Knowledge work intensification and self-management: the autonomy paradox

Q2 Business, Management and Accounting
Oscar Pérez-Zapata, A. Pascual, Gloria Álvarez-Hernández, Cecilia Castaño Collado
{"title":"Knowledge work intensification and self-management: the autonomy paradox","authors":"Oscar Pérez-Zapata, A. Pascual, Gloria Álvarez-Hernández, Cecilia Castaño Collado","doi":"10.13169/WORKORGALABOGLOB.10.2.0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the analysis of the sustainability of knowledge work environments, the intensification of work has emerged as probably the single most important contradiction. We argue that the process of knowledge work intensification is increasingly self-driven and influenced by subjectification processes in the context of trends of individualisation and self-management. We use a qualitative case study of a leading multinational company in the information and communications technology sector (considered to be ‘best-in-class’) to discuss this intensification and its linkage with self-disciplining mechanisms. The workers studied seem to enjoy a number of resources that current psychosocial risk models identify as health promoting (e.g. autonomy, learning, career development and other material and symbolic rewards). We discuss the validity of these models to assess the increasingly boundaryless and self-managed knowledge work contexts characterised by internalisation of demands and resources and paradoxical feelings of autonomy. Knowledge work intensification increases health and social vulnerabilities directly and through two-way interactions with, first, the autonomy paradox and new modes of subjection at the workplace; second, atomisation and lack of social support; third, permanent accountability and insecurity; and finally, newer difficulties in setting boundaries.","PeriodicalId":52161,"journal":{"name":"Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13169/WORKORGALABOGLOB.10.2.0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

In the analysis of the sustainability of knowledge work environments, the intensification of work has emerged as probably the single most important contradiction. We argue that the process of knowledge work intensification is increasingly self-driven and influenced by subjectification processes in the context of trends of individualisation and self-management. We use a qualitative case study of a leading multinational company in the information and communications technology sector (considered to be ‘best-in-class’) to discuss this intensification and its linkage with self-disciplining mechanisms. The workers studied seem to enjoy a number of resources that current psychosocial risk models identify as health promoting (e.g. autonomy, learning, career development and other material and symbolic rewards). We discuss the validity of these models to assess the increasingly boundaryless and self-managed knowledge work contexts characterised by internalisation of demands and resources and paradoxical feelings of autonomy. Knowledge work intensification increases health and social vulnerabilities directly and through two-way interactions with, first, the autonomy paradox and new modes of subjection at the workplace; second, atomisation and lack of social support; third, permanent accountability and insecurity; and finally, newer difficulties in setting boundaries.
知识工作强化与自我管理:自主性悖论
在分析知识工作环境的可持续性时,工作的强化可能是最重要的矛盾。我们认为,在个性化和自我管理趋势的背景下,知识工作强化的过程越来越受到主体化过程的驱动和影响。我们以一家领先的信息和通信技术跨国公司(被认为是“同类最佳”)的定性案例研究来讨论这种强化及其与自律机制的联系。所研究的工人似乎享有当前社会心理风险模型确定为促进健康的一些资源(例如自主、学习、职业发展和其他物质和象征性奖励)。我们讨论了这些模型的有效性,以评估日益无边界和自我管理的知识工作环境,其特征是需求和资源的内部化以及自治的矛盾感觉。知识工作的强化直接并通过与以下因素的双向互动增加了健康和社会脆弱性:第一,自主悖论和工作场所的新从属模式;第二,原子化和缺乏社会支持;第三,永久的问责制和不安全感;最后,设定界限的新困难。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation
Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation Business, Management and Accounting-Industrial Relations
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation aims to: -Provide a single home for articles which specifically address issues relating to the changing international division of labour and the restructuring of work in a global knowledge-based economy. -Bring together the results of empirical research, both qualitative and quantitative, with theoretical analyses in order to inform the development of new interdisciplinary approaches to the study of the restructuring of work, organisational structures and labour in a global context. -Be global in scope, with a particular emphasis on attracting contributions from developing countries as well as from Europe, North America and other developed regions. -Encourage a dialogue between university-based researchers and their counterparts in international and national government agencies, independent research institutes, trade unions and civil society as well as other policy makers. Subject to the requirements of scholarly peer review, it is open to submissions from contributors working outside the academic sphere and encourages an accessible style of writing in order to facilitate this goal. -Complement, rather than compete with, existing discipline-based journals. -Bring to the attention of English-speaking readers relevant articles originally published in other languages.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信