Figure 3.3: Distribution of Generic Skills Across All Jobs
EMPLOYEE TASK DISCRETION
6.5 External Control over Work Performance
If individuals’ own control over the job task has been reduced, what types of external control have become more important? The view that increased skills would be accompanied by greater employee task discretion was usually linked to the view that detailed monitoring by supervisors would become less close. The balance of control was largely understood as lying between the relative discretion of the individual and the supervisor. Given that employee task discretion diminished, was this then reflected in tighter supervisory control?
A question was included in the survey to examine this. It asked people: ‘How closely are you supervised in your job?’ The response options were ‘very closely’, ‘quite closely’,
‘not very closely’ and ‘not at all closely’. The question replicated items that had been placed in surveys in 1986, 1997 and 2001. The results for the four dates are given in Table 6.6.
A first point to note is that there is little evidence that tight supervisory control increased substantially between 1986 and 2006. Taking those who said that they were either very or quite closely supervised, the proportion was 35% in 1986 and 38% in 2006. Where there was a more marked change was in the proportions at the other end of the scale, that is those who were either ‘not very closely’ or ‘not at all closely supervised’. There was a continuous decline in the proportion of employees who received almost no supervision.
In 1986, these constituted just under a third (31%) of all employees, whereas by 2006 they were only 20%. The overall index suggests that the period 1986 to 2001 was characterised by an increased influence of supervision, while the trend was reserved somewhat by 2006.
Although supervision has received particularly close attention as a constraint on task discretion, there are clearly other factors that can limit people’s capacity to carry out their jobs in the way they want. To examine this, people were asked which of a range of factors were ‘important in determining how hard you work in your job’. These included a machine or assembly line; clients or customers; a supervisor or boss; pay incentives; and reports and appraisals. They were asked to choose as many factors as were relevant. This question can be compared with results from 1986 to 2006 (Table 6.7).
Figure 6.2 contrasts these sources of influence in 1986, 2001 and 2006. With one exception, all forms of external control were more frequently mentioned in 2001 than had been the case in 1986. The only factor that had declined in importance as a constraint on job performance was that of the constraints of machinery or of an assembly line. The strongest rise had been in the influence of ‘fellow workers’ – an increase of 21 percentage points between 1986 and 2001. This was followed by the influence of clients (20 percentage points), of supervisors (16 percentage points) and reports and appraisals (15 percentage points). From 2001 onwards, however, all forms of control showed a decline, with the fall particularly notable for ‘fellow workers’ (7 percentage points).
Taken together with the trends in task discretion, the evidence suggests that the loss of a sense of individual job control by employees from 1992 to 2001 was likely be related to a
growth in a wide variety of external constraints that have affected job performance. When these constraints were loosed, the decline in individual task discretion levelled off.
Figure 6.2 Sources of Control Over Effort, 1986, 2001 and 2006
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Machine Clients Supervisor Fellow Workers
Pay Reports/
Appraisals
% Mentioning Forms of Effort Control
1986 2001 2006
Source: Table 6.7.
6.6 Summary of Main Findings
• More skilled jobs typically require higher levels of discretion over job tasks. Despite this, the rise in skills among employees over the last two decades has not been accompanied by a corresponding rise in the control they can exercise over their jobs.
Between 1986 and 2001 there was a marked decline in task discretion for both men and women. Since 2001 there has been no further change in employee task discretion.
• In all years the level of job control exercised by women in full-time jobs was substantially greater than that exercised by women in part-time jobs. Moreover, there was an increased polarisation of the quality of jobs in this respect between 1992 and 2001, when the level of task discretion declined faster for part-timers than for full-timers. Over the last five years the trend has been somewhat reversed.
• The reduction of task control was general across occupational groups between 1992 and 2001, but there were considerable variations in the extent to which it occurred.
‘Skilled Trades’ workers were relatively unaffected, whereas ‘Elementary Workers’,
‘Personal Service Workers’ and ‘Associate Professionals’ witnessed a particularly sharp decline in their control over the period. These occupational groups (together with managers) experienced a further erosion of job control from 2001 to 2006, whereas task discretion stopped falling or increased somewhat among other occupational groups.
• The decline of task discretion was also evident across all industries. Between 1992
and 2006 it was particularly notable in ‘Education’ and ‘Finance’. Since 2001, the fastest decline occurred in ‘Finance’, ‘Hotels and Restaurants’ and ‘Health and Social Work’.
• Reduced personal discretion in jobs over the last two decades has been partly matched by rises in external sources of control. There was some evidence of an increase of supervision, although there was little increase in close supervisory practices. There was also a rise between 1986 and 2001 in the importance of certain non-hierarchical constraints on individual job performance – notably by fellow workers and by clients or customers. Since 2001, however, these forms of external control appeared to have been loosened. This is consistent with the levelling off of the decline in task discretion.
Table 6.1 Employee Task Discretion, 1992-2006 1992
(%)
1997 (%)
2001 (%)
2006 (%) Influence Over How Hard to Work
A Great Deal 70.7 64.4 50.6 52.5
A Fair Amount 23.2 28.8 39.2 38.2
Not Much 4.9 4.7 8.6 7.2
None At All 1.2 2.0 1.6 2.1
Influence Over What Tasks Done
A Great Deal 42.4 33.1 30.5 28.7
A Fair Amount 33.5 36.2 35.7 37.2
Not Much 15.4 20.6 22.1 23.4
None At All 8.7 10.0 11.7 10.6
Influence Over How To Do Task
A Great Deal 56.9 49.7 42.8 42.7
A Fair Amount 30.9 34.5 40.4 39.2
Not Much 8.4 10.2 11.0 12.6
None At All 3.9 5.6 5.8 5.5
Influence Over Quality Standards
A Great Deal 69.6 51.1 51.7 51.1
A Fair Amount 23.1 28.4 32.0 30.7
Not Much 4.8 12.6 10.4 11.8
None At All 2.6 7.9 5.9 6.4
Overall Task Discretion Index1
All 2.43 2.25 2.18 2.18
Note:
1. The task discretion index is computed as the summed average score of the four ‘task influence’ questions, with a highest score of 3 and a lowest score of 0.
Table 6.2 Influence Over Employee Task Characteristics by Gender, 1992-2006 1992
(%)
1997 (%)
2001 (%)
2006 (%) Great Deal of Influence Over How Hard to Work
Men 70.1 64.6 51.1 51.5
Women 71.4 64.2 50.0 53.6
Great Deal of Influence Over What Tasks Done
Men 40.9 33.0 30.3 28.4
Women 44.0 33.3 30.7 29.0
Great Deal of Influence Over How To Do Task
Men 57.2 51.2 45.0 44.4
Women 56.5 48.1 40.3 40.9
Great Deal of Influence Over Quality Standards
Men 69.1 52.5 52.1 51.0
Women 70.1 49.6 51.3 51.3
Overall Task Discretion Index
Men 2.43 2.26 2.19 2.18
Women 2.44 2.24 2.17 2.18
Table 6.3 Influence Over Employee Task Characteristics by Full-time/Part-time Contract Status among Women, 1992-2006
1992 (%)
1997 (%)
2001 (%)
2006 (%) Great Deal of Influence Over How Hard to Work
Full-Time 73.4 66.9 53.1 58.2
Part-Time 68.5 60.5 45.2 46.3
Great Deal of Influence Over What Tasks Done
Full-Time 47.1 38.2 32.9 31.8
Part-Time 39.3 26.7 27.2 24.5
Great Deal of Influence Over How To Do Task
Full-Time 59.7 54.3 44.1 43.8
Part-Time 51.8 39.8 34.5 36.2
Great Deal of Influence Over Quality Standards
Full-Time 71.8 53.8 54.3 51.5
Part-Time 67.5 43.9 46.6 50.9
Overall Task Discretion Index
Full-time 2.49 2.33 2.25 2.23
Part-time 2.37 2.13 2.07 2.10
Table 6.4 Employee Task Discretion Index by Occupation, 1992-2006
Occupation1 1992 1997 2001 2006
Change 92-06
Change 01-06
Managers 2.71 2.61 2.58 2.51 -0.20 -0.07
Professionals 2.54 2.48 2.23 2.27 -0.27 0.04
Associate Professionals 2.60 2.38 2.30 2.25 -0.35 -0.05 Administrative & Secretarial 2.45 2.25 2.15 2.19 -0.26 0.04 Skilled Trades 2.37 2.29 2.18 2.25 -0.12 0.07 Personal Service 2.57 2.24 2.24 2.18 -0.39 -0.06
Sales 2.28 2.06 1.94 1.97 -0.31 0.03
Plant & Machine Operatives 2.16 1.90 1.86 1.87 -0.29 0.01
Elementary 2.24 2.04 1.92 1.81 -0.43 -0.11
Note:
1. Occupations are classified by SOC2000 Major Groups.
Table 6.5 Employee Task Discretion Index by Industry, 1992-2006
Industry1 1992 1997 2001 2006
Change 92-06
Change 01-06
Manufacturing 2.35 2.19 2.14 2.12 -0.23 -0.02
Construction 2.50 2.43 2.25 2.25 -0.25 0.00
Wholesale & Retail 2.41 2.18 2.18 2.16 -0.25 -0.02 Hotels & Restaurants 2.26 2.24 2.13 2.08 -0.18 -0.05 Transport & Storage 2.36 2.01 1.92 2.03 -0.33 0.11
Finance 2.45 2.29 2.15 2.09 -0.36 -0.06
Real Estate & Business Services 2.50 2.27 2.22 2.24 -0.26 0.02 Public Administration 2.44 2.33 2.15 2.15 -0.29 0.00
Education 2.59 2.37 2.27 2.25 -0.34 -0.02
Health & Social Work 2.49 2.35 2.29 2.24 -0.25 -0.05 Personal Services 2.44 2.38 2.27 2.28 -0.16 0.01 Note:
1. Industries are classified by SIC92: only those with sample size above 100 are shown.
Table 6.6 Closeness of Supervisory Control, 1986-2006
Closeness of Supervisory Control Among
Employees
1986 (%)
1997 (%)
2001 (%)
2006 (%)
Very closely 10.5 6.2 9.2 7.7
Quite closely 24.9 27.0 29.8 30.0
Not very closely 34.1 44.0 43.3 41.9
Not at all closely 30.6 22.8 17.7 20.4
Table 6.7 Forms of Control over Work Effort, 1986-2006
Forms of Control Over Work Effort
1986 (%)
1992 (%)
1997 (%)
2001 (%)
2006 (%)
Machine 7.1 5.3 10.2 5.8 5.1
Clients 37.2 50.4 53.9 56.7 53.9
Supervisor 26.7 37.7 41.0 42.4 40.5
Fellow Workers 28.7 36.1 57.0 49.6 43.1
Pay 15.3 19.4 29.8 26.3 22.6
Reports/ Appraisals 15.3 27.3 23.6 30.4 28.1
CHAPTER 7