dignity perspective and their impact on

Working conditions from a workplace

dignity perspective and their impact on

employee outcomes

Preliminary results of the research visit under EU H2020 RIA project InGRID-2 (No. 730998) Raminta Pučėtaitė, PhD, assoc. prof., Vilnius

University

Group research visit aim

• To explore the relationships between working conditions and

employee outcomes from an intersectionality perspective with a

focus on Lithuania in a comparative perspective to other Central and Eastern European countries in particular and EU countries in general.

Individual research aim

• to analyse working conditions in public, private or non-profit

organizations, with a particular attention to challenges raised by the 24/7 economy to different social groups in relation to workability and social-wellbeing.

• Working conditions were planned to be approached from the workplace dignity and organizational fairness as well as leader-member exchange (LMX) theory perspectives, considering these trends from the humanistic management perspective (Kostera and Pirson, 2017).

Research background: human capability

imperative for development

• Every human being must be able to achieve well-being as freedom of functioning (Sen, 1999).

• ‘Functionings’ or human capabilities are opportunities to do and be what a person has reason to value (Robeyns, 2005; Teschl and

Debobert, 2010).

• Human wellbeing and quality of life is defined not only by a person’s achievements but also by options for achievements.

“people are entitled not only to mere life but to a life compatible with human dignity, and this means that the relevant goods must be available at a

10 human capabilities according to Nussbaum

(2011: 33-34)

1) life and longevity (e.g. being able to live to an end of a human life of normal length, not dying prematurely

etc.)

2) bodily health (e.g. being able to have good health, adequate nutrition and shelter)

3) bodily integrity (e.g. being mobile, free from coercion, sexual violence etc.)

4) senses, imagination, thought (e.g. being able to engage in them in a way cultivated by an adequate

education to have pleasurable experiences, create arts etc.)

5) emotions (e.g. being able to have attachments to things and people, to experience love, grieve, gratitude,

justified anger etc.)

6) practical reason (e.g. being able to form a conception of the good and engage in critical reflection about the

planning of one’s life)

7) affiliation (e.g. being able to empathise with others, recognize and show concern for other human beings,

engage in social interaction, having the social basis to respect oneself, not be humiliated nor discriminated against etc.)

8) other species (e.g. being able to live with concern for and in relation to the world of nature etc.)

9) play (e.g. being able to enjoy recreational activities, laugh etc.)

10) and control over one’s environment (e.g. being able to practise the political rights, participation and freedom of free speech, hold property, seek employment, enter into meaningful relationships at work etc.)

Human capability in organizational context

(Ulrich, 2002)

Care for basic well-being Provision of basic rights Enabling (training and development) Macro level Meso level Micro level

Humanistic management paradigm

• Rests on an organization’s commitment to advocate for and engage in management practices that protect human dignity and promote well-being (Pirson, 2017).

Workplace dignity

• “the self-recognized and other-recognized worth acquired from (or injured by) engaging in work activity” (Lucas, 2017: 2549).

• WD has a tendency to be communicatively bound and manifested in interaction;

• WD is of subjective and self-construed nature; • WD can be inherent and earned;

Workplace dignity scale by Thomas and Lucas

(2019)

• 18 items operationalizing 6 components:

• Respectful interaction • Competence–contribution • Equality • Inherent value • General dignity • Indignity

Workplace dignity framework by Bolton

(2011)

• distinguishes the dignity in work and the dignity at work components: • integrates subjective and objective dimensions.

• dignity in work is linked to ‘good work’ notion, which is individually/ subjectively experienced,

• dignity at work relates to the organizational practices which construct

perceptions that an individual is valued at work and thus can be measured.

Dignity in work:

autonomy meaningful work

job satisfaction respect

learning and development

Dignity at work: well-being just reward dialogue security equal opportunity

Relationship between Workplace dignity and

Job quality

• Job quality is “the extent to which a job has work and employment-related factors that promote employee psychological and physical well-being, and also positive attitudes such as job satisfaction”

(McClelland and Holman, 2015: 50).

• Job quality concept strongly focuses on an objectivist approach (measured by indices) which holds that work and employment conditions shape subjective experiences of work such as job satisfaction.

• Workplace dignity approaches employees’ experiences and perceptions from a holistic perspective, the subjective and objectivist perspectives being

Dignity in work Job quality dimensions and indicators (McClelland and Holman, 2015)

Job quality indices (Eurofound, 2017) Autonomy Work organization (job discretion); Security and

flexibility (working arrangements -flexibility)

Skills and discretion (decision latitude)

Meaningful work Measured as well-being / outcome

Job satisfaction Job satisfaction (considered an outcome of job quality)

Measured as well-being / outcome

Respect Work organization (job resources - social support from colleagues and manager)

Social environment (social support; management quality)

Learning & development Skills and development (training, development) Skills and discretion (training)

Dignity at work

Well-being Security and flexibility (working arrangements) Well-being (WHO)/ outcome

Just reward Wages and payment systems (Performance related pay)

Earnings

Ability to make ends meet/ outcome

Dialogue Representation and voice (trade union agreements, employee participation practices)

Skills and discretion (organizational participation)

Security Security and flexibility (contractual status); Work organization (physical conditions); Job demands (physical, cognitive and emotional)

Physical environment (ergonomic, ambient, biological/chemical)

Prospects (job security; employment status) Work intensity (emotional demands)

Equal opportunity Work organization Social environment (adverse social behaviour / discrimination)

Working hours as a characteristic of

workplace dignity

Extensive working hours

• may be dehumanizing and objectificating a human being, treating her like a machine

• may be disregarding other human needs to relate/affiliate, socialize/ contribute to society, leave little/no time for pleasurable activities and personal development etc.

Employee outcomes

• Work ability as a mental and physical state, job-related functional capacity of the individual to continue working in their current job, given the demands of the job and their resources (Ilmarinen et al., 2008 op. cit. Kabat-Farr et al., 2019).

• Prior studies have found that perceived work ability predicts worker absence (Ahlstrom et al. 2010), workforce departure through retirement and disability pension (e.g., McGonagle et al. 2015; Sell et al., 2009; von Bonsdorff et al. 2011), and work engagement (Airila et al. 2014).

• Employee health as a subjectively reported physical and mental state.

• Definite physical ailments • Sleeping problems

• Self-efficacy is a person’s beliefs about agentic capabilities (Bandura, 1986), and, specifically, the motivation to perceive oneself as a causal agent to bring influence on one’s own functioning and environment (referenced by Jennings et al., 2015).

• Well-being is a subjective experience of life satisfaction, the presence of positive feelings such as happiness and the absence of negative ones such as anger or depression (Poggi and Villosio, 2015: 70).

• Prior research has found that psychological well-being is diminished by workplace incivility (incl. abusive supervision) - Schilpzand et al., 2016 op cit. Kabat-Farr et al., 2019)

• Ability to contribute to society

• Employee engagement is individual’s investment of physical, emotional, and cognitive resources into work,

characterized by vigor (energy), dedication and absorption, differentiated from burnout (Kahn, 1992; Schaufeli et al., 2006; Shaufeli and Bakker, 2010).

Methodological notes

• Countries selected: EST, FIN, LT, LV, PL and SWE

• Similar sample sizes, no weighing

• Employed (vs self-employed) respondents only • Multiple regressions, stepwise

Workplace dignity operationalization

attempts based on EWCS 2015 (Cronbach α)

• Autonomy, Q42, Q61f and i, 3 items = 0,3 – 0,5

• Prior research has found that night work (as a discretionary decision) has differential effects on freelancers’ well-being based on gender, partnership status, and caregiving responsibilities (Shevchuk et al., 2019).

• Meaningful work, Q61j and h, 2 items = 0,7 – 0,8 • Job satisfaction, Q88, 1 item

• Respect as relationships with 1) direct supervisor, Q63, 6 items = 0,8-0,9 and 2) colleagues, Q70, Q89c and d, 8 items = 0,85-0,9; 3) absence of workplace incivility (Q80, 4 categorical items)

Consideration: it may make sense to differentiate high/low quality of relationships (1-2)

• Learning & development, Q66, 1 item

• Well-being (as an antecedent): could it be changed to private-work life integration/ absence of conflict? Extra pay in the form of

company payment for attendance to sports club etc.?

WFC, Q45, 5 items = 0,7-0,8; WFB, Q44, Q95c-e, 4 items = 0,16 – 0,4 >>> WBC as absence of WFC, Q45R, Q44 = 0,7-0,8

• Just reward as Financial reward (Thomas and Lucas, 2019 when referring to Bolton), Q89a, Q100 = 0,3 – 0,5 (Q101, 11 categorical items)

• Dialogue as employee participation in decision-making, Q61c-e, n, 4 items = 0,7 – 0,8 (Q71, 3 categorical items)

• Security as 1) job security, 89gR, 1 item and 2) health and safety (based on Thomas and Lucas, 2019, reference to Bolton): Q29R, Q30R, 18 items = 0,7

• Equal opportunity as fair treatment, Q61l, 1 item (Q72, 7 categorical items)

Operationalised outcomes (Cronbach α)

• Work ability, Q93, 1 item

• Self-efficacy, Q61k, 1 item

• Employee health:

• Reported physical ailments, Q78, 10 (categorical) items • Sleeping problems, Q79, 3 items = 0,7 – 0,9

• Well-being, 5 items (WHO-5/ psychological well-being) = 0,9 • Ability to contribute to society, 1 item

• Employee engagement, Q90, 3 items (instead of 5 as in Eurofound, 2017) = 0,7

Framework

WORKPLACE DIGNITY

Autonomy Meaningful work

Job satisfaction

Respect from supervisor and colleagues

Learning and development Well-being >> WFB Just reward >> Financial

reward Dialogue

Security >> Job security and Health and safety

Equal opportunity Working hours Self-efficacy (Psychological) Well-being Work ability Sleeping problems Physical ailments Ability to contribute to society Employee engagement

Regressions with Employee engagement as a

direct outcome

• EST: 5 models, Adj. R2 = 0,265 explained by Relationships with colleagues,

Working hours (negative), WFB, Equal opportunities, Learning and

development,

• FIN: 6 models, Adj.R2 = 0,221 explained by Relationships with colleagues, Working hours (negative), WFB, Job satisfaction, Autonomy and Job

security (negative)

• LV: 2 models, Adj.R2 = 0,185 explained by Relationships with colleagues and Learning and development (negative)

• LT: 2 models, Adj.R2 = 0,165 explained by Job satisfaction and Autonomy • PL: 4 models, Adj.R2 = 0,298 explained by WFL (negative), Equal

opportunities, Job satisfaction and Dialogue

• SWE: 3 models, Adj.R2 = 0,263 explained by Relationships with colleagues, Working hours (negative) and Job satisfaction

Regressions with Employee engagement and

Psychological well-being

More and stronger models in each country; Well-being explaining from 19 to 34% of Employee engagement variance

• EST: 6 models, Adj. R2 = 0,316 (cf. 0,265) • FIN: 7 models, Adj.R2 = 0,303 (cf. 0,221) • LV: 3 models, Adj.R2 = 0,219 (cf. 0,185) • LT: 3 models, Adj.R2 = 0,297 (cf. 0,165) • PL: 5 models, Adj.R2 = 0,480 (cf. 0,298) • SWE: 4 models, Adj.R2 = 0,288 (cf. 0,263)

Regressions with Work ability as a direct

outcome

• Weak regressions, Adj R2 = 0,018-0,081, dominating antecedents WFB, health and safety just in FIN

• No causal relationships in the LT sample • Weak relationship with Well-being

T-test with Work ability as a nominal variable

Statistically significant differences based on (higher means from the respondents who will not continue working over 60):

• EST – job satisfaction, meaningful work, psychological well-being.

• FIN - job satisfaction, respect from supervisor and colleagues, learning and development, work satisfaction, WFL, health and safety, job security, equal opportunities, dialogue; higher means of

learning and development from the respondents who will continue working.

• LV – perceptions of all variables are statistically significantly different except for learning and development and working hours.

• LT - perceptions of all variables are statistically significantly different except for learning and development, work satisfaction, health and safety, working hours, psychological well-being. • PL - perceptions of all variables are statistically significantly different except for learning and

development, health and safety, working hours.

• SWE – job satisfaction, respect from supervisor and colleagues, meaningful work, WFB, health and safety, well-being, job security, equal opportunities, financial rewards and dialogue.

Work continued, comments

welcome