Potential Impacts of Globalization on Changing Job Quality and. Worker Satisfaction: A Descriptive Cross-National Comparative Examination. Jonathan H.
Potential Impacts of Globalization on Changing Job Quality and Worker Satisfaction: A Descriptive Cross-National Comparative Examination Jonathan H. Westover, University of Utah, U.S.A.
ABSTRACT In this research, I apply and extend Handel’s (2005) Post and Neo-Fordist framework for understanding job characteristics and job satisfaction in context of a changing global environment. Prior research has indicated that the nature of work has changed dramatically in recent years in response to economic shifts and an increasingly global economy. However, there is little agreement on whether the overall quality of work has improved or declined over that period. Furthermore, less is known about changes in job satisfaction and its various indicators over time, based on how the workers feel. Finally, even less is known about the overall comparative quality of work and job satisfaction across the global economy. In this study I use non-panel longitudinal data from the International Social Survey Program (Work Orientations I and II: 1989 and 1998) to conduct a descriptive comparative analysis of job quality and job satisfaction in relation to the differing theoretical predictions of Post-Fordist and Neo-Fordist paradigms and a changing global economy. INTRODUCTION There is a large body of workplace literature across disciplines that specify a variety of job satisfaction indicators (i.e. job security, pay, worker autonomy, interesting work, etc.). Furthermore, this body of literature generally acknowledges that the nature of work has changed dramatically in recent years in response to economic shifts and an increasingly global economy. However, there is little agreement on whether the overall quality of work has improved or declined over this time period, and less is known about changes in job satisfaction and its various indicators over time, based on how the workers feel. Finally, even less is known about the overall descriptive comparative quality of work and job satisfaction across the global economy, and the resulting implications for firms striving for a competitive edge in a increasingly global work environment. I use non-panel longitudinal data from the International Social Survey Program (Work Orientations I, and II: 1989, and 1998—survey questions on job characteristics and job quality) to conduct a descriptive comparative analysis of job quality and job satisfaction to examine the impact of various job characteristics and dimensions of job quality on job satisfaction over time and across countries. Data from eight countries is included in this analysis, including the U.S., Israel, the Netherlands, West Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Norway, and Hungary. I make cross-national comparisons in relation to the differing theoretical predictions of Post-Fordist and Neo-Fordist paradigms in looking at changing job quality characteristics across nations as they relate to these global economic shifts. BRIEF BACKGROUND TO THE FORDIST PERSPECTIVE My main purpose in this study is to take a descriptive comparative approach to begin to understand changing labor-management conditions and relations—resulting from global economic shifts—and the impact of these conditions on job quality. To do this, I will start by providing a brief overview of the Fordist position, followed by its predecessors, Neo and Post-Fordism. Fordism and a Changing Global Economic Climate There is a wide range of relevant sociological and management theory in the areas of work and organizations. In looking at the connected issues of worker-oriented policies and economic competitiveness, one useful management
perspective is that of Fordism and its Neo and Post-Fordist offshoots. Fordism, derived from Henry Ford’s approach to the mass production, is a system of mechanized mass production of consumer durable goods that is characterized by a labor process based around the fragmentation of tasks and the assembly-line, operated by semi-skilled mass labor (Hodkinson, 1997). Though the Fordist approach led to massive increases in productivity in certain industries, the human costs were high, with increased worker alienation, leading to labor problems such as high turnover, labor discipline, falling productivity, increasing wages, and rising unit labor costs (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982; Vroom, 1964). By the early 1970’s, the mass markets that stabilized the Fordist system started to break-up, causing a worldwide economic crisis and fundamental shift in trade cycles, due in part to huge costs associated with Fordist production methods and the exhaustion of the efficiency gains that had made the Fordist production system successful (Hardt and Negri, 2000; Piore and Sabel, 1984). The Neo and Post-Fordist management philosophies and practices emerged in response to this economic shift of the 1970’s. POST FORDISM (MASS PRODUCTION) Scholars acknowledged that one possible response to the economic shift of the 1970’s was a move away from the principles of Fordism in an attempt to meet the demands to innovate and meet new consumer needs (Hardt ad Negri 2000). This new approach is often called Post-Fordism, or “Organized Capitalism,” and is typified by the word “flexibility,” where labor and resources are used in a strategic fashion to enable production systems to be responsive to market changes and cycles and to encourage workers to develop new skills in order to be able to operate across a range of tasks (Amin 1994; Hirst and Zeitlin 1991; Priore and Sabel 1984). Thus, Post-Fordism is an approach that emphasizes flatter organizational hierarchies that benefit both firms and workers and has moved towards greater flexibility and employee involvement. Additionally, Post-Fordists would predict that the overall quality of jobs for most workers has increased in the last 20 years, particularly in terms of intrinsic non-material rewards, due to the adoption of participative management practices and strategies, the diffusion of information technology, and changing markets (Osterman 1994; Piore & Sabel 1984; Zuboff 1988). NEO-FORDISM (FLEXIBLE PRODUCTION) Scholars acknowledge that another response to the economic crisis of the 1970’s was an attempt to meet the demand for varied products while maintaining the basic Fordist principles of production (Avis et al. 1996). This perspective is often called Neo-Fordism, or “Flexible Production,” and maintains the basic principles of the traditional firm held by Fordism, while accentuating other principles, such as flexible production, in an attempt to correct for insufficiencies in the original Fordist theory and application (Graham 1993; Harrison 1994; Harrison and Bluestone 1988; Harvey 1989; Mishel, Bernstein, and Schmitt 2001; Schor 1991; Taplin 1995; for relevant reviews, see Kalleberg 2000; Morris and Western 1999). Thus, this new approach combines the logic of mass production and mass consumption with more flexible production, distribution, and marketing systems. Thus, in contrast to Post-Fordism, Neo-Fordism combines the logic of mass production and mass consumption with more flexible production, distribution, and marketing systems and maintains top-down control of workers and other basic principles of the traditional firm held by Fordism (Hodkinson, 1997; Brown and Lauder 1992). Additionally, Neo-Fordists would predict that the overall quality of jobs for most workers has declined in the last 20 years, particularly in terms of extrinsic material rewards and work pace, as businesses have responded to economic recessions by removing many of the labor gains of the post-war era (Handel 2005; Harrison 1994). Though firms do not necessarily adhere strictly to either Post of Neo-Fordist philosophy over the other, firms do tend to lean one way or the other, which has implications for work quality and worker satisfaction. JOB QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND JOB SATISFACTION Researchers have studied job satisfaction extensively over the past three or four decades. Though this research has produced sometimes conflicting findings and the overall explanatory power of job satisfaction has been widely debated over that time, the question remains, why is it still important to study job quality characteristics and job
satisfaction? The bottom line is that work continues to be a very important part of our everyday lives, possibly even more so than at any other time in recent history. Additionally, the landscape of work in the U.S. and across the world has changed dramatically over the past 15-20 years in response to economic shifts and an increasingly global economy. Furthermore, despite the many conflicting findings and debates, it has been generally accepted in the workplace literature that satisfied workers are more productive and perform at a higher level (see Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza 2000). It has further been demonstrated that low job satisfaction can lead to higher absenteeism and turnover (Vroom 1964). Finally, a wide body of work and health research has shown the link between job satisfaction and worker health (see Karasek’s 1979; Totterdell et al. 2006; Tsutsumi 2005). In addition to these key findings, there is a large body of workplace literature across disciplines that indicates a variety of job satisfaction indicators—job security, pay, worker autonomy, interesting work, etc. (Munoz de Bustillo Llorente 2005; Chiu and Chen 2005). These studies have usually found an important degree of correlation between characteristics of one’s workplace and job satisfaction. A relatively new way to categorize and look at these various characteristics and indicators of job quality are from the Post-Fordist and Neo-Fordist perspectives, which generally look at characteristics of job quality in terms of nonmaterial (intrinsic) and nonmaterial (extrinsic) rewards, respectively (Handel 2005; Kalleberg 1977). In addition to providing a basis for understanding what variables are useful to examine, this literature also reveals that data collection methods in this line of research vary from quantitative to qualitative, and mixed-methods approaches, often utilizing secondary and archival data. Furthermore, the method by which various researchers operationalize job satisfaction and its indicators varies, from a single-item survey question (Handel 2005; Munoz de Bustillo Llorente and Macias 2005; DeHart-Davis and Pandey 2005; Marchand, Demers, and Durand 2005; Sloan 2004; Hodson 2002; Hamermesh 1999; Kirkman and Shapiro 2001), to multi-item scales (Chiu and Chen 2005; Marchand, Demers, and Durand 2005; Carlson and Mellor 2004; Kirkman and Shapiro 2001). DISCUSSION OF VARIABLES I use Handel’s (2005) job satisfaction model (based on Kalleberg’s 1977 findings) for conducting a cross-national comparison of job satisfaction and the perceived importance of varying intrinsic and extrinsic job quality characteristics (for cross-national comparative component, see also Souza-Poza and Souza-Poza 2000; Munoz de Bustillo Llorente and Fernandez Macias 2005). Handel (2005) characterizes 12 variables from the General Social Survey (10 of which are available for all countries in both waves of the International Social Survey data used for this study) into intrinsic (Interesting Job , Job Autonomy, Management-Employee Relations, Coworker Relations) and extrinsic (Pay, Job Security, Promotional Opportunities, Workload, Physical Effort, Danger) job quality factors: METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION Data Collection I use non-panel longitudinal data from the International Social Survey Program (Work Orientations modules I and II: 1989 and 1998), which utilized a multistage stratified probability sample to collect the data for each of the various countries with a variety of eligible participants in each country’s target population. Variables of interest in the data collected by the International Social Survey Program are single-item indicators (i.e. with a single survey question for job satisfaction, interesting work, job autonomy, workplace relations, etc., on a Likert scale) and data was collected via self-administered questionnaires, personal interviews, and mail-back questionnaires, depending on the country, and were collected in 1989 and 1996-97, respectively. For the purposes of this study, the unit of analysis is individuals within the separate sovereign nations. In addition to examining one large sample including all respondents from all participating countries, I examine a separate sample for each country to determine which job characteristics best predict job satisfaction in that particular country. Statistical Methodology and Limitations I use a variety of bivariate and multivariate procedures to examine differences and changes in job satisfaction and job quality characteristics across countries and over time.
One of the primary limitations of the available data is that each question represents a subjective single item indicator. Another problem is the non-panel longitudinal nature of the data. I use two waves of cross-sectional data and therefore I cannot specifically test the direction of causality among the variables examined as easily as I might with panel longitudinal data. Additionally, some variables of interest (i.e. work-related stress) and other important control variables (i.e. total hours worked per week, or whether or not an individual worked for the government or not) could not be included in the analysis, as data was not available for both waves across all countries of interest. Finally, in any research comparing data from various countries throughout the world, cross-cultural variation and culturally motivated bias in responses is always a potential issue. Though this research is not designed to be cross-cultural, per se, it is important to understand the possible implications of culturally motivated biased perceptions in responses, based on the cross-national comparative nature of this research. However, several researchers have found that individuals compare their situation to those around them, and that happiness and well-being is based on this relative comparison (Clark and Oswald 1996; Diener et al 1995). Furthermore, most studies examining job satisfaction are based on this type of data (Sousa-Pouza and Sousa-Pouza 2000). DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS Correlations: Table 1 shows that workload, physical effort, and danger have low negative correlations with job satisfaction, while interesting work and management-employee relations has the highest levels of correlation with job satisfaction. For most work characteristics, this correlation has increased substantially from 1989 to 1997. Table 1: Correlation between Job Satisfaction on other Job Characteristics, all Countries 1989 1997 % Change Job Security 0.2355 0.2508 **6.5% Pay 0.2914 0.2686 **-7.8% Promotional Opportunities 0.3092 0.3315 **7.2% Interesting Work 0.4866 0.5139 *5.6% Job Autonomy 0.308 0.2693 **-12.6% Workload -0.1116 0.1329 **19.1% Physical Effort -0.085 -0.098 **15.3% Danger -0.0867 0.1104 **27.3% Management/Employee Relations 0.4259 0.4412 3.6% Co-Worker Relations 0.3386 0.3375 -0.3% *Significant at 0.05 level
Mean Job Satisfaction: Figure 1 below shows that mean job satisfaction scores have general declined in most countries from 1989 to 1997, while rising in Israel, Italy, and the Netherlands. For all countries, job satisfaction dropped slightly, with a -1% change between 1989 and 1997. Furthermore, the United Kingdom, Hungary, and Italy are below the overall average mean for all countries in both years, with Israel slightly below in 1989 and West Germany slightly below in 1997. Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States are consistently above average across both time-frames. A simple percent change across years shows that Israel had the biggest rise in job satisfaction between 1989 and 1997 (5%), and the United States had the largest decline (-5%). Trends in Perceived Importance: Tables 2 and 3 below shows that while the perceived importance of pay and promotional opportunities for respondents in all countries has increased between 1989 and 1997, while the perceived importance of job security, interesting work, and job autonomy has declined in the same time period. Additionally, the perceived importance of job security, pay, promotional opportunities, interesting work, and job autonomy vary by country but stay the same between 1989 and 1997. The only exception is Israel, where the most and least important stayed the same, but the middle three changed position. Six of the eight countries place the most importance on job security (with the exception of Israel and the Netherlands), and the most common characteristic to be at the bottom of the list is job autonomy, followed by the next most common, promotional opportunity. Interestingly, with the exception
of Hungary (where it was ranked 2nd), pay was consistently in the 4th of 5th rank for all other countries, which intuitively many individuals would assume would be first. For all respondents, job security had the most importance and promotional opportunities had the least.
Mean Job Satisfaction Score, by Country with Respect to the Mean for all Countries 4.60 4.40 1989
4.20
1997
4.00
1989 Mean
3.80
1997 Mean
3.60
ly No Ne rwa y th er la Un nd ite s d St W a es t G te s er m an y
Ita
Un i
te d
Ki
ng do m Hu ng ar y Is ra el
3.40
Figure 1: Mean Job Satisfaction Score, by Country with Respect to the Mean for all Countries Figure subtracts the raw value from 7: as scores increase, this indicates an increase in job satisfaction. Table 2: Trends in Perceived Importance Placed on Various Job Characteristics, 1989-1997, all Countries 1989 1997 % Change 1.53 1.47 *-3.7% Job Security 1.96 1.99 1.4% Pay 2.02 2.08 *3.2% Promotional Opportunities 1.63 1.55 **-4.5% Interesting Work 1.96 1.90 -2.8% Job Autonomy Response categories for each variable above included, (1) Very Important, (2) Important, (3) Neither Important nor Unimportant, (4) Not Important, (5) Not at all Important, (8) Can’t Choose, and (9) No Answer. *Significant at the 0.10 level; **Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 3: Trends in Perceived Importance Placed on Various Job Characteristics, 1989-1997, Each Country UK
Hungary
Israel
Italy
Norway
Netherlands
US
WG
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
Job Security
3.55
3.65
3.52
3.61
3.25
3.65
3.63
3.63
3.59
3.47
3.19
3.20
3.43
3.58
3.58
3.64
Pay
2.99
2.91
3.35
3.53
3.23
3.52
3.07
3.11
2.83
2.77
2.74
2.64
3.03
3.03
3.17
2.93
Promotional Opp.
3.08
2.99
2.70
2.93
3.30
3.47
3.00
2.92
2.58
2.50
3.06
2.97
3.32
3.23
2.99
2.79
Interesting Work
3.42
3.47
3.09
3.24
3.44
3.69
3.42
3.43
3.48
3.47
3.29
3.37
3.38
3.45
3.46
3.51
Job Autonomy
2.78
2.85
2.90
3.04
3.00
3.12
2.88
2.76
3.13
3.10
3.26
3.26
3.03
3.04
3.31
3.37
*this table subtracts the raw value in the first tables from 5, to get a more intuitive graph (with higher job satisfaction getting higher scores)
Trends in Job Characteristics: All job characteristics where measured on a 1-5 Likert scale, and Tables 4 and 5 below subtracts raw values from 5 for a more intuitive reading. We see that perceived job security has increased the most significantly between 1989 and 1997 (+7.2%), while gains for pay, promotional opportunities, interesting work, physical effort, and management-employee relations has been much more modest (from +.1%-1.6%). However, job
autonomy is the big loser, with a drop of 3.5% from 1989-1997. Additionally, the mean value ranks for different intrinsic and extrinsic job characteristics vary across countries and over time. However, co-worker relations consistently received the highest score across countries and over time (with the exception of 1989 Italy, where job security received the top honor) and pay and promotional opportunities consistently brought up the rear for all countries in both years, with promotional opportunities receiving the lower scores for the entire sample, followed closely by pay. Table 4: Trends in Perceived Job Characteristics, 1989-1997, for all Countries 1989 1997 % Change 2.1260 2.2799 **7.2% Job Security 3.2657 3.2804 0.5% Pay 3.2814 3.3243 1.3% Promotional Opportunities 2.1666 2.1693 0.1% Interesting Work 2.1954 2.1182 *-3.5% Job Autonomy 2.7351 2.6570 -2.9% Workload 3.6209 3.6790 1.6% Physical Effort 3.9814 3.9507 -0.8% Danger 2.2230 2.2319 0.4% Management/Employee Relations 1.8163 1.7910 -1.4% Co-Worker Relations *Significant at the 0.10 level; **Significant at the 0.05 level
Table 5: Trends in Perceived Job Characteristics, 1989-1997, Each Country UK
Netherlands
United States
1989
1997
1989
Hungary 1997
1989
Israel 1997
1989
Italy 1997
1989
Norway 1997
1989
1997
1989
1997
1989
WG 1997
Job Security
2.41
2.63
2.18
2.72
2.35
2.20
1.81
2.04
2.20
2.12
2.11
2.25
2.04
2.24
1.82
2.15
Pay
3.35
3.47
3.74
3.70
3.07
3.11
3.15
3.18
3.32
3.40
3.30
3.02
3.15
3.22
2.89
3.05
Promot. Opps.
3.23
3.36
3.73
3.66
2.83
3.07
3.48
3.48
3.58
3.43
3.19
3.07
2.98
3.09
3.08
3.41
Interest Work
2.11
2.30
2.40
2.41
2.26
2.15
2.30
2.34
2.03
2.07
2.22
2.07
2.10
2.25
2.03
1.94
Job Autonomy
2.12
2.18
2.30
2.25
2.58
2.13
2.96
3.12
1.87
1.92
2.08
1.92
2.04
2.13
2.10
1.94
Workload
2.57
2.56
2.57
2.47
2.71
2.52
2.80
2.63
2.73
2.65
3.09
3.08
2.68
2.57
2.82
2.68
Physical Effort
3.51
3.62
3.34
3.30
3.75
3.72
4.05
3.68
3.58
3.74
3.73
3.86
3.53
3.55
3.73
3.90
Danger
4.00
4.05
3.55
3.52
4.18
4.02
4.25
4.12
3.93
3.95
4.11
4.06
3.94
3.90
4.11
4.12
Man/Empl Rel
2.32
2.27
2.25
2.36
1.99
1.96
2.44
2.31
2.16
2.28
2.35
2.25
2.25
2.26
2.05
2.09
Co-Worker Rel
1.74
1.66
1.94
2.00
1.76
1.64
2.07
1.93
1.59
1.68
1.84
1.80
2.00
1.92
1.68
1.76
CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSIONS In this section I provide a final discussion of the results and findings of the study. Furthermore, I briefly address policy implications for work organizations, labor unions, and public policy makers. Finally, I address areas for future research. Final Discussion While acknowledging that the nature of work has changed dramatically in the post-war era in response to economic shifts and an increasingly global economy, particularly over the past 15-20 years, the literature on PostFordism and Neo-Fordism provides very different predictions for shifts in overall job quality and job satisfaction over time. The Post-Fordist paradigm argues that job quality has improved in conjunction with the de-industrialization of the U.S. and some foreign-based economies, due to such factors as the adoption of participative management practices and strategies, the diffusion of information technology, and changing product markets. In contrast, the Neo-Fordist paradigm argues that job quality has declined as businesses have responded to economic recessions by removing many of the extrinsic rewards gained by the labor movement in the post-war era. Results from the descriptive comparative study conducted here-in indicate that neither of these perspectives can completely explain nor predict the changing trends in work-place characteristics and overall worker job satisfaction. Evidence suggests that each perspective seems to accurately depict what has generally been happening in terms of the shifts in the world economy and the workplace.
Despite the limitations of the theory, each perspective provides a useful framework for exploring differences between nations. Policy Implications Correlation results show that both intrinsic and extrinsic work characteristics strongly impact worker job satisfaction. Furthermore, results suggest that there are important country differences in both the perceived importance of various work characteristics and workers’ self-report experiences with both intrinsic and extrinsic work characteristics. Therefore, it is important for any work organization (such as multinational corporations, global NGO’s, local and national governments, and labor unions) to understand that individual workers in different countries face unique economic and social conditions that impact their experience in the workplace. For worker organizations, such as labor unions, the findings of this paper suggest that a worker’s satisfaction with their employment experience will differ greatly depending on the type of work they are involved with. Workers in industrial jobs tend to value more extrinsic workplace characteristics, such as higher pay, opportunity for advancement, and workload, while workers in service sector jobs tend to value intrinsic workplace characteristics, such as job autonomy, interesting work, and workplace relationships. For union strategies and goals, this means that unions need to be aware of these fundamental differences in worker preferences and develop long-term union goals/strategies to help enhance the worker’s experience on the job. Finally, due to the fact the worker job satisfaction impacts firm performance and various measures of worker well-being, firms (regardless of economic sector or private/public status) need to be cognizant of these differences and unique challenges and work to tailor management philosophy and policy to create a unique work atmosphere that will benefit the interests of both the employer and the employee. REFERENCES Amin, A., Ed. 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford, Blackwell. Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T. R., Berg, P., and Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. Manufacturing Advantage: Why High-Performance Work Systems Pay Off. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Autor, D. H., Katz, L. F., and Krueger, A. B. 1998. “Computing inequality: Have Computers Changed the Labor Market?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 1169-1213. Avis, J., Bloomer, M., Esland, G., Gleeson, D. & Hodkinson, P. 1996. Knowledge and Nationhood: Education, Politics and Work. London: Cassell. Baca, George. 2004. “Legends of Fordism.” Social Analysis, 48(3): 171-180. Berger, S., and Piore, M. J. 1980. Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. and Lauder, H. 1992. Education for Economic Survival: From Fordism to Post-Fordisim? Routledge. Cappelli, P., and Neumark, D. 2001. “Do “High-Performance” Work Practices Improve Establishment Level Outcomes?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, 737-775. Carlson, Jessica H, and Steven Mellor. 2004. “Gender-Related Effects in the Job-Design-Job-Satisfaction Relationship: An International Approach.” Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 51(3-4): 237-247. Chiu, Su-Fen and Hsiao-Lan Chen. 2005. “Relationship between Job Characteristics and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediational Role of Job Satisfaction.” Social Behavior and Personality, 33(6):523-539. Clark, A. E. and Oswald, A. J. 1996. “Satisfaction and Comparison Income.” Journal of Public Economics, 104:359-381. Cotton, J. L. 1993. Employee involvement: Methods for improving performance and work attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DeHart-Davis, Leisha and Sanjay K. Pandey. 2005. “Red Tape and Public Employees: Does Perceived Rule Dysfunction Alienate Managers?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1):133-148. Diener, E., Diener, M., and Diener, C. 1995. “Factors Predicting the Subjective Well-Being of Nations.” Journal of Personality Social Psychology, 69:851-864. Dohse, K., Jürgens, U., and Malsch, T. 1985. “From “Fordism” to “Toyotism”? The Social Organization of the Labor Process in the Japanese Automobile Industry.” Politics and Society, 14, 115-146. Edwards, R. 1979. Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books. Freeman, R. B., & Rogers, J. 1999. What Workers Want. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press. Godard, J. 2001. “High Performance and the Transformation of Work? The Implication of Alternative Work Practices for the Experience and Outcomes of Work.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 54, 776-805.
Graham, L. 1993. “Inside a Japanese Transplant: A Critical View.” Work and Occupations, 20, 147- 173. Hamermesh D. S., 1999. “The Changing Distribution of Job Satisfaction,” NBER Working Paper 7332, Cambridge, Mass. Handel, Michael J. 2005. “Trends in Perceived Job Quality, 1989 to 1998.” Work and Occupations, 32(1): 66-94. Hardt, Michael and Negri, Antonio. 2000. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Harrison, B. 1994. Lean and Mean: The Changing Landscape of Corporate Power in the Age ofFlexibility. New York: Basic Books. Harrison, B., and Bluestone, B. 1988. The Great U-Turn: Corporate Restructuring and the Polarizing of America. New York: Basic Books. Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. 1982. “Management of Organizational Behaviour.” Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall. Hirst, P. and Zeitlin, J. 1991. “Flexible Specialization versus Post-Fordism: Theory, Evidence and Policy Implications. Economy and Society. 20, 156. Hodkinson, P. 1997. Neo-Fordism and Teacher Professionalism. Teacher Development, 1(1): 69-82. Hodson, R. 1996. Dignity in the Workplace Under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited. American Sociological Review, 61, 719-738. Hodson, Randy. 2001. Dignity at work. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hodson, Randy. 2002. “Demography or Respect?: Work Group Demography versus Organizational Dynamics as Determinants of Meaning and Satisfaction at Work.” The British Journal of Sociology, 53(2): 291-317. International Social Survey Program (ISSP). INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM: WORK ORIENTATIONS II, 1997 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Koeln, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung [producer], 1999. Koeln, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2000. International Social Survey Program (ISSP). INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE PROGRAM: WORK ORIENTATIONS, 1989 [Computer file]. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer empirische Sozialforschung [producer], 1991. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer empirische Sozialforschung and Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 1992. Kalleberg, A. L. 2000. “Nonstandard Employment Relations: Work.” Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 341-365. Karasek, R. A. Jr. 1979. “Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 24:285-308. Kirkman, B.L. & Shapiro, D.L. 2001. “The Impact of Cultural Values on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Self-Managing Work Teams: The Mediating Role of Employee Resistance.” Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 557-569. Marchand, Alain, Andree Demers, and Pierre Durand. 2005. “Do Occupation and Work Conditions Really Matter? A Longitudinal Analysis of Psychological Distress Experiences among Canadian Workers.” Sociology of Health and Illness, 27(5): 602-627. Mishel, L., Bernstein, J., and Schmitt, J. 2001. The State of Working America. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press. Morris, M., and Western, B. 1999. “Inequality in Earnings at the Close of the Twentieth Century.” Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 623-657. Munoz de Bustillo Llorente, Rafael and Enrique Fernandez Macias. 2005. “Job Satisfaction as an Indicator of the Quality of Work.” The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34(5): 656-673. Osterman, P. 1994. “How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 47, 173-188. Phelps, Nicholas A. 2002. “When Was Post-Fordism? The Uneven Institution of New Work Practices in a Multinational.” Antipode, 34(2): 205227. Piore, M. J., & Sabel, C. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books. Schor, J. B. 1991. The Overworked American. New York: Basic Books. Sloan, Melissa M. 2004 “The Effects of Occupational Characteristics on the Experience and Expression of Anger in the Workplace.” Work and Occupations, 31(1): 38-72. Sousa-Pouza A., Sousa-Pouza A. 2000. Well-Being at Work: A Cross-National Analysis of the Levels and Determinants of job satisfaction,” Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 29, pp. 517-538. Taplin, I. M. 1995. “Flexible Production, Rigid Jobs: Lessons from the Clothing Industry.” Work and Occupations, 22, 412-438. Totterdell, Peter, Wood, Stephen, and Toby, Wall. 2006. “An Intra-Individual Test of the Demands-Control Model: A Weekly Diary Study of Psychological Strain in Portfolio Workers.” Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 79(1):63-84. Tsutsumi, Akizumi. 2005. “Psychosocial Factors and Health: Community and Workplace Study.” Journal Of Epidemiology, 15(3):65-91. Vroom, V., 1964. Work and Motivation. Wiley, New York. Zuboff, S. 1988. In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.
