Base: all employees (n=6,009) 0.3 Figure 51: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting in the next year (%) 0.2 6 13 21 24 37 0.1 Very likely 0 Likely Pay and Terms of Nature Job Social Health and Work–life Voice Neither likelybenefits nor unlikelyemployment of work complexity support well-being balance Unlikely NRS social grade A B C1 C2 D or E Very unlikely Base: all employees (n=6,009) Base: all employees (n=6,009)

Figure 48:53: Job Qualitysatisfaction Inde x(% and ‘very relat satisfied’ed outc omesor ‘satisfied’)

% 0.5 80

0.754

70 0.3

65 0.2 60 Job satisfaction 0.1 Enthusiasm 55 Eort

500 Unlikely to quit 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Health and Terms of Nature Social Pay and Job Voice Work–life well-being employment of work support benefits complexity balance Source: CIPD Employee Outlook (2009 to 2017); CIPD UK Working Lives (2018) Base: all employees (n=6,009) Regression analysis: coe cients show percentage point increase in outcome for a 0 to 1 change in the dimension index. Results not shown where not significant at p<0.1. FigurBase: alle employees 49: I am (n=6,009) enthusiastic about my job (%)

ImpactsFigur16e 54: Relationships of the37 seven betw eendimensions voic33e, autonom12y and2 social suppport and other dimensions of job quality A central question is how important each dimension of job quality is. This should inform 0.5 notAlways only how we understand job quality, but also how interventions are designed and prioritised.Often We investigate this question through regression analysis on what factors are 0.4 relatedSometimes to the outcome measure we identify above. Rarely

The0.3 Never results, represented in Figure 53, give in some respects a mixed picture but there are nonetheless some identifiable trends. Base: all employees (n=6,009) Pay and benefits 0.2 Terms of employment 45 Bringing the dimensions together Nature of work 0.1 Job complexity Health and well-being

0 Work–life balance

0.1 Voice Autonomy Social support

Regression analysis on the main dimensions of the Job Quality Index, except autonomy, which is a sub-index of the nature of work index. Results not shown for relationship between autonomy and nature of work index; *result not significant at p<0.1. Base: all employees (n=6,009) UK Working Lives

Employee health and well-being is confirmed as being at the heart of job quality. It is particularly strongly related to job satisfaction and day-to-day enthusiasm for the job, but also has a clear relationship with intention to stay in the job. Put simply, being well is working well. There may be a number of things that contribute to well-being, including other dimensions of job quality, but if policy-makers, employers, trade unions and employees themselves are to focus on one single dimension, there is a strong case for that being well-being. Terms of employment receive a great deal of attention, recently in particular in relation to zero-hours contracts and the gig economy. They are strongly related to job satisfaction and intention to leave, but make little difference in how enthusiastic people feel day-to-day and have no significant impact on work effort. Overall, it seems that the terms of employment may have less explanatory power than at times is suggested. Certainly it is not enough for those looking to improve working lives to focus on this area alone. Job design and the nature of work – including workload, autonomy, resources, skills match and meaningfulness – has fairly consistent relationships with our outcome measures, although slightly less so for work effort. However, the related index for job complexity gives a different story. It has strongest relationships with both effort and enthusiasm for the job, yet seems to have less impact on job satisfaction and has no relationship with intention to quit. In essence, Frederick Herzberg’s maxim, ‘If you want people to do a good job, give them a good job to do’ (Dunham 1984) holds well: the most motivating factor is doing work that we find stretching and stimulating. However, being able to manage our own work and finding it meaningful are more likely to keep us happy in our jobs. Social support and cohesion have even more consistent relationships with our outcome measures, fostering satisfaction, enthusiasm, hard work and commitment to the organisation. We can also see from our previous regressions that they are strongly related to other dimensions of job quality, in particular work–life balance and health and well-being, but also job design and the nature of work. The picture for pay and benefits is more complex and, as a result, we do not control for the other dimensions of job quality (we discuss these methods in the appendix available at www.cipd.co.uk/workinglives). We find a moderate relationship between pay and benefits and job satisfaction – that is to say, paying someone more is likely to make them slightly more satisfied with their job – but relatively weak relationships with enthusiasm, work effort and intention to quit. Although there is a wealth of research to show that reward can strongly motivate specific behaviours (Lupton et al 2015), our analysis here suggests it may be a weaker influence on our day-to-day experience of work and even our career decisions than one might think. We find that employee voice has a moderate relationship with work effort, reinforcing to some extent the theory that it is a major driver of employee engagement. However, the relationships with job satisfaction and enthusiasm are relatively weak, and we find no significant relationship with intention to quit. Perhaps the most seminal research on voice is that of Hirschman (1970), who contrasted the options of exercising voice, exiting the organisation and (silent) loyalty. Our regression suggests that increased voice is not likely to reduce the intention to quit and help maintain organisational commitment.

46 Bringing the dimensions together Figure 50: Work eort (%)

I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help my employer or organisation/client(s) UK Working Lives 8 47 28 12 5

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree It isDisagree worth noting that, from our previous regressions, we find further relationships of noteStrongly between disagree voice and other dimensions of job quality. In particular, voice seems to

supportBase: all employees good (n=6,009) job design. Nonetheless, even here, and also for health and well-being and work–life balance, we see far stronger relationships with social support than employee Figure 51: Likelihood of voluntarily quitting in the next year (%) voice – these comparisons are shown in Figure 54. Overall, on the evidence here, we can

confirm6 13 that 21voice has24 instrumental37 value (influencing other aspects of job quality) and intrinsic value (contributing to outcomes as a component of job quality in its own right), butVery it appears likely to be less important than other factors. Likely Finally, the analysis represented in Figure 53 suggests that poor has Neither likely nor unlikely work–life balance a moderateUnlikely influence on whether people consider leaving their job, but controlling for otherVery factors unlikely has little influence on job satisfaction and no relationship with enthusiasm

orBase: effort. all employees It may (n=6,009) be that many workers consider this a price to pay for having jobs that are good in other ways; or that we simply accept as a fact of life that work will encroach onFigur oure 53: personal Job Quality lives. Inde x and related outcomes

It0. 5is likely that the relationship between job quality and some of these outcomes – especially job satisfaction and likelihood of quitting – changes over time. For example, it may be that during a recession, job security takes on more importance for workers and 0.4 pay becomes less important than normal, whereas in a buoyant economy the reverse may be true. It will thus be interesting to revisit this analysis in future years. 0.3 Trade-offs in job quality In0.2 some respects, employees make trade-offs between different aspects of job quality.

One example is the notion of ‘psychic income’, which is used to describe the trade-offJob satisfaction workers0.1 make between pay and desirable work. Workers can be seen to accept Enthusiasmpoor or even no pay in exchange for doing work that’s interesting, meaningful, high profile,Eort or a

good0 way to develop their skills or career (for example, Liu and Grusky 2013). However,Unlikely to quit researchHealth andby GrugulisTerms of andNature Stoyanova-Russell Social Pay and (2017) showsJob thatVoice althoughWork–life very common well-being employment of work support benefits complexity balance in the creative industries, psychic income plays out in different ways at different career stages,Regression analysis:often coe cients being showa genuine percentage point choice increase for in outcome established for a 0 to 1 change freelancers in the dimension who index. are in a position to Results not shown where not significant at p<0.1. negotiate,Base: all employees but (n=6,009) more typically a form of exploitation for novices starting out.

Figur e 54: Relationships between voice, autonomy and social suppport and other dimensions of job quality

0.5

0.4

0.3

Pay and benefits 0.2 Terms of employment Nature of work 0.1 Job complexity Health and well-being

0 Work–life balance

0.1 Voice Autonomy Social support

Regression analysis on the main dimensions of the Job Quality Index, except autonomy, which is a sub-index of the nature of work index. Results not shown for relationship between autonomy and nature of work index; *result not significant at p<0.1. Base: all employees (n=6,009)

47 Bringing the dimensions together UK Working Lives

Another complication in job quality trade-offs is that some aspects are clearly more important than others. To return to the case of work–life balance, our analysis suggests that it is the least important dimension, in that it is only weakly related to key outcomes of job quality. It seems to be an easier or more acceptable aspect of work on which to compromise. This will vary according to factors such as life stage: priorities often change for parents of young children or older workers. But essentially, we tend to accept that work may encroach on our personal lives more than we would ideally like. In contrast, compromising on other aspects of job quality is likely to be more serious, either because they have a major direct impact on our lives – for example work-related health and well-being – or because they are likely to have substantial knock-on effects on other aspects of job quality – for example, employee voice. Clearly, while trade-offs between different dimensions of job quality exist, they are far from straightforward.

11 Conclusion

This survey applies a new job quality index to provide a clear, reasonably comprehensive picture of working life in the UK today. As we note in the introduction, this is an important step if we want a truly healthy economy that creates not only more jobs and more productive jobs, but also good-quality work and employment. A sustainable vision must look at all of these in consort. In this section we draw together some central conclusions from this first analysis of the CIPD Job Quality Index. We discuss further policy implications in our companion report, The Road to Good Work (Brinkley and Willmott forthcoming). Fault lines in job quality We see some general trends across the dimensions of job quality, in particular with lower- level occupational groups faring worse. This trend is not uniform, and all types of jobs have aspects in which they can be improved – for example middle and senior managers tend to struggle more with workloads and work–life balance – but it is clear nonetheless. In some aspects – most notably job complexity and pay – it may be inevitable that job quality will generally be lower in lower occupational groups, but we can nonetheless challenge the size of the gaps here. For example, our data confirms pay inequality as a problem based on the views of workers themselves. Moreover, in other aspects, any differences at all in job quality suggest there is a problem. We can see, for example, that manual workers receive less social support and have less of a voice in their organisations. This cannot be right if it is simply because of what jobs they do.

‘While clearly important, it seems the issue of atypical work is not a pervasive fault line in all aspects of working life.’

One interesting finding in our research is that terms of employment appear to be very influential in job satisfaction and intention to leave, but not a major factor in day-to-day job quality, having little impact on people’s enthusiasm for work and no impact on work effort. While clearly important, it seems the issue of atypical work is not a pervasive fault line in all aspects of working life. Indeed on some measures, such as well-being, temporary workers have better job quality than permanent workers.

48 Conclusion UK Working Lives

Prioritising action on job quality A particular area for all stakeholders to prioritise is work-related health and well-being. This can be directly shaped by people management practices and also influenced by policy interventions and trade union activity. There may be a number of things that contribute to well-being, including other dimensions of job quality, but if policy-makers, employers, trade unions and employees themselves are to focus on a single dimension of job quality, it should be well-being. ‘...if policy-makers, employers, trade unions and employees themselves are to focus on a single dimension of job quality, it should be well-being.’

Debates relating to terms of employment have by no means run their course – especially regarding atypical work contracts, including zero-hours contracts and the gig economy. Yet regardless of the future shape of employment legislation on atypical work, there is a need for workers to have greater clarity on their legal rights so that these can be better implemented. A way to achieve this would be for the Government to lead a high-profile ‘know your rights’ campaign directed at workers (CIPD 2017b). In addition, better enforcement of existing regulation could also help improve job quality. For example, a powerful way of promoting good job quality could be to equip the Health and Safety Executive with the necessary resources to enforce the existing legal requirement for employers to conduct risk assessments on work-related stress.

‘We may not face a hollowing out of the labour market, but that fact will be of little consequence to workers stuck in low- skill jobs because they have no development and progression opportunities.’

Government policy should also include a clear focus on development opportunities in lower- and mid-level occupations. We may not face a hollowing out of the labour market, but that fact will be of little consequence to workers stuck in low-skill jobs because they have no development and progression opportunities. Income inequality is still high in the UK according to Gini coefficient rankings (OECD 2018), and providing greater opportunities for skill development, skill utilisation and progression must be key to rectifying this. High- quality apprenticeships can serve the young extremely well, but a neglected and important area is lifelong learning for workers beyond the age of 25. The greatest impact on job quality will come from how employers manage and develop their people on a day-to-day basis. Ensuring manageable workloads, appropriate resources, good utilisation of skills, socially supportive environments and adult-to-adult conversations are all driven by good leadership and people management. Good people management can only flourish within an organisation which values and invests in its people, more broadly. The high-performance work systems (HPWSs) model groups together a range of practices to increase levels of learning and development at work, boost people’s job satisfaction and well-being and improve employee involvement in decision-making. There also needs to be a good fit between such HR practices and the broader business strategy. This puts employee empowerment and involvement in decision- making at the heart of the business.

49 Conclusion UK Working Lives

Policies and practices on these areas need to be backed up by leadership and organisational culture. Senior leaders need to fully understand the pivotal importance of employee motivation and achieving a partnership between managers and their staff. This needs to be articulated in a clear vision, underpinned by strong values. Managers throughout the organisation must be committed to a participative approach to managing people and equipped with the skills to do so. And beyond the line management relationship, social support and cohesion must be fostered as the norm between all colleagues. ‘It should be remembered that good-quality jobs will benefit organisations and the economy as well as individual workers.’

It should be remembered that good-quality jobs will benefit organisations and the economy as well as individual workers. For example, the chief economist at the Bank of England, Andy Haldane (2017), has argued that while the quality of management in the UK among our best firms is high, the UK has a long tail of mediocre or poorly managed organisations. This, he argues, is a key factor in the country’s low productivity. Further use of the CIPD Job Quality Index Job quality is a multidimensional construct and needs to be treated as such, yet a degree of simplification is useful to help make sense of measures at a broad level without getting into a dizzying level of detail. A single metric would gloss over vital detail, but a hundred different measures (or more, as with the ILO’s Decent Work measures) would make it hard to create a cohesive strategy for improving work and working lives. Based on previous research (Muñoz de Bustillo et al 2011, Warhurst et al 2017, Wright et al 2018), we have opted for seven broad dimensions in an effort to strike a reasonable balance between nuanced understanding and broad-level prioritising. We believe that the dataset generated by the CIPD Job Quality Index gives a wide range of useful insights and warrants further analysis. In a forthcoming short report, we will analyse regional differences (McGurk forthcoming), and there is further potential to investigate other aspects, for example to understand interactions between different dimensions and demographic differences. Looking ahead, we would encourage employers and representative bodies to replicate the index, either in full or in part, to benchmark against our UK sample and generate more detailed insight into specific industries and occupations. Engaging with employees to understand how their working lives can be improved is something many employers already do, for example through surveys, focus groups and consultation with employee representatives. Framing such activity around the CIPD’s Job Quality Index may be a fruitful exercise. In its recent response to the Taylor Review, the Government has set out a commitment to measure job quality. We applaud this move. Different surveys and data will have different strengths and, pieced together, will each contribute to the understanding and tracking of job quality.

50 Conclusion UK Working Lives

12 References

ASELAGE, J. and EISENBERGER, R. (2003) Perceived organizational support and psychological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol 24, No 5. pp491–509. AWA. (2014) The 6 factors of knowledge worker productivity ... that change everything. London: Advanced Workplace Associates. BAILEY, C. and MADDEN, A. (2016) What makes work meaningful – or meaningless. MIT Sloan Management Review. Vol 57, No 4. pp53–61. BAKKER, A.B. and DEMEROUTI, E. (2007) The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol 22. pp309–28. BEATSON, M. (2018) Megatrends: more selfies? Self-employment in the UK. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/ knowledge/work/trends/megatrends/self-employment [Accessed 20 March 2018]. BEATSON, M. (forthcoming) Megatrends: has flexible working stalled? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. BEIS. (2017) Trade union statistics 2016. Statistical Bulletin. London: Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ trade-union-statistics-2016 [Accessed 20 March 2018]. BLACK, C. (2008) Working for a healthier tomorrow: work and health in Britain. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-for-a-healthier-tomorrow-work-and- health-in-britain [Accessed 20 March 2018]. 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. BRINKLEY, I. and WILLMOTT, B. (forthcoming) The road to good work. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. CBI. (2017) Helping the UK thrive: CBI/Pearson education and skills survey 2017. London: CBI. Available at: www.cbi.org.uk/news/skills-needs-must-now-drive-reforms-cbi-pearson- education-and-skills-survey/ [Accessed 20 March 2018]. CIPD. (2017a) To gig or not to gig? Stories from the modern economy. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/ trends/gig-economy-report [Accessed 20 March 2018]. CIPD. (2017b) CIPD manifesto for work 2017. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/Images/cipd-policy-manifesto-2017_tcm18- 21544.pdf [Accessed 21 March 2018]. CRSP. (undated) Minimum income standards. Loughborough University: Centre for Research in Social Policy. Available at www.lboro.ac.uk/research/crsp/mis/ [Accessed 20 March 2018]. DAVISON, H. (2014) The Paradox of the Contented Female Worker: Why Are Women Satisfied with Lower Pay? Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal. Vol 26, No 3. pp195–216.

51 References UK Working Lives

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. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/jobquality [Accessed 20 March 2018]. 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. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/ jobquality [Accessed 20 March 2018]. DUNHAM, R.B. (1984) Organizational behavior: people and processes in management. Homewood, IL: Irwin. EDGELL, S. (2012) The sociology of work: continuity and change in paid and unpaid work. London: Sage. EDMONDSON, A. (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol 44. pp350–83. ERDAL, D. (2011) Beyond the corporation: humanity working. London: Penguin. EUROPEAN COMMISSION. (2008) Employment in Europe 2008. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. EUROSTAT. (2018) How many hours do Europeans work per week? Online article, 25 January. Luxembourg: Eurostat. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products- eurostat-news/-/DDN-20180125-1?inheritRedirect=true [Accessed 20 March 2018]. FEVRE, R., LEWIS, D. and ROBINSON, A. (2012) Trouble at work. London: Bloomsbury. GHOSH, S. (2017) Deliveroo riders are self-employed, not workers, according to a UK ruling. Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/deliveroo-self- employed-workers-rights-tribunal [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GIFFORD, J. (2013) Social technology, social business? London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/technology/ social-tech-report [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GIFFORD, J. (2014) Putting social media to work: lessons from employers. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/ knowledge/work/technology/social-media-report [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GIFFORD, J. (2015) Getting under the skin of workplace conflict: tracing the experiences of employees. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www. cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/disputes/employee-experiences-report [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GIFFORD, J. (2016) Could do better? Assessing what works in performance management. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/ coulddobetter [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GOOGLE. (2016). Tool: foster psychological safety. re:Work. Available at: https://rework. withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/foster-psychological -safety/ [Accessed 20 March 2018]. GRUGULIS, I. and STOYANOVA-RUSSELL, D. (2017) Psychic income: working for nothing in the creative industries. CIPD Applied Research Conference, 1 December: conference paper. 52 References UK Working Lives

HALDANE, A. (2017) Productivity puzzles. Speech at London School of Economics. 20 March. Transcript available at: www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2017/productivity-puzzles [Accessed 21 March 2018]. HAYDAY, S., BROUGHTON, A. and TYERS, C. (2007) Managing sickness absence in the police service: a review of current practices. Health and Safety Executive research report RR582. Norwich: HSE Books. Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr582.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. HEPWORTH, M. (2018) The contribution of FTSE companies to inclusive job growth in Britain. Bath: The Good Economy. HIRSCHMAN, A.O. (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HOUGHTON, E.A. (2017) Human capital analytics and reporting: exploring theory and evidence. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www. cipd.co.uk/Images/human-capital-analytics-and-reporting_tcm18-22281.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. HSE. (2008) Working together to reduce stress at work: a guide for employees. Sudbury: HSE. Available at: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg424.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. JACOBS, K. (2015) Job quality in an hourglass labour market. HR Magazine. 16 February. Available at: www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/job-quality-in-an-hourglass-labour- market [Accessed 20 March 2018]. KAHNEMAN, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin. KEEP, E (2003) Too true to be good – some thoughts on the ‘high skills vision’, and on where policy is really taking us. Conference paper, September. Warwick: Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance. Available at: www.skope.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/Keep.-Too-True-to-be-Good.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. KPMG. (2017) Living wage research for KPMG 2017 report. London: KPMG. Available at: https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/insights/2017/11/kpmg-living-wage-research-2017. html [Accessed 20 March 2018]. LEE, A., WILLIS, S. and AMY WEI, T. (2018a) Empowering leadership: a meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, mediation, and moderation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol 39, No 3. pp306–25. LEE, A., WILLIS, S. and AMY WEI, T. (2018b) When empowering employees works, and when it doesn’t. Harvard Business Review. 2 March. LIU, Y. and GRUSKY, D.B. (2013) The payoff to skill in the third industrial revolution. American Journal of Sociology. Vol 118, No 5. pp1330–74. LLOYD, C. and PAYNE, J. (2002) In search of the high skills society: some reflections on current visions. SKOPE Research Paper No.32. Warwick: Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance. Available at: www.skope.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/04/SKOPEWP32.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. LUPTON, B., ROWE, A. and WHITTLE, R. (2015) Show me the money! The behavioural science of reward. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/culture/behaviour/reward-report [Accessed 20 March 2018].

53 References UK Working Lives

MACLEOD, D. and CLARKE, N. (2009) Engaging for success: ehancing performance through employee engagement. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121205082246/http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/ file52215.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. MCGURK, J. (forthcoming) Regional analysis of UK working lives survey. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. MCINTOSH, D. (2013) Hollowing out and the future of the labour market. BIS research paper 134. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/250206/bis-13-1213-hollowing- out-and-future-of-the-labour-market.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, R., FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS, E., ESTEVE, F. and ANTÓN, J. (2011) Measuring more than money: the social economics of job quality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. O’CONNOR, S. (2015) UK economy shows shift to low-skilled jobs, research finds. Financial Times. 19 January. Available at: www.ft.com/content/6a8544ae-9d9e-11e4-8ea3- 00144feabdc0 [Accessed 20 March 2018]. OECD. (2018) Income inequality (indicator). doi: 10.1787/459aa7f1-en. Available at: https:// data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm [Accessed on 20 March 2018]. ONS. (2016) Low pay in the UK: April 2016. Statistical bulletin. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/lowpay/latest [Accessed 20 March 2018]. ONS. (2017a) Annual survey of hours and earnings: 2017 provisional and 2016 revised results. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsur veyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults [Accessed 20 March 2018]. ONS. (2017b) Contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours: September 2017. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/ employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ contractsthatdonotguaranteeaminimumnumberofhours/september2017 [Accessed 20 March 2018]. ONS. (2018) Trends in self-employment in the UK. Newport: Office for National Statistics. Available at: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ employmentandemployeetypes/articles/trendsinselfemploymentintheuk/2018-02-07 [Accessed 20 March 2018]. ROBINSON, D. and GIFFORD, J. (eds) (2014) The future of engagement: thought piece collection. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies. SENNETT, R. (2008) The craftsman. London: Penguin. SHANTZ, A., ALFES, K. and TRUSS, C. (2014) Alienation from work: Marxist ideologies and twenty-first-century practice. International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol 25, No 18. pp2529–50. SHEAD, S. (2017) Uber loses appeal in landmark UK case over its drivers’ employment rights. Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-judge-rejects-uber- appeal-over-driver-employment-rights-2017-11 [Accessed 20 March 2018].

54 References UK Working Lives

SILVERMAN, M., BAKHSHALIAN, E. and HILLMAN, L. (2013) Social media and employee voice: the current landscape. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/technology/employee-voice-report [Accessed 20 March 2018]. SINCLAIR, A. (2016) Absence management 2016: annual survey report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/ fundamentals/relations/absence/absence-management-surveys [Accessed 20 March 2018]. SMITH, M. (2009) Gender, Pay and Work Satisfaction at a UK University. Gender, Work & Organization. Vol 16, No 5. pp621–41. SUFF, R. (2018) Health and well-being at work: survey report. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. 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. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor-review- of-modern-working-practices [Accessed 20 March 2018]. TRUSS, C., ALFES, K., DELBRIDGE, R. and SHANTZ, A. (2013) Employee engagement in theory and practice. London: Routledge. TUMMERS, L., BEKKERS, V., VAN THIEL, S. and STEIJN, B. (2015) The effects of work alienation and policy alienation on behavior of public employees. Administration and Society. Vol 47, No 5. p596. TWYCROSS, F., KNIGHT, S., ARBOUR, T., JONES, J., MALTHOUSE, K., QURESHI, M. and SAHOTA, O. (2016) The hourglass economy: an analysis of London’s labour market. London: Greater London Authority. Available at: www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ londonslabourmarketfinal.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. VAN DER ZEE, H. (2001) Measuring the value of information technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. VAN WANROOY, B., BEWLEY, H., BRYSON, A., FORTH, J., FREETH, S., STOKES, L. and WOOD, S. (2013) The 2011 workplace employment relations study: first findings. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/ publications/the-2011-workplace-employment-relations-study-wers [Accessed 20 March 2018]. 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. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/jobquality [Accessed 20 March 2018]. WHITING, R., ROBY, H., CHAMAKIOTIS, P., SYMON, G., CHONG, M.K., WHITTLE, J., et al (2014) Anytime, anywhere: negotiating work–life boundaries in a digital world. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Digital Economy All Hands, London. Available at: https:// pure.royalholloway.ac.uk/portal/files/24375614/all_hands_submission_paper_or_video_ anytime.pdf [Accessed 20 March 2018]. WILKINSON, A., DONAGHEY, J., DUNDON, T. and FREEMAN, R.B. (eds) (2014) Handbook of research on employee voice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 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. Available at www.cipd.co.uk/jobquality [Accessed 20 March 2018]. 55 References UK Working Lives

Acknowledgements

This report has been written by Jonny Gifford. I would like to thank Dr Sudipa Sarkar, Research Fellow at the Institute for Employment Research, University of Warwick, for her invaluable work on the questionnaire design and computing and conducting analysis on the Job Quality Index. Thanks to Ben Butler and Tasha Rathour at YouGov for the data collection and helping design the survey. Thanks to the following for their useful comments and suggestions on the questionnaire design: Gill Dix and David Taylor, Acas; Tony Dundon and Cary Cooper, Alliance Manchester Business School; Alan Felstead, Melanie Jones and Victoria Wass, Cardiff University; Nick Bacon, Cass Business School; Cara Maguire, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; Chris Warhurst and Sally Wright, University of Warwick; Katie Bailey, King’s College London; Andy Charlwood, Leeds University; Donald Hislop, Loughborough University; David Freeman, ONS; Duncan Gallie, Oxford University; Francis Green, University College London; Melanie Simms, University of Glasgow; Patricia Findlay, University of Strathclyde; and Kim Hoque, Warwick Business School. And thanks to CIPD colleagues, who have greatly supported this work, including through informing the survey and providing useful comments on the analysis.

56 Acknowledgements 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: April 2018 Reference: 7667 © CIPD 2018