What is ‘good’ work?

In their review of the evidence on the effect of work on employee health and wellbeing, Waddell and Burton (2006, p. 34) concluded that “work is generally good for your health and well-being, provided you have a ‘good’ job”. This prompts the question: what, exactly, is a ‘good’ job? While there is no strict definition of ‘good’ work (Durcan, 2015), many agree (e.g. CIPD, 2016; Coats & Lekhi, 2008; Marmot et al., 2010; Siegrist et al., 2010; The Work Foundation, 2016; Waddell & Burton, 2006) that ‘good’ work:

Enables the worker to exert some control through participatory decision-making on, for example, the place and timing of the work, what tasks and how to accomplish them Places appropriate high demands on the worker

Provides adequate support at work Provides sufficient job security

Offers opportunities for both professional and personal development

Aims to reconcile work and extra-work/family demands (work-life balance/long working hours)

Offers job satisfaction Guarantees fair pay

Prevents social isolation, any form of discrimination, and violence Enables workers to share relevant information within the organisation Attempts to reintegrate sick and disabled people into employment

These components of ‘good’ work relate to the organisation of work, i.e. the psychosocial work environment, rather than the physical work environment (Burton, 2010). While both the psychosocial and physical work environments are important (Bloomer, 2014), various national and international bodies are responsible for ensuring the health and safety of employees, which focus on identifying physical, chemical and biological hazards (Black,

work are receiving more attention, particularly in the more economically developed countries, such as the UK (Kivimäki & Kawachi, 2015; Leka & Jain, 2010).

Increasing awareness of psychosocial hazards reflects, in part, the changing profile of working age ill health. In the UK, the past 30 years have seen a large decrease in physical work-related injury: since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, fatal injuries to employees have fallen by 83%, and reported non-fatal injuries have fallen by 77% (HSE, 2012). However, there has also been a rise over this period in the total number of cases of stress, depression and anxiety (Bevan, 2010; Brinkley et al., 2010; HSE, 2012), which, in 2014, accounted for 15.2 million workdays lost (ONS, 2014).

The fall in physical injuries, and rise in mental health problems, has been attributed, in part, to (i) more awareness of health and safety in the workplace and better recognition of physical risks and how to control them (Black, 2008), and (ii) technological progress and economic growth in the context of globalised markets (Blouin et al., 2009; Marmot et al., 2010), which, in recent decades, has brought significant changes in the organisation of work and employment across more economically developed countries like the UK (Siegrist et al., 2010). This has been characterised by, for example, a decline in heavy industry and corresponding rise in ‘knowledge-based’ services (Brinkley et al., 2010; Sissons, 2011). These changes have been accompanied by the prevalence of new and emerging risks – psychosocial risks –to workers’ health and safety (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work [EU-OSHA], 2012) and threats arising from an adverse psychosocial work environment have become more common in all advanced societies (Marmot et al., 2010; Siegrist et al., 2010).

As the risks of adverse psychosocial work environments have become more apparent, there is evidence, over the last decade, of an increasing awareness of the importance of ‘good’ work at both national and European level (Constable et al., 2009; Leka, 2012). In 2002, the then UK government committed itself to creating ‘full and fulfilling employment’ (DTI, 2002b); implicit in this is the notion that a job should offer satisfaction and opportunities for development. Also, the 2004 English public health strategy, Choosing Health, recommended increasing job control as a priority for improving population health (Department of Health, 2004). At the European level, promoting better quality jobs that offer, for example, appropriate demands and adequate control, has been a core aim of the European Union’s employment strategy since 2000 and is an important aim for European trade unions (European Commission, 2003b; European Trade Union Confederation, 2011; Holman, 2013). The importance of managing the risks of adverse psychosocial work environments, and promoting the benefits of ‘good’ work, has also been recognised by several international organisations

including the International Labour Organization (Somavia, 2004), the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions [Eurofound] (2013), and EU-OSHA (2013).

In addition, the principles of ‘good’ work underpin recently published UK guidelines and policy recommendations. For example, NICE (2015, p. 8) public health guidelines for workplace health recommend workers have adequate demands, control and support, “a voice in the organisation” and feel able to contribute in decision-making. Also, following a request by the then Secretary of State for Health in 2008, Sir Michael Marmot and colleagues published an independent review proposing the most effective evidence-based strategies for reducing health inequalities in England from 2010: Fair Society, Healthy Lives (the Marmot Review). The review outlined several policy objectives; of note is ‘Policy Objective C’, “create fair employment and good work for all” (Marmot et al., 2010, p. 110). In particular, it recommends “the development of good quality work” and “improving the psychosocial work environment”, drawing on evidence, discussed in the following section, that shows the negative effects of an adverse psychosocial work environment and the positive effects of ‘good’ work on a range of health and wellbeing outcomes.