体面的工作:什么最重要,谁能发挥作用?

IF 2.7 3区 管理学 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
Stephen Gibb, Mohammed Ishaq
{"title":"体面的工作:什么最重要,谁能发挥作用?","authors":"Stephen Gibb, Mohammed Ishaq","doi":"10.1108/er-04-2018-0099","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What matters most for improving work quality and who can make a difference are perennial topics in employee relations research. The literature on work quality provides answers to these with regard to various constructs on a continuum from “soft” to “hard” variables and stakeholders seeking to influence employers who fall short of reasonable expectations with regard to these. A construct of “decent work” with both soft and hard variables was adopted for research and methods which were collaborative and participative with stakeholders in one national context.,The “decent work” construct was operationalised from the literature and refined by collaborative and participative research. Exploring the relative importance of the constituent parts of decent work involved research with a range of stakeholders; employees, employers and advocates. The study involved most prominently low-paid workers, with employers and advocates also engaged through interviews.,Primarily hard “decent work” variables were identified among employees, primarily soft variables among employers and a mix of hard and soft among advocates. There are some common priorities across these stakeholders.,The main implication is that to engage a range of stakeholders requires a combination of soft and hard variables to be included in research and policy development. However, generalisation about what matters most and who makes a difference to work quality is intrinsically limited in context and time. In this research, the extent of employer engagement in the collaboration initiated by advocates and concerned most with the experiences of low-paid workers is a limitation.,What matters most are a set of soft and hard priorities to engage across stakeholders. Pay is an abiding priority among these and the priority most prominent for many advocates seeking to make a difference through influencing low-paying employers to provide a living wage. While the living wage is a significant focus for work quality, it is not in itself sufficient, as other soft and hard variables in the workplace matter as well. Those who can make a difference are the employers falling short of benchmark standards. Influence on these may emerge through decent work knowledge and skills in management and professional development programmes as well as in initiatives advocating wider adoption of the living wage.,Problem areas of work quality, and problem employers, can be influenced by strategies shaping “hard” factors, including legislation. This needs to be complemented and integrated with strategies on “soft” factors, including identifying positive role models on themes of well-being, work–life balance and precarious forms of employment, as well as pay.,The identification of what matters and who can make a difference is based on an original, collaborative, research project, in one national context, offering analytical generalisability about “decent work” and an experience of collaborative research.","PeriodicalId":47857,"journal":{"name":"Employee Relations","volume":"42 1","pages":"845-861"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/er-04-2018-0099","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decent work: what matters most and who can make a difference?\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Gibb, Mohammed Ishaq\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/er-04-2018-0099\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What matters most for improving work quality and who can make a difference are perennial topics in employee relations research. The literature on work quality provides answers to these with regard to various constructs on a continuum from “soft” to “hard” variables and stakeholders seeking to influence employers who fall short of reasonable expectations with regard to these. A construct of “decent work” with both soft and hard variables was adopted for research and methods which were collaborative and participative with stakeholders in one national context.,The “decent work” construct was operationalised from the literature and refined by collaborative and participative research. Exploring the relative importance of the constituent parts of decent work involved research with a range of stakeholders; employees, employers and advocates. The study involved most prominently low-paid workers, with employers and advocates also engaged through interviews.,Primarily hard “decent work” variables were identified among employees, primarily soft variables among employers and a mix of hard and soft among advocates. There are some common priorities across these stakeholders.,The main implication is that to engage a range of stakeholders requires a combination of soft and hard variables to be included in research and policy development. However, generalisation about what matters most and who makes a difference to work quality is intrinsically limited in context and time. In this research, the extent of employer engagement in the collaboration initiated by advocates and concerned most with the experiences of low-paid workers is a limitation.,What matters most are a set of soft and hard priorities to engage across stakeholders. Pay is an abiding priority among these and the priority most prominent for many advocates seeking to make a difference through influencing low-paying employers to provide a living wage. While the living wage is a significant focus for work quality, it is not in itself sufficient, as other soft and hard variables in the workplace matter as well. Those who can make a difference are the employers falling short of benchmark standards. Influence on these may emerge through decent work knowledge and skills in management and professional development programmes as well as in initiatives advocating wider adoption of the living wage.,Problem areas of work quality, and problem employers, can be influenced by strategies shaping “hard” factors, including legislation. This needs to be complemented and integrated with strategies on “soft” factors, including identifying positive role models on themes of well-being, work–life balance and precarious forms of employment, as well as pay.,The identification of what matters and who can make a difference is based on an original, collaborative, research project, in one national context, offering analytical generalisability about “decent work” and an experience of collaborative research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47857,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee Relations\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"845-861\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/er-04-2018-0099\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/er-04-2018-0099\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/er-04-2018-0099","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

提高工作质量最重要的是什么,谁能发挥作用,这是员工关系研究的永恒主题。关于工作质量的文献为这些问题提供了答案,这些问题涉及从“软”到“硬”变量的连续体上的各种结构,以及寻求影响在这些方面达不到合理期望的雇主的利益相关者。在研究和方法中采用了包含软变量和硬变量的“体面工作”结构,这些研究和方法是在一个国家背景下与利益攸关方合作和参与的。“体面工作”的概念是从文献中提炼出来的,并通过协作性和参与性研究加以完善。探讨体面工作组成部分的相对重要性,涉及与一系列利益攸关方进行研究;雇员、雇主和倡导者。这项研究主要涉及低收入工人,雇主和倡导者也通过访谈参与其中。“体面工作”的硬变量主要在雇员中确定,软变量主要在雇主中确定,硬变量和软变量在倡导者中混合确定。这些涉众之间有一些共同的优先级。其主要含义是,要让一系列利益相关者参与进来,就需要在研究和政策制定中结合软硬变量。然而,概括什么是最重要的,谁对工作质量有影响,在背景和时间上都是有限的。在本研究中,雇主参与由倡导者发起并最关注低薪工人经历的合作的程度是有限的。最重要的是一套软的和硬的优先事项,让利益相关者参与进来。薪酬是其中一个持久的优先事项,对于许多寻求通过影响低薪雇主提供生活工资来发挥作用的倡导者来说,薪酬是最重要的优先事项。虽然生活工资是工作质量的一个重要关注点,但它本身是不够的,因为工作场所的其他软变量和硬变量也很重要。那些能有所作为的是那些达不到基准标准的雇主。通过管理和专业发展方案中的体面工作知识和技能以及倡导更广泛地采用生活工资的举措,可以对这些问题产生影响。工作质量的问题领域和问题雇主可以受到形成“硬”因素的策略的影响,包括立法。这需要与关于“软”因素的战略相辅相成和结合,包括确定关于福利、工作与生活平衡和不稳定的就业形式以及薪酬等主题的积极榜样。确定什么是重要的,谁可以发挥作用,是基于一个国家背景下的原创合作研究项目,提供关于“体面工作”的分析性概括性和合作研究的经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decent work: what matters most and who can make a difference?
What matters most for improving work quality and who can make a difference are perennial topics in employee relations research. The literature on work quality provides answers to these with regard to various constructs on a continuum from “soft” to “hard” variables and stakeholders seeking to influence employers who fall short of reasonable expectations with regard to these. A construct of “decent work” with both soft and hard variables was adopted for research and methods which were collaborative and participative with stakeholders in one national context.,The “decent work” construct was operationalised from the literature and refined by collaborative and participative research. Exploring the relative importance of the constituent parts of decent work involved research with a range of stakeholders; employees, employers and advocates. The study involved most prominently low-paid workers, with employers and advocates also engaged through interviews.,Primarily hard “decent work” variables were identified among employees, primarily soft variables among employers and a mix of hard and soft among advocates. There are some common priorities across these stakeholders.,The main implication is that to engage a range of stakeholders requires a combination of soft and hard variables to be included in research and policy development. However, generalisation about what matters most and who makes a difference to work quality is intrinsically limited in context and time. In this research, the extent of employer engagement in the collaboration initiated by advocates and concerned most with the experiences of low-paid workers is a limitation.,What matters most are a set of soft and hard priorities to engage across stakeholders. Pay is an abiding priority among these and the priority most prominent for many advocates seeking to make a difference through influencing low-paying employers to provide a living wage. While the living wage is a significant focus for work quality, it is not in itself sufficient, as other soft and hard variables in the workplace matter as well. Those who can make a difference are the employers falling short of benchmark standards. Influence on these may emerge through decent work knowledge and skills in management and professional development programmes as well as in initiatives advocating wider adoption of the living wage.,Problem areas of work quality, and problem employers, can be influenced by strategies shaping “hard” factors, including legislation. This needs to be complemented and integrated with strategies on “soft” factors, including identifying positive role models on themes of well-being, work–life balance and precarious forms of employment, as well as pay.,The identification of what matters and who can make a difference is based on an original, collaborative, research project, in one national context, offering analytical generalisability about “decent work” and an experience of collaborative research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Employee Relations
Employee Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.80%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: ■Communication, participation and involvement ■Developments in collective bargaining ■Equal opportunities ■Health and safety ■HRM ■Industrial relations and employment protection law ■Industrial relations management and reform ■Organizational change and people ■Personnel and recruitment ■Quality of working life
×
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