W
W
o
o
r
r
k
k
a
a
u
u
t
t
o
o
n
n
o
o
m
m
y
y
,
,
w
w
o
o
r
r
k
k
p
p
r
r
e
e
s
s
s
s
u
u
r
r
e
e
a
a
n
n
d
d
j
j
o
o
b
b
s
s
a
a
t
t
i
i
s
s
f
f
a
a
c
c
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
–
–
A
A
c
c
o
o
m
m
p
p
a
a
r
r
a
a
t
t
i
i
v
v
e
e
a
a
n
n
a
a
l
l
y
y
s
s
i
i
s
s
o
o
f
f
1
1
5
5
E
E
U
U
c
c
o
o
u
u
n
n
t
t
r
r
i
i
e
e
s
s
(
(
1
1
9
9
9
9
5
5
-
-
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
)
)
H
He
el
le
en
na
a
L
L
op
o
pe
es
s
T
Te
er
re
es
sa
a
C
Ca
al
la
ap
pe
ez
z
S
Sé
ér
rg
gi
io
o
L
La
ag
go
oa
a
2
20
01
1
2
2
W
WP
P
n
n.
.º
º
2
2
01
0
1
2/
2
/1
1
1
1
DOCUMENTO DE TRABALHO WORKING PAPERWo
1. 2. J 3. 4. T 5. 6. 7. Anne
rk autono
Introduction Job satisfact Data, empir The evolutio Examining t Discussion a References . ex ...omy, wor
n ... tion as an in ical strategy on of work a he relation b and concludi ... ...rk pressu
an
... dicator of w y and the evo utonomy an between wo ng remarks . ... ...re and jo
alysis of
... well‐being at olution of jo nd work inte ork autonom ... ... ...ob satisfa
15 EU co
... work ... ob satisfactio ensity in the my, work pres ... ... ...ction – A
ountries (
T SWP
... ... on ... EU ... ssure and jo ... ... ...A compara
1995 - 20
Helena Lo Teresa Calap Sérgio LagoP n.º 2012
... ... ... ... b satisfactio ... ... ...ative
010)
opes* pez** oa***2/11
... 3 ... 5 ... 7 ... 11 on . 18 ... 24 ... 28 ... 32Wo
A
BST Based almos we e impac that satisf high-whenrk autono
TRACT:
d on micro-d st all EU cou xamine whe cted. Descrip Scandinavia faction is due -skill worker n this is not aomy, wor
data, we show untries since ether worker ptive analysi an countries e mainly to t rs - and that accompaniedrk pressu
an
w that work 1995. Since rs of varied is shows tha fare better. the increase i job satisfac by greater wre and jo
alysis of
autonomy ha that evolutio skill levels at low-skill c . Econometr in work pres ction is most work autonom
ob satisfa
15 EU co
as declined a on is substan in different clerical work ric results s ssure - which t affected by my.ction – A
ountries (
and work pre ntially detrim t countries h kers are the m
how that th h might be re an increase
A compara
1995 - 20
essure increa mental for wo have been eq most affecte he decline i eaching a lim e in work pre 2ative
010)
ased in orkers, qually ed and in job mit for essure1
Auton 2011 (Aker would contr produ and d only Karas have mode of stu and lo stress hand, with auton discre E of w Eurof auton Clark are sh Green B exten affect (EWC quest We th1. Introdu
nomy at wor ; Bauer, 20 rlof and Kra d hence prov rast, enhanc uctivity, is as declining job However be plainly a sek (1979) s effects on w el, further de udies, posits ow control – s and health , and jobs w good health nomy and w epant deman Empirical evi work, health fond, 2010), nomy and wo k, 2005). In hown to be n and Tsitsia Based on the nt to which t ts job satisf CS) for fifte tionnaire to hen assess hction
rk is shown t 04; Ryan an anton, 2008; vide a “win-w ed work in ssociated to n satisfaction , the impact assessed after showed that well-being tha eveloped in K that jobs de – low decisio problems. C with low demh indicators work intensit nds and auton idence revea and safety satisfaction ork intensity, fact, the tren
at the root anis, 2005), a e abovementi the combine faction, usin een EU cou construct rel how both con
to have a fav nd Deci, 20 Gagné and win” situatio ntensity, wh negative hea (Green, 200 of work auto r taking into specific com at go beyond Karasek and efined by hea on latitude on Conversely, mands and lo and job sa ty is genera nomy levels. ls that while – has impr with job con , seems to ha nds towards of the declin a result consi ioned theore ed evolution ng micro da untries since liable synthe nstructs and j vorable impa 000) as well Deci, 2005; on with bene hich is also alth outcome 06). onomy and w o account the mbinations o d the isolated Theorell (19 avy demand n how to me jobs with h ow autonomy atisfaction. A ally low, so e satisfaction roved or sta ntent and oth ave decrease work intens ne in job sa istent with K etical framew of work int ata from the e 1995. In a esis indicato job satisfact act on worke l as on thei Breaugh, 19 efits for both o known to s (Danna and work intensi e combined l f work auton d effect of ea 990) and sup ds – high wo
eet these dem igh demands y, on the oth As the overa me groups with extrins abilized in r her intrinsic d in several sification and atisfaction in Karasek and T
work, the pre tensity and w e European a first step, rs of work a ion have evo
ers’ well-bein ir performan 985). Raisin h employers a o improve d Griffin, 19 ty on worker levels of bot nomy and w ach factor. H pported there rk load and mands – resul s and high a her hand, wo all correlatio of workers sic aspects of recent decad aspects of w EU countrie d declining d the UK (Gr Theorell’s mo esent paper a work autono Working C we use sev autonomy an olved in EU-ng (Knudsen nce and crea ng work auto and employe performance 999; Dejours, rs’ well-bein th factors. In work intensity His demand-c eafter by hun time constra lt in mental autonomy, o ould be asso on between may suffer f jobs – pay, des (Clark, work, such as es (Eurofond, discretion at Green, 2004, model. aims to asse omy by skill Conditions S veral items o nd work inte -15 countries 3 n et al, ativity onomy ees. In e and , 2009) ng can ndeed, y may ontrol ndreds aints - strain, on one ciated work from hours 2005; s work , 2007; t work 2006; ess the l level Survey of the ensity. s. In a
secon work O satisf to the 2008 work South the E work in wo inten may wheth of th which situat E differ comp over valua single asses life. T indica Three satisf work nd step, we u k autonomy a Our analysis faction hold i e Scandinavi ; Gallie, 200 k intensity ha h European c European we kers in the dif ork intensity? Following sity is less h well be an u her growing e psychosoc h both work tion. Existing emp rent time pe parative evid the last fif able to estab e-nation stu s whether an The paper is s ator of well-e prwell-eswell-ents th faction since k autonomy use econome affects and ex allows us to in other coun ian welfare r 03). It will b ave evolved countries. Ar elfare regime fferent count ? g Karasek a harmful to th upper limit to levels of wo cial work-rel k autonomy pirical studies eriods. By dr dence of how fteen years lish the gene dies. Moreo nd the extent structured as -being at wo he data and e 1995 in the and work p tric analysis xplains the ev see whether ntries and for
egime are kn be interestin in these cou re we facing es in the int tries equally and Theorel he worker’s s o work inten ork intensity lated problem and work in s, mostly gro rawing on a w work auton in fifteen E erality of fin over, the cro
t to which dif
s follows. W ork and expl
empirical str e fifteen cou pressure and to study how volution of j r the trends o r workers of nown to bene ng to study h untries when a deepening trinsic aspec affected by t l, our main satisfaction i nsity, regardl y are increasi ms in Scand ntensity are ounded on na a unique dat nomy, work i EU countries ndings and th oss-national fferent instit We begin by q lain the pers rategy, follo untries studie d analyze the w the joint e ob satisfactio observed in th f different sk
efit from hig how job sati compared to or a smooth cts of work? the decline in hypothesis if he/she enj less of auton ingly detrim dinavian cou high, may w ational data, ta source, w intensity and s. Cross-nati he validity o comparison tutional settin questioning th spective in w wed by a de ed. In section eir evolution volution of w on. he UK and th ill levels. Co gher job qual
isfaction, wo o the UK, th hing of the di ? Are low-sk n work auton is that an oys high aut nomy levels. ental for wor untries (Busc well be a sy cover only f we provide so d job satisfac ional researc of interpretat s provide th ngs impact th he use of job which it is u escription of n Four we b n by skill le work intensit heir impact o ountries perta lity (Davoine ork autonom he Continenta ifferences be kill and high nomy and inc
increase in tonomy. But We then als orkers. The g ck et al, 201 ymptom of s few countrie olid and up-ction have ev rch is partic tions derived he opportun he quality of b satisfaction used here. S f the trends build indicat evel and co 4 ty and on job aining e et al, my and al and tween h-skill crease work t there so test growth 10), in such a s over -dated volved cularly d from nity to f work n as an ection in job ors of ountry.
Sectio auton
2
Conv work satisf respo and w recog judgm dimen perso objec show acros very in job captu their they resign judgm betwe oppor satisf simpl 1 Self-compa on Five con nomy and wo2. Job sati
ventional eco kers’ utility w faction is a p ondents are s whether they gnized that j ment about nsional cons onality traits Empirical ctive workin w that there is ss countries. different cou b satisfactio ures real diffeSocial sci actual work expect from ned to expec ments are fo een “true” s rtunities actu faction than ly because th -reported job arisons, recen nducts econo ork pressure.
sfaction as
onomists tak without furth particularly saying. Job s y like it; it ob satisfacti one or sev struct difficu (Judge et al,lly, this intri ng conditions s hardly any The range o untries in ter on is higher erences in jo ientists gene experience. m the job. W cting little. S ormed. It is atisfaction a ually availab high-wage hey have a lo satisfaction is nt life events a ometric anal Section Six
an indicato
ke self-report her question perilous end satisfaction i would hence on has a co veral aspects ult to interpr 2001) and it icacy results s and self-re congruence b of variation o rms of their within than b quality. erally explain Job satisfac While some w o everything difficult for and resignati ble1. For in workers: low ow benchma s known to b and other emolyses of the discusses th
or of well-b
ted data on j ning. Howev deavor: it is is often defin e have a pri gnitive dime s of the job ret. Moreove ts perception s in the exis eported job between actu of the latter economic de n across cou n these discr ction is asses workers migh g depends on r both the a ion - adaptat stance, low-w earners m ark level of n be biased not otional and coge relation be he results and
being at wo
job satisfacti ver, the inter never possib ned as the w
imarily affec ension and i b. This mak er, job satisfa n is culturally tence of sub satisfaction. ual working is extremely evelopment. untries, but i repancies by ssed by work ht be led to n the norms analyst and tion of prefe -wage worke may report b norms and as only by adap gnitive psycho etween job s d concludes.
ork
ion as a prox rpretation of ble to know way people fe ctive charact s therefore a kes job satiaction is sho y biased (Sou bstantive div Bustillo et conditions an y small even In fact, the it is still not
the fact that kers in part i expect a lot against whic the responde erences and ers sometim being “satisfi spirations (B ptive processe ological proces satisfaction, xy variable f f self-reporte w exactly wh eel about the cter. But it i also an eval isfaction a own to depe usa-Poza, 20 vergences be al (2011) c nd job satisf n when comp range of var t clear whet t workers ad in relation to t, others mig ch preference dent to distin aspirations mes express h fied” in their Brown et al, 2 es but also by sses. 5 work for the ed job hat the eir job s also uative multi-end on 000). etween clearly faction paring riation ther it dapt to o what ght be es and nguish to the higher r jobs 2007). y social
In oth attem T achie work aspira satisf work proce actua than p make and c D one h (Spec inform their asses flouri and G conve const theref variab count with t Green 2 Term contro the in sociolo neces her words, d mpt to make l To the exten evements, the king condition ation biases faction. Her king conditio esses do exi al working co positive dive es crucial to country. Despite these hand, it is ro ctor, 1986; mation abou job. Even th sed in terms ishing, it is Green and T ey adequate titute reliabl fore focus i bles rather th tries. In the UK the decrease n and Tsitsia minology is fa ol” or “decisio ndicators. We ogists and eco ssary nuances. disadvantaged life bearable nt that job sa e workers’ e ns. With this and analyz results show ons and neg
st and prov onditions and ergence betw control for v e important obustly prove Utman, 199 ut how worke hough job s s of the exte valuable to Tsitsianis (20 measures of le indication in particular han on the co K (but not in in work auto anis, 2005). I ar from stabil n latitude”. Su e use “work onomists, not . d workers ad in adverse si atisfaction d evaluation of s in mind, Po ed the impa w that aspirat gatively affec oke aspiratio d high aspira ween low asp variables tha limitations, en to relate 97; Warr, 1 ers perceive t satisfaction i ent in which complement 005), we con f workers’ “t ns of change on trends i omparison of Germany), t onomy2 and Indeed, job s ized. Green a uch oscillation autonomy” a withstanding djust their ex ituations. depends on t f their jobs oggi (2010) s act of positiv tion biases d cted by bad on biases. O ations has a s pirations and at may affect information to actual beh 999). On a their work li is not an acc h a job objec t objective m nsider that ev true” well-be es in well-b in job satisf f job satisfac the decline in with the incr satisfaction is
and Gallie use ns are only pa as this seems the many face
xpectations t the existing is only parti studied the e ve and nega do seem to b d working c On average, stronger effe reality on in t workers’ ex on job satis haviors such another, job
fe, about how curate indica ctively provi measures. In ven if the lev eing, change being at wo faction and o ction levels b n job satisfa rease in work s shown to in e “task discre artially explain s to be the ets of the phe
o what they gap betwee ially related ffect of work ative aspirati be positively conditions; th negative div ct on reducin ncreasing job xpectations, sfaction rem h as absentee satisfaction w they feel a ator of the “ ides the cond
this paper, l
vels of job s es in job satis
ork. The ana on its relatio between indiv ction is foun k intensity (G ncrease in lin etion” while K ed by the info term commo enomenon and see feasible en aspiration to their obj king conditio ion biases o y affected by that is, adap vergence be ng job satisf b satisfaction
mainly skill
mains valuabl eism and tur n transmits u about and ev “value” of a ditions for h like Green ( satisfaction d sfaction ove alysis below onship with viduals and a nd to be asso Green, 2004, ne with the d Karasek prefer ormation inclu on to psychol d the corresp 6 e in an ns and ective ons on on job y good ptation tween faction n. This l-level le. On rnover useful valuate job - human (2006) do not r time w will other across ciated , 2006; degree rs “job uded in logists, onding
of au and f found which Karas pheno partia
1
The l the 1 cross in Eu appro is rep samp 2005 proce used of the 15 EU descr work (secti studie satisf from 3 See http:/ utonomy enjo for a wide arr d to be assoc h predicts a sek and Th omena by sh ally or totally1. Data, em
levels and tr 995, 2000, 2 -sectional da urope. The E oximately 10 presentative ple, a multi-s sample use edure to sele a multi-stage The data e job satisfac U countries ription of the k autonomy ion Four). Th ed in a third Although fied or not a the standar http://www.e //www.eurofo oyed in the jo ray of job au ciated to neg a strong neg heorell (1990 howing that y outweighedmpirical str
rends in wor 2005 and 201 ataset that pr EWCS is que 000 individua of those age stage, stratifi ed a multi-st ect responden e, “random w analysis foll ction questio for which d e variables a and work in he associatio step by using h the EWCS at all satisfie rd job satis eurofound.euro ound.europa.e ob (Nguyen utonomy indi gative health gative assoc 0) made a the positive d by the negarategy and
k autonomy, 10 waves of ovides uniqu estionnaire-b als in their h ed 15 years a ied random tage, stratifie nts at the las walk” proced lows various on in the EW data is availa and summar ntensity and on between w g regression wording (“O ed with work sfaction que opa.eu/survey u/docs/ewco/ et al, 2003), icators (Euro h outcomes ( ciation betw decisive co e effect of w ative effect othe evoluti
, work inten f the Europea ue and very d based, admin homes in each and over wh sampling de ed and clust st stage or a dure (see EW s steps. We fi WCS and analable for the ry statistics). d examine th work autono models (sec On the whole king conditi estion since ys/ewcs/2010/ /4EWCS/Metho a result whi ofond, 2007) (Danna and G een work in ntribution to work autonom of work inten
ion of job s
nsity and job an Working C detailed infor nistered using h of the EU ho are in emp esign was us tered design phone regis WCS 1995 an first concentr lyze its evolu
four waves In a second heir evolutio omy, work in ction Five). e, are you ve ons in your it mentions /sampling.htm odology.pdf fo ich holds in d . Conversely Griffin, 1999 ntensity and o the under my on job sa nsity.
atisfaction
satisfaction Conditions S rmation on th g face to fac countries. Ev ployment. In ed in each c with either ter selection d 2000 Final rate on assess ution from 19 (see Table d step, we b on by skill l ntensity and ry satisfied, main paid j s “satisfactio m and or further infor different cou y, work press 9; Dejours, 2 d job satisfa rstanding of atisfaction mn
n are studied Survey (EWC he quality of ce interviews Every wave s n the 2010 E country, whi a ‘random n3. Previous w l Reports).sing the relia 995 to 2010 1A and 2A build indicat level and co job satisfact satisfied, no job?“) is dif ion with wo rmation. 7 untries sure is 2009), action. f both may be using CS), a f work s with ample EWCS ile the walk’ waves ability in the A for a ors of ountry tion is ot very fferent orking
condi meas comp satisf single worki reach the v dimen reliab nation To d occup HSC; Table overa cleric avera mark manu
4 See itions” inste ure. Noneth ponent analy faction at wo e underlying king conditio
hed the same very end of nsions of th bly used as a As menti nal level mi distinguish b pational clas ; Low Skill C e 1A in the A The analy all, high-skil cal workers age satisfacti ked decline in ual workers s High‐sk Low‐sk High‐sk Low‐sk Total Note: job http://www.e ad of “satis heless, in o ysis (CatPCA ork (results a g dimension ons” questio e results. Fina f the questi heir job. The proxy for jo ioned above, ght conceal between gro ses of the w Clerical – LS Appendix). ysis of avera ll workers d are on avera ion in 1995 n the satisfac seems to hav Table 1. kill clerical ill clerical kill manual ill manual b satisfaction eurofound.euro faction with order to val A) was carr available on which in tu n. Poggi (2 ally, referenc ionnaire, wh e satisfaction ob satisfactio , the sole ob significant d oups of wo orkers’ jobs SC; High Sk
age job satis display highe age more sat
was higher ction of cleri e stabilized i Average job 1995 3.30 3.17 3.04 2.94 3.13 goes from 1 – opa.eu/survey h your job”, lidate the E ried out ove
demand). Ca urn correlate 2010) perfor ce must be m hen respond n with work on. bservation of divergences orkers, we in four categ kill Manual – sfaction by s er levels of tisfied than than in any ical workers in the 2000s. b satisfaction 2000 3.26 3.14 2.95 2.89 3.08 – not at all sat
ys/ewcs/2010/ it is curren EWCS ques er four items atPCA confir s significant rmed a diffe made to the f dents had al king conditio f the aggreg between wo use the Eu gories of ski – HSM; and L skill level re f satisfaction manual wor other year over the yea . by year and s 2005 3.23 3.12 2.96 2.88 3.07 tisfied to 4 – v /methodology. tly used as tion, a cate s measuring rmed that th tly with the erent validat fact that the lready been ons question
ate trends at orkers of diff urofond clas ill level4: Hig Low Skill M
eveals that, i n than low-s
kers (Table for all skill ars whereas skill level 2010 3.21 3.12 2.97 2.91 3.08 very satisfied. .htm for detail a job satisf egorical prin g other aspe he items relat “satisfaction tion exercise question com n asked abo n can therefo at the Europe fferent skill l ssification o gh Skill Cler Manual – LSM in each wav skill workers 1). As for t levels. Ther the satisfact Total 3.25 3.14 2.98 2.90 3.09 ls. 8 faction ncipal cts of te to a n with e that mes at ut all ore be ean or levels. of the rical – M (see ve and s, and trends, re is a ion of
Thou exam signif (Tabl the d declin satisf
As m count contr well-declin manu The d Swed declin 5 To fa availa ugh declining mined the ev ficantly. Dif le 2). The st decline in the ne in the “n faction. Tab High‐skil Low‐skill High‐skil Low‐skill Total * Significan mentioned, w tries due to rast, changes being. The ned in almo ual workers i decline is par den and Fin
ned most am facilitate readin ble on reques g, there is no volution in fferences betw eadiness of t e number of not at all sa ble 2. Propor l clerical n= l clerical n= l manual n= l manual n= n= nt difference at we do not con the several s in job satis analysis of ost all 15 co in the UK an rticularly lar nland. In the mong clerical ng, only the f st. t a very pron the percent ween 1995 a the average f “very satis atisfied” wor rtion of “Very 1995 0.42 2313 0.33 5599 0.24 2135 0.22 2415 0.31 12462 the 0.001 leve nsider it relev l cultural bi faction can b Figure 15 s ountries and nd Denmark rge in Belgiu e Scandinav workers.
irst and last y
nounced tren tage of “ve and 2010 are level of job sfied”, which rkers, which y satisfied” w 2000 0.36 3300 0.31 8097 0.19 2893 0.19 3519 0.28 17809 l vant to comm iases surrou be trusted to shows that t for all skill k, and low-sk um, Ireland a vian countrie
years are repre
nd in average ery satisfied e significant satisfaction h lowers the h has the co workers by ye 2005 0.35 2585 0.29 5342 0.18 1659 0.16 2611 0.26 12197 ment differe unding the j o signal actu the proporti l levels. Exc kill clerical w and the Neth
es and the esented in the job satisfact d” workers, (p < 0.001) results from average sat ontrary effec ar and skill l 2010 201 0.33 ‐ 3832 0.27 ‐ 8708 0.17 ‐ 2495 0.18 ‐ 3479 0.25 ‐ 18514 nces in job s ob satisfacti ual difference on of very ceptions are workers in th erlands, and Netherlands e Figures. Com tion. We the which decr for all skill m two pheno tisfaction, an ct on averag level 10 – 1995 ‐0.09* ‐0.06* ‐0.07* ‐0.04* ‐0.06* satisfaction a tion indicato es in the wo satisfied wo Greece, low he UK and S is considera s, job satisf mplete informa 9 erefore reased levels mena: nd the ge job across or. By orkers’ orkers w-skill Spain. able in faction ation is
High‐ski Low‐ski High‐skil Low‐skil High‐skil Low‐skil High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skil Low‐skil High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skil Low‐skil High‐skill Low‐skill 0.0 0.2 ll clerical ll clerical l manual l manual BE 0.0 0.2 l clerical ll clerical l manual l manual ES 0.0 0.2 l clerical ll clerical l manual l manual LU 0.0 0.2 l clerical ll clerical l manual l manual FI 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 Fig 1: Propo 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual ortion of “Ve 0.2 0.4 DK 0.2 0.4 FR 0.2 0.4 NL 0.2 0.4 SE ry satisfied” 0.6 2010 1995 High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skill m Low‐skill m 0.6 2010 1995 High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skill m Low‐skill m 0.6 2010 1995 High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skill Low‐skill 0.6 2010 1995 High‐skill Low‐skill High‐skill Low‐skill workers by s
0.0 0.2 clerical clerical manual manual DE 0.0 0.2 clerical clerical manual manual IE 0.0 0.2 clerical clerical manual manual AT 0.0 0.2 clerical clerical manual manual UK
skill level and
0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 0.4 0.6 2010 1995 d country (19 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 0.0 High‐skill clerical Low‐skill clerical High‐skill manual Low‐skill manual 995 and 2010)
10 0.2 0.4 EL 0.2 0.4 IT 0.2 0.4 PT )
0.6 2010 1995 0.6 2010 1995 0.6 2010 1995
2.
If the job p increa perfo while comm unski a pol the w work econo maint unlim strain high depre inten with nation of wo levels becau polici and l expec polar positi As fo the EThe evol
e findings m performanceasing for all ormance adva e work auto mitment, con illed tasks. M larization pro workers in les With rega k intensificat omies might tain higher mited process n. As predict work intens ession, insom sity is hence already high Although nal institutio ork-related v s of job qua use of their ies, we expe less differen cted to fare rization tren ions. or work auto EWCS that re
lution of w
entioned in t and job s l workers ov antage to au onomy is sh ntrol devices Managers see ocess would ss skilled jobard work int tion in capi t well provo levels of e s and there is ted by Karas sity and low mnia and m e to be expec h work intens h all countri onal settings variables. In ality (Esser more egalita ect the Scan nce among e worse in ds, while C nomy, we re easonably co
work autono
the introduct atisfaction, ver time and utonomous m hown to pro s have been eking efficien be observed bs. tensity, dive talist econom oke an accele economic ef s evidence th sek and The w autonomy musculoskeletcted for all sk sity or low w es face sim and cultural effect, the d and Olsen, 2 arian regime dinavian cou groups of w terms of bo Continental ely on Lopes over what Ka
omy and wo
tion hold, i.e one would d space. How motivation fo omote perfor n found to y ncy would th d, marked by erse theories mies, and t eration of th fficiency. H hat European eorell (1990) is associated tal disorders kill levels bu work autonom milar competi specificities different welf 2011; Davoi es, higher tra untries to di workers. Co oth work au and Anglo-s et al (2012) arasek (1979
ork intensi
e., if work a expect to wever, some or low-skill j rmance in j yield superio herefore disc y a long-term have predic the progress he phenomen However, wo n workers are , evidence s d to high ris s (Siegrist, ut it might be my. itive demand s may strongl fare regimes ine et al, 20 ade union m splay better onversely, S utonomy an Saxon coun )’s indicators 9) calls “jobity in the EU
utonomy is a see work a studies show jobs (Gagné obs requirin or short-term riminate betw m decline in ted a structu ive catching non in Europ ork intensifi e already sub hows that th sks of cardio 2006). An e less pronou ds and econ ly impact the exhibit subs 008; Gallie, membership a levels of int outh Europe nd work inte ntries would s, based on s control” (seU
actually rela autonomy st w that there é and Deci, 2 ng high lev m performan tween worke job autonom ural trend to g-up of eme ope in an eff ication is n bject to high he combinati ovascular di increase in unced for wo nomic constr e levels and t stantially dif 2003). Ther and labor-or ntrinsic job q ean countrie tensity level d display av seven questio ee Table 1A 11 ated to eadily is no 2005); els of nce in rs and my for wards erging fort to not an h work ion of isease, work orkers raints, trends fferent refore, iented quality es are s and verage ons of in theAppe found (PCA Lope metho (WCA when availa show contr single (Man dimen fact, levels Overa Resul Nethe less d work avera decre Finla work contr work regim also comb Meas load our in endix). The m d in Table 4 A) and obtain s et al (2012 od and sche A). While W n and how t able in their j ws the contro rol workers h e index of w nsell and Bro
nsional phen results show s in a meanin all, work au lts confirm t erlands and difference b kers than in
age work aut eased in all and, the Neth kers in the 15
rast, a clear kers. For wo mes are hence
We now expect to va bined evoluti suring work or work effo ndicator, we means and n 4A in the ap ned the same 2)s’ terminol eduling auton WMSA refers they carry o job and to w ol workers h have over the work control ough, 2005). nomenon. W w that the be ngful way. utonomy dec the “Scandin Sweden are between cler all other cou tonomy (see other count herlands and 5 studied cou polarization ork autonom e partially co concentrate ary across co ion of work i intensity - o ort. However e used the tw number of va ppendix. We scores, whic logy - inspire nomy” (WM s to the degre out their wo whether they a have over th eir work con l in spite of Our PCA al We hence pref havior of bo clined signif navian except above the EU rical and ma untries, whe Figure 1A in tries from 19 d Sweden. A untries has no n process is my, our exp
onfirmed (for on examinin ountries grou intensity and r job deman r, no such da wo question alid cases fo e conducted ch we use in ed in Breaug MSA) and the ee of control ork tasks, W
asses the qua heir method ntent. The tw f evidence th so systemati ferred not to oth measures ficantly over tion”: work U average fo anual worke ere manual w n the Appen 995 to 2010 As for polari ot deteriorate under way pectations re r complete an ng the levels uped by typ d work autono nds, in Karas ata is availab ns traditional or all seven v the same Pr the analysis gh (1985) – e second fac l that worker WCA refers ality of their s and sched wo constructs hat the cons ically reveale subsume it s of autonom r the period autonomy le or all groups ers and betw workers syst ndix). In addi 0, it stabiliz ization proce ed when com between hig egarding pol nalysis, see L s and trends pe of welfare omy by skill ek’s terms -ble in the fou lly examined variables in rincipal Com below. We a labeling the ctor “work c rs perceive is to the learn work. In oth dules, while s are often co tructs are em ed that work into a single my differs ac d (see last r evels in Denm of workers ween low-sk tematically s ition, wherea ed or increa esses, the sit mpared to cle gh-skill and larization tre Lopes et al., in work inte e regime – a level and by requires inf ur EWCS wa d in studies each wave c mponents An also chose to first factor “ criteria auton s being exert ning opportu her words, W WCA show ombined to g mpirically d k autonomy i e additive sca cross the fou
rows of Tab mark, Finlan and there is kill and high
suffer from b as work auto ased in Den tuation of m erical worke low-skill cl ends and w 2012). ensity – whi and analyzin y country. formation on aves. To con of work int 12 can be nalysis o keep “work nomy” ted on unities WMSA ws the give a istinct s a bi-ale. In ur skill ble 3). nd, the much h-skill below onomy nmark, manual rs. By lerical welfare ch we ng the n work nstruct tensity
based invol stress perfo const and 2 of ca dicho also p the n the sc const two w single of rig on an herea above press increa 0.001 cleric while These deteri comb 6 Eige d on EWCS lve working sful patterns ormance targe Contrary traint questio 2000 waves r ategories (see otomous natu presents the on-missing d core computa traint could b waves for ea e factor6. Cro The resul gor, fully exp
n important after as the e EU-averag ure. Table 3 s asing over t 1 level for a cal workers – e enjoying re e findings s iorate the m bined evoluti envalue is 2.43 (“Does you to tight de of work su ets, and time
to the respon on (“You hav required a ye e Table 3A ure of others advantage o data when th ation for all be included ach set of p onbach’s alp
lting indicato ploits the inf
dimension o Work Pressu ge work pres
shows that, w the years for all skill leve – who suffer elatively low suggest that most, but de ion of work a 3. ur job involv eadlines?”) t uch as: relian e constraint. nses to the ot ve enough tim es/no answer in the Appe led us to use of incorporati he loss functi objects with in the analy possible resp pha for the in
or, named “w formation av of job deman ure indicator sure while n with minor e r all skill lev
ls. The incre r from the hi w levels at the it is high s efinite conclu autonomy an ve working a to which w nce on work ther question me to get the r but the 200 endix). The e Categorica ing a sophis ion is minim at least one ysis even tho ponses. CatP ndex is 0.71, work pressur vailable in the ands. The (s r (dataset p negative valu exceptions, p vels. Differe rease in work ighest levels e beginning skill clerical usions can nd work pres at very high we added qu k done by c ns, the set of e job done”) 5 and 2010 w ordinal natu l Principal C ticated optio mized (Meulm valid respon ough there ar CA reveals indicating su
re” rather tha e EWCS and standardized ooled). Valu ues correspon
perceived wo ences for the k pressure h s of work pre - and lower l workers w only be dra sure. speed?” an uestions relat colleagues, p f possible resp differs acros waves propo ure of some Components A on that only t man et al, 20 nse. Thus, the re valid obse that the five ufficient inter an work inte d contains re ) score on t ues above ze nd to below ork pressure e period are has been hig essure at the for low-skil who have se awn from th nd “Does you ted to poten previously de sponses to th ss waves: the osed an order variables an Analysis. Ca takes into ac 004), and it a e question on ervations for e items load ernal consiste
ensity for the eliable inform this factor is ero correspo EU-average has been st significant gher for high
end of the p ll manual wo een their situ he analysis o 13 ur job ntially efined e time e 1995 red set nd the atPCA ccount allows n time r only d on a ency. e sake mation s used ond to e work eadily at the h-skill period orkers. uation of the
Overa evolu press over increa increa but n cleric auton Karas highe 7 It is worke sched Table 3. W Work High‐s Low‐s High‐s Low‐s Total Work WMSA WCA * Signi Note: the 0.0 negative scor pressure/auto all, an incre ution may ha ure is not co In terms the period: ase in work ased the mos no reversion cal workers nomy levels7 sek and The est job strain interesting to ers. Converse ules (increasin Work pressu k Pressure: skill clerical n= skill clerical n= skill manual n= skill manual n= n= k Autonomy: A n= n= ificant differenc 00 score correspo re means below a onomy. ease in work ave strong ne ompensated f of skill level work pressu k autonomy. st between 2 of the overa increased m 7 , especially eorell (1990 since they e o note that WC ly, low-skill m ng WMSA) wh re and work 1995 ‐0.144 2326 ‐0.291 5631 0.15 2140 ‐0.047 2433 ‐0.141 12531 0.023 12517 0.116 12517 ce at the 0.001 l nds to the averag average work pre
k pressure an egative impli for by an incr
ls, Figure 2 ure rose for a
Work auto 000 and 200 all negative markedly but when comp )’s model, i experience th
CA, i.e. contro manual worke hile high-skill c autonomy sc 2000 ‐0.162 3310 ‐0.278 8118 0.19 2912 0.014 3558 ‐0.122 17898 0.011 17880 ‐0.012 17880 level ge level of work p essure or work au nd a decreas ications on j rease in work shows that j all skill leve onomy decre 05; since then trends can b they still b pared to low it is high-sk he larger exc ol over work c ers now have clerical worker
cores over tim
2005 2 0.157 0 2599 3 0.043 ‐0 5373 8 0.533 1671 2 0.094 0 2625 3 0.145 0 12267 1 ‐0.028 ‐0 12249 1 ‐0,054 ‐0 12249 1 pressure or work utonomy while a p se in work a ob satisfacti k autonomy. ob strain cle els without b eased more n, both pheno be observed. enefit from w-skill cleric kill manual w ess of work p content, has ri e more contro rs have less.
me, all countr
2010 2010 0.214 0.3 3847 0.024 0.2 8758 0.41 0.2 2508 0.179 0.2 3515 0.122 0.2 18628 0,008 ‐0.0 18598 0.030 ‐0. 18598 autonomy of all w positive score me autonomy ar on, since the
early increas being compe intensely an omena seem Work press high, though cal workers. workers who pressure ove sen for HSC b ol over their ries pooled 0‐1995 358* 267* 260* 226* 263* 031* 146*
workers for all w eans above avera
re observed. e increase in ed for all wo ensated for b nd work pre m to have stab sure for high h declining, But accordi o suffer from er decision la but declined fo work method 14 waves; a age work Such n work orkers by any essure bilized h-skill work ing to m the atitude. or LSM ds and
‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra ge by sk ill le ve l an d wa ve ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra ge by skill le ve l an d wa ve In fac may p Turni the hi – the press count regar 1995 2000 Hig 1995 2000 Hig ct, the large partly explai Fig 2: W ing now to th ighest percei four countr ure was alre tries for wor rding work pr 2005 201 gh‐skill clerical 2005 201 gh‐skill manual discrepancy in their lower Work autonom he analysis o ived work pr ries where w eady very hig rk autonomy ressure, whic 10 WMSA WCA Work 10 WMSA WCA Work y between w r levels of jo my (WMSA a year of countries, ressure over work autonom gh in Finland y, the United ch indicates A Intensity ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Av e ra ge by skill le ve l an d wa ve A Intensity ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Av e ra ge by skill le ve l an d wa ve work autonom ob satisfactio and WCA) an r for all coun
we can see the period, f my is also th d and Swede d Kingdom st high levels o 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 my and work n. nd Work Pre ntries in Figure 3 t followed by e highest. B en in 1995. W tands closer of job strain i 2000 2005 Low‐skill cl 2000 2005 Low‐skill m k pressure fo essure scores that Finland the Netherla ut we can al While closer to the Scand in this countr 2010 erical 2010 manual or manual wo by skill level and Sweden ands and Den lso note that
to the Conti dinavian cou try. 15 WMSA WCA Work Intensity WMSA WCA Work Intensity orkers and n have nmark t work nental untries
Franc fact, chara excep auton 8 Note fact a Another i ce, Luxembu these are t acterized by ption of Gre nomy. Italy s
e that for labo lready pointed
interesting f urg) and Irela
he countries rather low eece for wor stands betwee or-related matt d out by Davo finding is tha and8 display s where wo work auton rk pressure -en Contin-ent
ters the Anglo ine et al (2008 at Continent quite high w ork pressure nomy. Finall - display low
tal and South
o-Saxon count 8) in their stu tal countries work pressur increased t ly, South Eu w levels of b h European c tries do not ap dy of job qual (Belgium, A re at the end the most – uropean cou both work p countries. ppear to create ity in the EU.
Austria, Germ of the perio and yet are untries - wit pressure and e a distinct m 16 many, od – in e still th the work odel, a
‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e 2000 2005 2010 ES 2000 2005 2010 LU 2000 2005 2010 FI 2000 2005 2010 BE Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity Fig 3: Wor ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 2000 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 2000 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 2000 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 2000 Av e ra g e by wa v e rk autonomy 2005 2010 DK 2005 2010 FR 2005 2010 NL 2005 2010 SE y (WMSA and WMSA WCA Work Intensity WMSA WCA Work Intensity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra g e by wa v e WMSA WCA Work Intensity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra g e by wa v e ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Av e ra g e by wa v e d WCA) and 1995 2000 2005 IE 1995 2000 2005 AT 1995 2000 2005 UK 1995 2000 2005 DE Work Pressu 2010 WMSA WCA Work Inten 2010 WMSA WCA Work Inten 2010 WMSA WCA Work Inten 2010 WMSA WCA Work Inten ure by countr sity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e sity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e sity sity ‐0.7 ‐0.6 ‐0.5 ‐0.4 ‐0.3 ‐0.2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1995 Av e ra g e by wa v e ry and year 17 2000 2005 2010 IT 2000 2005 2010 PT 2000 2005 2010 EL WMSA WCA Work Intensity WMSA WCA Work Intensity WMSA WCA Work Intensity
As fo negat work slight show work count trend obser group egalit
3.
satis
To an satisf expla order of a g the w We a effect that a high Next, of bo variab intera result for trends, th tive: their wo k autonomy. tly worsen o ws that where kers in Conti tries experie ds and welfar rved between p’s situation tarian and hiExamini
faction
nalyze the ex faction, we e anatory varia Since job red logit regr given level o work autonom also introduce t of the relati an increase i autonomy. T We introd , we test the oth variables bles and wo action terms t of a curvili he evolution ork pressure Conversely or stabilize.eas most cle inental coun ence similar re regimes ar n high and n in terms o gher quality
ing the rel
xtent to whic stimate econ ables of job s b satisfaction ression mode of job satisfa my and work e an interacti ion between in work pres This means th duce sequent autonomy v s are then in ork pressure to rule out th inear impact n for worker e rose signifi y, workers i Analysis by erical worke tries over th levels of wo re the same low skill cle of autonomy jobs.
lation betw
ch the evolu nometric mod atisfaction. n is measur el. Using a lo action using pressure var ion term betwboth variabl ssure is less hat the coeffi
tially our exp ariables, foll ntroduced. F are conside he possibility t of work aut rs in Contin icantly witho in Scandinav skill level a ers benefitted he period, w ork pressure. as for work erical worke y, and Scan
ween work
ution of work dels using wo red through ogistic distri a set of inde riables, meas ween work a les on job sat harmful to ficients of the planatory va lowed by wo Finally, the ered. The qu y that the sig utonomy or wnental count out being com
vian countri and country d from lowe workers of al . The conclu autonomy: o ers with a d ndinavian co
k autonomy
k autonomy orker-level d an ordered ibution, the m ependent var sured using t autonomy an tisfaction. A the worker’ e interaction ariables, start ork pressure interaction uadratic term gnificance of work pressur tries and Gr mpensated f ies have see(Figure 2A er work pres ll skill levels usions conce overall, a po deeper worse ountries offe
y, work pr
and work pr data and contmulti-level model explai riables. Our m the scores ob nd work press s mentioned s satisfaction terms should
ting with the variables. Th terms betwe ms are introd f the interacti re on job sati reece is the for by increa en their situ in the Appe ssure than m s in Scandin erning polari olarization tr ening of the er markedly
ressure and
ressure affec trolling for s scale, we u ins the proba main interes btained previ sure to captu d, our hypoth n if he/she e d be positive e control vari he quadratic een the auto duced prior ion is the spu tisfaction (M 18 most ases in uation endix) manual navian zation end is latter mored job
cts job everal use an ability st is in ously. ure the esis is enjoys e. iables. terms onomy to the urious Manselland B what variab influe work variab In re repor exper unexp contr revea consi signif obser negat unit i highe auton We a work expla reaso linear press press 9 The Brough, 200 occurs to the Our first bles availabl ence on job k, and dummi bles can be f elation to the rted earlier: l rience less s plained decl rol variables In the se als that work
istent with t ficant, the re rved decline Next, we tively and si in work pres er level of jo nomy, WMS also observe k pressure, w aining the dec
Our next on pointed ab r effects on j ure on job ure would h base categori 5). One adv e unexplaine estimated m le in the four satisfaction ies for years, found in Tab
e effect of low skill wor satisfaction ine in job sa are in line w econd model k autonomy the literatur eduction in in job satisfa e introduced gnificantly r sure (and the ob satisfactio A and WCA that the 200 which means cline in job s step was to bove, we con job satisfact satisfaction have a greate
ies are: high-s
antage of th ed time trend odel include r EWCS wav : socio-demo , countries, f le 1A). 9 skill level, t rkers are less than clerica atisfaction be with previous , the introdu has a signif e. Even tho their size sh action. work press related to job e standard de on compared A increase the 05 and 2010 that the incr satisfaction i consider qu nsider these tion (Karasek may increas r negative im
skill clerical for
his sequentia d as additiona
es only contro ves that theo ographic fea fixed term co the results c s satisfied th al workers. T etween 1995 studies on th uction of th ficant and p ough the tim
hows that w sure in the b satisfaction eviation of th d with a low e odds ratio time dumm rease in work in those year uadratic term terms becau k, 1979). Fo se as work mpact on job r skill level, se l approach i al variables a ol variables ( ory and previ atures (sex a ontract and e confirm thos an high skill The time du 5 and 2010. he determina e autonomy ositive effec me dummies work autonom model and, n (Model 3, his variable i wer level by by a factor o mies become k pressure is s. ms for WCA, use autonomy or example, t pressure inc b satisfaction
ervices for eco
s that it allo are introduce
(Model 1, Ta ious evidence and age), ski
conomic sec se of the de workers, an ummies indi The coeffici ants of job sa variables (M ct on job sat s continue t my contribut as expected Table 4). A is one) decre a factor of 0 of 0.25 and 0 insignificant s a highly sig WMSA and y and pressu the detrimen creases. An n for a worke nomic sector a ows understa ed. able 4), that e show to ha kill level, hou
ctor (descript
escriptive an nd manual wo
icate a signi ients for the atisfaction. Model 2, tab tisfaction, a to be statist tes to expla d, this varia An increase o
eases the odd 0.40. As for 0.22, respect t after introd gnificant fac
d WP. Besid ure may have ntal effect of increase in er with an al and UK for co 19 anding is, the ave an urs of tion of nalysis orkers ificant other ble 4) result tically in the able is of one ds of a r work tively. ducing ctor in des the e non-f work work lready ountry.
high effect auton (work of a h while =1, ie auton both the fo those an in satisf respe how t (Mod in wo is hig on jo WCA confi may b 10 Two standa both w work pressu ts of autonom nomy consta k pressure =-higher level e the same in e, one standa Interestin nomy, as can work pressu former being e who most b ncrease in W faction than ectively. A p to cope with Finally, w del 5, Table 4 ork pressure gh. This indic ob satisfactio A and work p rms Karasek be associated o notes shou ard deviation work autonom
ure than for a my and press ant, if work p -1, ie, one st of job satis ncrease in w ard deviation ngly, the im n be seen by t ure and work g negative an benefit from WMSA for a for a worke possible exp autonomy, a we introduce 4). The inter has a smalle cates that the on is signific pressure incr k (1979)’s pr d to higher jo ld be made. increase. Sec mies to be zero a worker wit sure on job s pressure incr tandard devia sfaction com work pressure n above the m mpact of bot the positive s autonomy h nd the latter an increase worker with r with low W planation for a process yie d the interac raction terms er negative im e moderating cant. Furtherm reases the od rediction tha ob satisfactio Firstly, an in condly, in this o, the average th low work satisfaction (M reases one u ation below mpared to a l e in a worke mean level of th autonomy sign of the sq have an incre r positive. W in autonomy h high WMS WMSA (=-1 this result i elding satisfa ction terms b s are positive mpact on job g influence o more, a simu dds ratio of j at high work on than low w crease of one exercise we a e value. k pressure. R Model 4, Ta unit for a wo
the mean lev lower level d er with high f work pressu y indicators quared terms easing margi Workers with y. When all SA (=1) has 1): the odds is that there action. etween work e, confirmin b satisfaction of autonomy ultaneous in job satisfacti k pressure an work pressur e unit in thos assume the in Results confir ble 4). For e orker with lo vel of work p decreases by work pressu ure) has an im increases w s of autonom nal impact o h already lar other aspects a 2 times la ratios increa may be a le k pressure an g our expect n when the w on the effect crease of on ion by a fact nd high work re and autono se variables is nitial values of rm the curvi example, assu ow work pre pressure) the y a factor of ure (work pre
mpact of - 0.
with the lev my. In other w on job satisfa rge autonom s remain con arger effect o ase 0.38 and earning proce nd work auto tation: an inc workers’ auto t of work pre ne unit in W tor of 0.11. 1 k autonomy omy. s equivalent t f work pressu 20 ilinear uming essure e odds f 0.34, essure 45. vel of words, action, my are nstant, on job d 0.19, ess on onomy crease onomy essure MSA, 0 This levels to one re and
Note: st 10% lev WMSA WCA Work Press. (WP WMSA squared WCA squared WP squared WMSA*WP WCA*WP LSC HSM LSM Hours of work Fixed Contract Women Age Age squared Year 2000 Year 2005 Year 2010 Wage Working hours fit Workplace size No. observ Pseudo R2 F(sig) tandard deviations i vel of significance, * T Model 1 ) ‐0.246*** (0.039) ‐0.610*** (0.050) ‐0.826*** (0.045) ‐0.008*** (0.001) 0.258*** (0.035) ‐0.064** (0.030) ‐0.024*** (0.007) 0.0003*** (0.00009) ‐0.135*** (0.037) ‐0.173*** (0.041) ‐0.195*** (0.036) t 59388 0.0703 98.69 (0.000) in brackets. Other c ** – significant at 5 Table 4. Regr Model 2 0.328*** (0.013) 0.135*** (0.013) ‐0.130*** (0.040) ‐0.397*** (0.050) ‐0.530*** (0.047) ‐0.009*** (0.001) 0.217*** (0.035) ‐0.032 (0.030) ‐0.036*** (0.007) * 0.0004*** (0.00009) ‐0.118*** (0.038) ‐0.137*** (0.042) ‐0.167*** (0.036) 59278 0.0873 110.90 (0.000) control variables al %, and *** – signif ressions for jo Model 3 0.255*** (0.013) 0.216*** (0.013) ‐0.402*** (0.0137) ‐0.195*** (0.041) ‐0.391*** (0.051) ‐0.544*** (0.048) ‐0.004*** (0.001) 0.225*** (0.035) ‐0.021 (0.030) ‐0.028*** (0.007) 0.0003*** (0.00009) ‐0.089** (0.038) 0.009 (0.042) ‐0.015 (0.037) 59278 0.1149 127.77 (0.000) lso included: dumm ficant at 1%. ob satisfactio Model 4 0.286*** (0.016) 0.252*** (0.018) ‐0.396*** (0.013) 0.049*** (0.014) 0.034*** (0.011) ‐0.029*** (0.011) ‐0.192*** (0.041) ‐0.388*** (0.051) ‐0.540*** (0.048) ‐0.004*** (0.001) 0.224*** (0.035) ‐0.019 (0.030) ‐0.027*** (0.007) 0.0003*** (0.00009) ‐0.092** (0.038) 0.010 (0.042) ‐0.018 (0.037) 59278 0.1150 117.31 (0.000) mies for economic s
on Model 5 0.290*** (0.016) 0.250*** (0.018) ‐0.392*** (0.013) 0.062*** (0.015) 0.024** (0.012) ‐0.027** (0.011) 0.050*** (0.012) 0.047*** (0.012) ‐0.190*** (0.041) ‐0.380*** (0.051) ‐0.526*** (0.048) ‐0.004*** (0.001) 0.219*** (0.035) ‐0.015 (0.030) ‐0.028*** (0.007) 0.0003*** (0.00009) ‐0.094** (0.038) 0.009 (0.042) ‐0.021 (0.037) 59278 0.1076 112.31 (0.000) sector and country d
Model 6 0.246*** (0.021) 0.219*** (0.023) ‐0.354*** (0.018) 0.059*** (0.019) 0.012 (0.015) ‐0.030** (0.014) 0.034** (0.016) 0.046*** (0.015) ‐0.118** (0.054) ‐0.411*** (0.070) ‐0.451*** (0.064) 0.001 (0.001) 0.103** (0.046) 0.00001 (0.041) ‐0.029*** (0.009) 0.0002** (0.0001) 0.109** (0.045) 0.104*** (0.039) 0.156*** (0.019) 0.741*** (0.026) ‐0.034*** (0.009) 38607 0.1400 91.35 (0.000) dummies. * – sign 21 nificant at
As a the m estab availa press job sa count count auton larger work differ where Luxe avera the ne In oth Scand robustness c model on job lishment siz able for 199 ure variables atisfaction us The anal tries, which try separately nomy are sig
r amplitude. k autonomy rences are w e work auto mburg) that age). Conver egative effec her words, i dinavian cou check and in b satisfactio ze in the est 95, we had s remain esse sually descri lysis made s may not be y, using data gnificant and These resul and work p worth noting. onomy is aro the negative sely, for low ct of work pr increases in untries. order to asse n, we introd timation mod to drop the entially the s
bed in the lit
so far assum true. Table 5 a since 1995. d positive w lts show that pressure are It is in the c ound average e effect of w w levels of wo ressure is bel work autono
ess the impa duced wage, del (Model 1995 data. same, the thr
terature.
mes that the 5 reports a s . For all coun while the wor t our conclus valid acros countries wh e (Austria, B work pressur ork autonom low average, omy are mo act of relevan , fit between 6, Table 4). The results ee variables e variables summary of t ntries, the co rk pressure sions regard ss all count here work pr Belgium, De re on job sat my and work as is the pos ore valued b nt variables n n work and As these v for the aut introduced h
have a simi the estimatio efficients of coefficient i ing the indep ries studied ressure increa enmark, Fran tisfaction is h pressure (Sp sitive effect o y workers in
not yet includ family lives variables wer tonomy and have the imp
ilar impact on results for f both indicat is negative a pendent effe d. However, ased the mo nce, German higher (abov pain and Port
of work auto n Continenta 22 ded in s, and re not work act on in all r each tors of and of ects of some st and ny and ve EU tugal), onomy. al and
Note: C dummi * – sign To as the a Barto estim betwe obtain coeff to the expla comp factor Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK Control variables ies, dummies for nificant at 10% le
ssess the ext average decli olini et al. ( mated the job
een 1995 an ned in the fi ficients signi e explanation anatory varia pared with th The appl r explaining Tabl WMSA 0.333*** 0.194*** 0.314*** 0.190*** 0.296*** 0.311*** 0.140** 0.261*** 0.292*** 0.275*** 0.316*** 0.239*** 0.255*** 0.469*** 0.309*** s included: WMSA economic sector, evel of significan tent to which ine in satisf (2011). First b satisfactio nd 2010 in e first step by ficant at the n of the aver able gives u he observed v ication of th g the decline le 5. Regressio WCA 0.279*** 0.159*** 0.214*** 0.106* 0.177*** 0.404*** 0.217*** 0.180*** 0.213*** 0.305*** 0.294*** 0.211*** 0.294*** 0.349*** 0.151*** A, WCA and WP dummies for ski ce, ** – significa h the evoluti faction betw t, to simplif on model us each regress the respectiv 10% level. W age change i s the overal variation in jo his method s e in job sati
ons for job sati
Work Pres (WP) ‐0.370** ‐0.455** ‐0.391** ‐0.386** ‐0.495** ‐0.492** ‐0.249** ‐0.252** ‐0.366** ‐0.415** ‐0.351** ‐0.313** ‐0.306** ‐0.331** ‐0.304** P squared, Hours ill levels, and cou ant at 5%, and ** on of work p ween 1995 an fy calculatio sing OLS. T or. Finally, ve average c We thereby o in job satisfa ll predicted ob satisfactio shows that t isfaction, ac sfaction by cou ssure WM ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ‐ of work, Fixed c untry dummies. * – significant at pressure and nd 2010, we ons and the Then, we co we multiplie change in th obtained the action. The su change in jo on (- 0.047). the increase ccounting for untry MSA*WP 0.032 0.045 0.145*** 0.155*** 0.052* 0.061* 0.081** 0.105*** 0.064 0.135*** 0.129*** 0.056 0.051 0.123** ‐0.015 contract, Women, 1%. d work auton e followed G interpretatio omputed the ed each vari e variable, b contribution um of the co ob satisfactio in work pre r around 67 WCA*WP 0.037 0.079** ‐0.072 0.042 0.012 0.055* 0.045 0.087** 0.105** 0.106** 0.020 ‐0.033 0.068* 0.049 0.010
n, Age, Age squar
nomy accoun Green (2006 on of result e average c iable’s coeff but using on n of each reg ontribution o on, which c essure is the 7% of the d 23 ** * ** * red, year nts for 6) and ts, we hange ficient nly the gressor f each can be main decline
(Tabl 23% satisf qualit featur Tota
4
Our m aspec impac being press 1995 of bo not ac well-psych simpl relate le 6). The de of the redu faction. As s ty of intrinsi res of work. Variable WMSA WCA Work Pressu Other variab al explained ch job satisfact4. Discussi
main contrib cts of work, ct on the we g at work, wure and wor . Karasek a oth variables ccompanied being. Emp hological we ly a subject ed to vitality ecrease in cr uction in job suggested in ic aspects of Table 6. E ure bles hange in ion
ion and con
ution in this namely work ell-being of w we concentra rk autonomy and Theorell and a large b by high leve phasis shoul ell-being and tive experien y, psycholo riteria auton b satisfaction the literatur work outwe Explaining th Explained satis ‐0 ‐0 ‐0 +0 ‐0
ncluding re
paper is to s k autonomy workers. Bec ated on asse y on the chan l (1990) have body of evid els of work a ld also be d personal gr nce of pleas gical flexibinomy was als n. WMSA a re (Clark, 2 eighed the be he average ch change in job sfaction 0.0029 0.0118 0.0343 0.0038 0.0453
emarks
shed light on and work pr cause job sat essing the ef ange – rather e long since dence shows t autonomy, th given to t growth. The sure; work a ility and se so an impor accounted fo 005; Rose, 2 eneficial effe ange in job s b Expla n the long-ter ressure, in fi tisfaction is ffect of the r than the le highlighted that when hi his is definite the importa well-being g autonomy ha lf-realization tant factor, e or only 6% 2003) the de cts on job sa atisfaction ained change in 5.7 23. 67. ‐7. 88. rm evolution ifteen EU co an imperfect combined e evel - in job the need to m gh levels of ely detriment nce of wor generated by as also an o n. What is explaining a of the decli eterioration atisfaction of in job satisfa n % 7% .1% .1% .4% .5% n of some int ountries, and t measure of evolution of satisfaction monitor the work intensi tal to the wo rk autonom y autonomy objective fun at stake in 24 around ine in of the f other action trinsic d of its f well-f work since levels ity are orkers’ my for is not nction workauton esteem envir auton domi last tw work result mean show retire skill l work and lo deepe count work in 19 Diffe effect and t jobs” to be most activi factor life q nomy is henc m and oppor Overall, ronments in t nomy has no nant manage wo decades k and, for mo ts while the ns that high-s wn to be high ement from w Most exi level, we hav kers in most ow skill cler We also s ening rather tries are i) th k pressure tha 995); iii) the erences in jo ts or technol Our analy testifies to th ” which, by c e favorable t South Europ ity and redu rs, e.g. the s quality, and
ce more than rtunity for pe
our results the EU. Wor ot kept up w erial discour have led to ost workers, a tools provid strain workin hly detriment work (Siegris sting studies ve been able countries an ical workers show that th r than dimi he stabilizati an in other co fact that w ob quality ac logical factor ysis confirm heir structura combining hi to the worke pean worker uced problem trength of tr societal fac n the pleasan ersonal grow s document rk pressure h with this dev rses, it seem a decline in also on the c ded to cope ng situations tal to physic st, 2006). s examine jo to documen nd ii) the sub
in all but Sc he difference nishing. Som ion of work ountries (pro orkers of all cross countri rs but rather ms the results al nature: mo igh levels of ers’ self-deve rs are in “pa m-solving ab ade union m ctors, which ntness of give wth, that is, th a clear d has risen cons elopment. O ms that the ch n the worker content of wo with such d s are becomi al and psych ob quality a nt i) the very bstantial div candinavian c es between w me of the autonomy at obably becau l skill levels ies do not th to institution s obtained by ost workers i f work auton elopment (K assive jobs”, bility. These membership a influence fi en work con he eudaimoni deterioration siderably in On the contra hanges in th s’ influence ork. Workers emanding si ing more pre hological hea t the country discrepant si vergent proce countries. welfare regim distinguishin t high levels use work pre s face simila herefore seem nal/societal e y Dhondt et in Scandinav nomy and wo Karasek and hypothesize e results clea and the publi
irm-level ma
nditions; it in ic dimension
in the ps the last fiftee ary, and in c e organizatio on when an s are pressure ituations hav edominant in alth and to re y level. By ituation of m ess taking pl mes in terms ng features s, ii) a less m ssure levels ar intrinsic jo m to be due effects. al (2002)’s vian countrie ork intensity, Theorell, 19 ed to be relat arly indicate ic policy com anagement p nvolves one’ n of well-bein sychosocial en years and contradiction on of work nd how to do ed to deliver ve decreased n the EU, wh esult in prem differentiati manual and cl lace between of job quali of Scandin marked incre were already ob character e to composi
for the year es work in “ , are hypothe 990). By con ated to low o e that institu mmitment to policies and 25 s self-ng. work d work n with of the o their r more d. This hich is mature ng by lerical n high ity are navian ease in y high ristics. itional r 2000 active esized ntrast, overall utional o work work
