Books and journals Case studies Expert Briefings Open Access
Advanced search

Which workers are more vulnerable to work intensification? An analysis of two national surveys

Mark Le Fevre (Department of Management, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand)
Peter Boxall (Department of Management and International Business, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand)
Keith Macky (Department of Management, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand)

International Journal of Manpower

ISSN: 0143-7720

Publication date: 7 September 2015

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to identify whether there are particular employee groups that are more vulnerable to work intensification and its outcomes for well-being.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper utilises data collected in two representative national surveys in 2005 (n=1,004) and 2009 (n=1,016), first to determine which employee groups are most vulnerable to work intensification and, second, to identify who is more vulnerable to the impacts of high work intensity on well-being, in terms of job (dis)satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life imbalance.

Findings

Professionals reported significantly higher levels of work intensity than all other occupational groups, and higher levels of stress and work-life imbalance. In addition, full-time employees experienced greater work intensity than part-timers, and union members than non-union members. Public-sector employees reported greater stress and work-life imbalance than those in the private sector. There was also a small, but significant and consistent, interaction effect that identified women as more negatively impacted by high work intensity than men.

Research limitations/implications

Professionals have become vulnerable workers, in the sense of high levels of work demand, and the notion of worker vulnerability needs to recognise this. Future research on vulnerable employees would benefit from a broader conception of what constitutes vulnerability, exploring a wider range of employee groups who might be considered vulnerable, and including a wider range of potential outcomes for the lives and well-being of the individuals concerned. In particular, a more finely grained examination of the working conditions of professionals would be desirable, as would a more detailed examination of the reasons for the higher negative impact of work intensity on women.

Practical implications

One way of improving the sustainability of professional working is to foster higher rates of part-time working, which brings better outcomes in terms of stress and work-life balance. This, however, is hardly a societal remedy and the question of how to reverse deteriorating job quality among professionals, particularly those struggling to balance work and family demands, is something that needs much greater attention.

Originality/value

The paper expands the notion of “vulnerable workers” to recognise those groups most at risk of work intensification, and the outcomes of that intensification for satisfaction, stress, fatigue, and work-life balance. The authors add to the small group of studies highlighting the degradation of professional work, as well as identifying other types of employee who are more vulnerable to work intensification. The use of two large-scale surveys, with a four-year gap, has allowed a high degree of consistency in the patterns of vulnerability to be revealed.

Keywords

  • Well-being
  • Job satisfaction
  • Work-life balance
  • Fatigue
  • Stress
  • Vulnerable workers
  • Work intensification

Citation

Le Fevre, M., Boxall, P. and Macky, K. (2015), "Which workers are more vulnerable to work intensification? An analysis of two national surveys", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 966-983. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2014-0035

Download as .RIS

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2015, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes

You may be able to access teaching notes by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us

To read the full version of this content please select one of the options below

You may be able to access this content by logging in via Shibboleth, Open Athens or with your Emerald account.
Login
To rent this content from Deepdyve, please click the button.
Rent from Deepdyve
If you think you should have access to this content, click the button to contact our support team.
Contact us
Emerald Publishing
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
  • Opens in new window
© 2021 Emerald Publishing Limited

Services

  • Authors Opens in new window
  • Editors Opens in new window
  • Librarians Opens in new window
  • Researchers Opens in new window
  • Reviewers Opens in new window

About

  • About Emerald Opens in new window
  • Working for Emerald Opens in new window
  • Contact us Opens in new window
  • Publication sitemap

Policies and information

  • Privacy notice
  • Site policies
  • Modern Slavery Act Opens in new window
  • Chair of Trustees governance statement Opens in new window
  • COVID-19 policy Opens in new window
Manage cookies

We’re listening — tell us what you think

  • Something didn’t work…

    Report bugs here

  • All feedback is valuable

    Please share your general feedback

  • Member of Emerald Engage?

    You can join in the discussion by joining the community or logging in here.
    You can also find out more about Emerald Engage.

Join us on our journey

  • Platform update page

    Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

  • Questions & More Information

    Answers to the most commonly asked questions here