The Importance of Better Work

Abstract

This chapter draws on the extant scientific literature on the importance of having a job, in particular the importance of having good work. Above all, it seeks to pinpoint what good work entails. We discuss the functions of paid work and the consequences of unemployment for individuals and societies. We then turn to what economists, sociologists and psychologists have written about good work. From this literature we distil three core characteristics of good work, which also align with survey findings about what people in the Netherlands expect from their jobs. We then discuss why good work is so important for individuals, companies, the economy and society.

For most people, work is a source of economic independence, social contact and identity. Who we are is largely determined by what we do. Work is often where we connect with others; some of us spend more time with colleagues than with friends or loved ones. Unemployment has major consequences for individuals, for their social environments and for society, while the importance of paid work is most tangible for those who do not have it.

This chapter draws on the extant scientific literature on the importance of having a job, in particular the importance of having good work. Above all, it seeks to pinpoint what good work entails. We first discuss the functions of paid work and the consequences of unemployment for individuals and societies – a subject about which a great deal is already known (Sect. 2.1). We then turn to what economists, sociologists and psychologists have written about good work (Sect. 2.2). From this literature we distil three core characteristics of good work, which also align with survey findings about what people in the Netherlands expect from their jobs (Sect. 2.3). We then discuss why good work is so important for individuals, companies, the economy and society (Sect. 2.4) before concluding the chapter (Sect. 2.5).

2.1 The Meaning of Paid Work

The importance of paid work is most obvious to those who do not have it: the unemployed. Social psychologist Marie Jahoda and sociologist Paul Lazersfeld visited Marienthal, Austria, in the 1930s in the wake of a local factory closure which had made the majority of the village workforce redundant (see Box 2.1). From their field research and an extensive literature study, Jahoda and Lazersfeld identified six functions of work which are as applicable today as they were then.¹ First and foremost, work (1) furnishes an income. But apart from this, work also provides (2) daily structure, (3) personal development, (4) social contacts and experiences, (5) the opportunity to contribute to society and (6) status and identity. To a considerable extent, work determines a person’s position in society.

Jahoda emphasized the social functions of work. Because people find their place in society through employment, it has taken over some of the functions of communal and religious ritual. Alongside the family, work offers a social context that allows people to experience, on a daily basis, that they are not islands unto themselves. Without work, people feel they have no purpose in life and that they are unable to contribute to the collective; they feel excluded from society.

Box 2.1 from Marienthal to Janesville: Studies of the Unemployed

During the depression of the 1930s, Marie Jahoda and Paul Lazarsfeld accompanied a team of researchers to Marienthal, an Austrian village where the only factory had been forced to close. The result was the first large-scale study of the consequences of unemployment. Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal: Ein soziographischer Versuch über die Wirkungen langandauernder Arbeitslosigkeit (The Unemployed of Marienthal: A Sociographic Experiment on the Effects of Long-term Unemployment)² described both the practical aspects of joblessness such as managing household budgets and the slow tread with which the unemployed walked through the village and the shrinking of [their] life horizon. While the financial consequences of unemployment were great, what was even more striking was the suffering caused by loss of status, identity and self-esteem. The study found that people reacted differently to unemployment; some descended into a vicious cycle of inactivity and apathy, unable to take advantage of the limited opportunities available to them.

A half-century later, Een tijd zonder werk (A Time Without Work)³ – based on ethnographic research in the cities of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Enschede – studied long-term unemployment in the Netherlands in the 1980s. This study likewise found extended periods of joblessness leading to losses of status and identity, an altered sense of time and a contraction of the world. But it also identified an alternative culture of unemployment celebrating autonomy and individualism. Joblessness did not necessarily undermine status and identity; particularly young people made strategic use of welfare benefits as a de facto basic income to organize their lives in a way that suited them.⁴

The slipstream of the 2008 financial crisis has produced relatively few academic studies of the experience of unemployment. Among the notable studies are Washington Post staff writer Amy Goldstein’s account⁵ of the city of Janesville, Wisconsin, where a General Motors factory had closed its doors. Janesville: An American Story is as an account of the resilience of a local community. Retraining courses, Goldstein found, were no quick fix, as people who had undergone retraining found it harder to find new jobs.

Jahoda’s six functions of work still apply although the meritocratization of society – the conferral of status by talent – since the 1930s has added a seventh function: work affords self-respect.⁶ In Respect in a World of Inequality, Richard Sennett⁷ writes that people without paid work find it hard to respect themselves – a feeling reinforced when people are judged above all by their earnings.⁸ If people are out of work, the general consensus is that they only have themselves to blame; they should have stayed longer in school or performed better at the last job interview. A Dutch study by Judith Elshout⁹ found many unemployed people sharing such views: their situation was “their own fault” while people without work were “losers”.

American sociologist Michelle Lamont¹⁰ reports that there are currently few sources of self-esteem outside of paid employment – the centrality of which has pushed aside other possible reasons to value oneself. Although many men and women in the Netherlands value leisure and family above paid work,¹¹ (Fig. 2.1) recent research shows that one’s job remains the most important source of respect. The unemployed, people with disabilities, pensioners and homemakers (both male and female) all struggle more than working people with issues of self-esteem. Working people feel more useful and valuable, and are more proud of themselves (Fig. 2.1).¹²

Fig. 2.1

The centrality of work across countries – total population aged 18-plus (indexed)

Source: Conen (2020)

Can volunteer work take over the functions of paid work? Although volunteering is generally good for one’s health and well-being, this is less true for unemployed people, especially when they are young and have their lives ahead of them.¹³ The Netherlands has a tradition of valuing voluntary work as a symbolic contribution to society; within the benefits system, experiments are currently underway to guide recipients towards the voluntary sector (see Box 2.2). But however valuable it may be and however much it may bolster self-esteem,¹⁴ volunteering can never fully take over all the functions of a real job with a real payslip.¹⁵

Box 2.2 Experiments with Volunteer Work

Experiments with volunteering have long sought to give those without paid work a daily routine and meaning in life. The first experiment we know of took place in the uk in 1935 when the Quaker movement set up the Subsistence Production Society, a voluntary co-operative for 400 former miners. Rather than a wage, participants received a small cash allowance. While the project emulated many of the functions of work, it attained better results among older men; younger men often failed to show up. For the former, it brought structure to the day; for the latter, voluntary work undermined their social status. The younger men did not feel they were contributing to a greater goal.¹⁶

Since the 1980s, the Netherlands has seen numerous experiments with volunteer work for the unemployed, usually targeting long-term benefit claimants.¹⁷ A study by the City of Rotterdam found that social assistance claimants were generally positive about the expectation to give back to the community, although a minority found it oppressive. Participants in an experimental programme generally felt more confident and valued, and expanded their social contacts; their employment prospects and health, however, did not improve.¹⁸ In Amsterdam, the comparable programme Meedoen werkt (“Joining in works”) made participants feel “more self-reliant” but only rarely led to them finding paid work.¹⁹

2.1.1 When People Are Out of Work: Consequences for the Individual and Society

Because work has so many functions, it is unsurprising that unemployment has such far-reaching consequences. Numerous studies have shown that being out of work leads to poorer health, particularly mental health; controlling for socio-economic status, employment history and education, we see that joblessness clearly contributes to mental illnesses such as depression.²⁰ Conversely, unemployed people who find jobs experience huge health gains, comparable to the effect of participating in programmes designed to promote healthy behaviour.²¹ Understandably, scientific attention over the past decades has shifted away from the pathogenic nature of work – its role in causing illness and disease – towards its remedial effects. Nowadays, a job is more often considered medicine.

The unemployed, as Jahoda already observed, are less embedded in “society” – which after all is largely created at work. The wrr pointed to this phenomenon in its 1990 report Work in Perspective,²² by which time the erosion of traditional integrative links had made social bonding through work an urgent issue: “Labour-force participation – allowing always for new definitions of what constitutes employment – has become an increasingly important precondition and manifestation of social participation, cohesion and individual citizenship.” People without jobs are less anchored in society, have smaller social networks and are more likely to be single. Sometimes they are excluded; sometimes they exclude themselves. Particularly for married men, losing their job increases the chances that they will lose their partner.²³

Work in Perspective also found that low labour-force participation rates were threatening the solvency of the Dutch welfare state. A healthy ratio between working and non-working people is needed to maintain solidarity and to finance the social-security system. Unemployment and occupational incapacity entail costs that go well beyond the sums paid out in benefits, such as those associated with healthcare and social services. For example, people on benefits account for a considerable proportion of the spending on mental healthcare.²⁴

The costs of health problems caused by unemployment are at least in part borne by society. It is therefore important to help as many people as possible into work, not only for their own good but for that of the general public. But it is crucial that this work be good work. We now turn to what this actually means.

2.2 Good Work: Insights from the Social Sciences

Much has been written about what constitutes good work. Although there is no single, unambiguous definition, specific elements keep recurring in the academic literature and in large-scale international studies by the European Union and the oecd. This section describes criteria for good work as proposed by economists, sociologists and psychologists, and boils them down to three crucial characteristics.

2.2.1 Good Work as Seen by Economists

In economics, the quality of work is generally equated with pay levels.²⁵ High wages mean good work; low wages mean bad work. Paul de Beer²⁶ argues that economics has narrowed its view of work to income: “Although most economists do underline the importance of work for the individual, the dominant approach in economics, the neoclassical theory, provides little reason to do so. In most economic views of the labour market, work is primarily a way of making money.” Nevertheless, meaningful jobs can be badly paid while well-paid work can also lead to burnout. As important as wages are for income and recognition, sociologists and psychologists have shown that there are more criteria to good work than pay alone.

Economics has indeed begun to pay more attention to well-being. In The Origins of Happiness,²⁷ Layard and colleagues explore how the quality of people’s work affects their contentment and distil from contemporary studies three conditions for good work: (1) good organization, with sufficient variety in tasks, autonomy, support, appreciation and so on; (2) good work-life balance (flexible and “civilized” hours); and (3) good pay, with income security and opportunities for promotion. In sum, work is good if it makes people happy with their lives.

Arne Kalleberg²⁸, a sociologist inspired by economists, identifies five conditions for good work. First, the wage must be sufficient to cover basic needs, with the chance to earn more over time. It is not only the amount one earns, but the social mobility that the income allows. Second, good work provides social benefits such as health insurance and post-retirement pensions; Kalleberg emphasizes this as social benefits in the United States are generally linked to one’s employment contract and not, as in the Netherlands and Europe more broadly, arranged collectively or through industry-wide agreements. Third, good work offers “opportunities for autonomy and control over work activities”, including having a say over one’s tasks. Fourth, “flexibility and control over rosters and working conditions” is increasingly important in light of on-call work in the 24/7 economy. Finally, workers must have some control over when their jobs end, as the flexible labour market thrives on short-term appointments.

All five conditions do not necessarily have to be met for work to be good; if one is missing, this does not automatically make it bad. Here Kalleberg aligns himself with neoclassical economic theory, which posits that employers can trade off positive and negative aspects of work, for example the price in security self-employed in the creative industry pay for their independence. Kalleberg nevertheless notes that the exchange is often not all that it should be; while employers offering precarious positions should be paying higher wages, this often does not happen. The conditions for good work are also increasingly divorced from one another. We can no longer confidently say that individuals earning high incomes will likely score well on the other indicators of good work. For example, there is now less job security across the board.

2.2.2 Good Work as Seen by Sociologists

According to Duncan Gallie,²⁹ sociologists assess the quality of work through two dominant lenses. Building on sociology’s founding fathers (see Box 2.3), the first approach seeks to objectively determine the conditions under which workers’ interests are advanced. Marx, for example, argued that without ownership over their work, workers will remain alienated from themselves and from their labour. The second approach is based more on what people themselves experience as good work. Good jobs are jobs in which people are happy; it is better to let people judge for themselves what constitutes good work as their preferences differ.

Gallie further argues that people are remarkably consistent in how they evaluate their work, with similar patterns visible in almost all European countries, among both men and women. Workers with modest educations, less discretionary space, fewer training opportunities, limited job security and greater difficulties combining work and care are less satisfied with their jobs. Objectively as well as subjectively, the quality of work can be reduced to three central elements: (1) discretionary space at work; (2) job security; and (3) work-life balance.³⁰

Box 2.3 Alienation in the Iron Cage: The Quality of Work According to Classical Sociologists

Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim and Max Weber were engaged with the industrial relations of their day and the question of how to enforce good work.³¹ Marx (1818–1883) was particularly affected by the kind of industrial labour he saw in English factories. The dangers of work lay primarily in various forms of alienation: alienation from the product being made, alienation from the work process, alienation from one’s fellow workers and alienation from the individual creative process. It was vital that people be allowed to be social and creative. The answer to alienation lay not in liberation from work but in liberation through work. This was only possible if workers controlled the means of production so that they were no longer “wage slaves”.

Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) is famous for his idea that specialization makes people more interdependent, creating an organic form of solidarity. But he also warned against the excessive division of labour, where workers become automatons and there is little contact between one function and the next. People should be able to choose their work freely as this will better match their individual abilities. Durkheim saw little point in seeking out conflict, preferring a higher level of moral consciousness through professional organizations modelled on the guilds of the Middle Ages.

Finally, Max Weber (1864–1920) described how bureaucracies – or other forms of far-reaching rationalization – restrict freedom of action, imprisoning people in an “iron cage” leading to “depersonalization” and loss of creativity. Weber sought a solution in charismatic leaders who could introduce new moral values.

Although the proposals advanced by these nineteenth-century sociologists to achieve better work ranged from moral appeals to the appropriation of capital, they were all concerned with scope for individuality and creativity, working according to one’s abilities, and social relationships at work. It all sounds surprisingly modern and to the point.

2.2.3 Good Work as Seen by Psychologists

While sociologists study the quality of work through the lenses of social equality, opportunities and workplace performance, psychologists tend to focus on workers’ health and well-being. Peter Warr’s “vitamin model”, for example, compares the psychological influence of working conditions to the effects of vitamins on physical health.³² According to Warr, people have a natural need for nine “vitamins of work” without which good work is impossible. Some have health benefits but can be harmful when overdosed (see Table 2.1). For example, excessive performance requirements lead to stress, too much variety in one’s tasks reduces concentration, and not everyone thrives with autonomy. The other vitamins – financial rewards, physical security, position and status – do not lead to overdose but have no further benefits beyond a certain dose.³³

Table 2.1 Warr’s vitamins of work

Another strand of psychological research on workplace well-being builds on motivation theory. Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of needs, advanced in A Theory of Human Motivation (1943), is often used to outline a hierarchy of needs, the fulfilment of which leads to good work. With physiological needs at its base, the pyramid progresses through the needs for safety, belonging, love and esteem before reaching its apex: self-actualization. Self-determination theory as advanced by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan has also found considerable resonance in workplace research.³⁴ According to this hypothesis, people are driven by three basic psychological needs: (1) autonomy, meaning the freedom to design an activity as one sees fit with a degree of independence; (2) competence, meaning confidence in one’s own ability and the experience of control; and (3) belonging, meaning social interaction and trust in others.³⁵ Safeguarding all three in the workplace should result in better performance (quality of work and productivity) and in better health and well-being.³⁶

2.2.4 Good Work as Seen by International Organizations

International organizations such as the oecd and Eurofound have built on the scientific findings outlined above to define and operationalize good work in their research on the quality of work. In recent reports such as Divided We Stand³⁷ and In It Together,³⁸ the oecd has increasingly focused on pay and income inequality as well as the insecurity of workers in flexible labour markets. In its understanding of the quality of work, the oecd privileges the socio-economic aspects of employment (see Table 2.2). Eurofound in studying the quality of work has identified seven key indicators, each with several sub-characteristics (see Table 2.2). Compared to the oecd, Eurofound places greater emphasis on physical working conditions, how work is organized and social innovation in the workplace.

Table 2.2 International job quality indices

2.3 Conditions for Good Work

Three core conditions for good work recur in the scientific literature. While their importance may fluctuate for individuals over the life course, research shows that there are minimum levels for work to be considered good. All three conditions do not need to be maximized. Good work can also be good-enough work.

2.3.1 Income Security

The first condition for good work is material. People need to be paid enough to live on: work that results in poverty cannot be called good. Wages should also be proportionate to the effort involved: is there a balance between what people do and how much they are paid? Warr calls this fairness.³⁹ To some extent, fairness is relational; people tend to compare what they earn with others. Comparative earnings are therefore a key indicator. If a person’s wages are much lower than those of close colleagues or people with the same level of education, it is hard to claim their work is good.

Security is part and parcel of the material dimension of the quality of work. Although people with steady jobs can experience insecurity – “in a reorganization you can be out of the door just like that” – temporary contracts are seen as indicators of bad work as they bring little financial stability and slim career prospects.

Security is enhanced when workers have opportunities to find other or better-paid work through retraining and on-the-job learning and when job loss is accompanied by financial compensation, for instance through an adequate redundancy package. Redress for loss of income due to termination of contract or incapacity to work, as well as guidance into other work where appropriate, are conditions for good work.

2.3.2 In the Workplace: Freedom and Belonging

The second condition for good work concerns the workplace itself. A job can be secure and well paid but can hardly be called good if one has no space to decide when and how tasks are performed, if the workplace atmosphere is toxic, if job requirements are so basic that boredom sets in, or if one lacks opportunities for development. Although workers don’t need to be in a constant state of bliss, they generally want to feel that they are making a contribution.⁴⁰ Whether one is well or poorly educated, highly gifted or cognitively impaired, being able to make the most of one’s abilities is a basic human need.⁴¹ People like to use and develop their skills. Being under-challenged is not only a waste of human talent; it is often demeaning. Conversely, people can also be over-challenged: if there are not enough people for the task, if the task is too complex, or if it demands the constant managing of one’s own and other people’s emotions, the work can no longer be considered good.

While both Kalleberg and Eurofound emphasize the importance of social mobility through work, we prefer Warr’s vitamin model which recognizes there can be too much emphasis on advancement. Mobility in itself is not an end; people can be satisfied with the work they have. Good work strikes the right balance between stress and boredom.⁴² It concerns appropriate job requirements, not just avoiding burnout but also preventing “bore-out”.

To keep alienation – occupational estrangement from oneself and/or others – from setting in, workers need a degree of control or ownership over their work. As Marx wrote, being able to use our creativity makes us human.⁴³ Good work means that people can perform their tasks without constant control from managers or technology – a common problem today, especially for workers in the gig economy who must ultimately answer to an algorithm.⁴⁴ While an appropriate amount of personal latitude can shield people from excessive workloads and stress, not all workers need the same amount of autonomy, or all of the time; the need for autonomy is stronger in some people than in others, and can evolve over the course of a career. Too much autonomy can also make workers exhausted and insecure⁴⁵ – especially when their authority does not match their responsibilities. But with the right amount of autonomy, psychology’s classic demand-control model⁴⁶ (see also Sect. 2.4) predicts that workers will be more productive. Their input in shopfloor meetings and participation in decision-making is crucial as it allows workers to shape how tasks are organized in a way that makes the most of their abilities.⁴⁷

People want to feel connected to those they work with; this is a basic human need.⁴⁸ Respect and appreciation, courtesy and social support are essential to good work.⁴⁹ People value workplace social relationships, which must be free of discrimination, aggression and bullying. If workers’ have bad relations with their bosses or colleagues, it is not good work.

2.3.3 Work-Life Balance

The third condition for good work is work-life balance. Good work entails working hours appropriate for one’s stage in life. Some people want to reduce their working hours when raising young children or if elderly parents require their care. Others want to work more, which can be facilitated by good public care provision for children and the elderly. Yet others wish to continue working after the normal retirement age. Not everyone can or wants to follow the standard life-course of “study, work, rest”. Good work means fluidity and flexibility so that family life and personal development can be combined with a career.⁵⁰ This includes flexibility in the place and timing of work.

The line between work and private life has been blurred in the flexible labour market, where working hours and locations are often no longer fixed. While flexibility is often demanded unilaterally by the employer, good work is about flexibility for the employee, not about having to be available for work at all hours.⁵¹ It is also important that personal problems do not constantly interfere with work, that workers are not repeatedly called away to care for a confused parent or to pick up a sick child from school. Employees must be allowed enough rest and time to work well.

Table 2.3 summarizes the three key conditions for good work and links them to 12 indicators. We will return to them in our analysis of the Netherlands in subsequent chapters.

Table 2.3 Three conditions for good work

2.3.4 The Three Conditions for Good Work

Do the above conditions for good work, as distilled from the scientific literature and summarized in Table 2.3, align with the wishes of Dutch society? Surveys find that people in the Netherlands, more than in any other European country, do not place paid work first on their list of priorities⁵² (see Fig. 2.1). On average, they attach greater importance to family, friendships and free time – a privilege of prosperous countries where joblessness does not risk basic livelihood.⁵³ Both Dutch men and women wish to be able to combine paid work with free time and care responsibilities.⁵⁴

Table 2.4 shows that Dutch people want work that pays well. But it is even more important that their work is interesting and that it makes the most of their talents. A good salary is of great importance to more than three-quarters of the population, but people also want interesting work “in which you can use your abilities”. All things considered, Dutch workers attach more importance to the intrinsic aspects of work than do many other Europeans.⁵⁵ In other words, the value of work lies mainly in the work itself. Workers in the Netherlands, more than in the rest of Europe, want their work to be “social”; they want pleasant colleagues. A sense of belonging at work is an important condition for good work.⁵⁶

Table 2.4 Work orientations in the Netherlands, employed labour force (in %), 1990–2018

Although the expectations of employees today do not differ markedly from those of their 1970s predecessors, women’s growing participation in the labour force has generated new expectations regarding work-life balance.⁵⁷ People attach greater value than ever before to reasonable working hours and generous holiday arrangements so they can combine their personal and working lives (see Table 2.4). It is also striking how much having an interesting job and the ability to “achieve something” at work have grown in importance over the past three decades.

It is sometimes claimed that younger people see work very differently, that they attach less importance to job security. This is a “millennial myth” – this generation, too, wants good work that provides a secure livelihood.⁵⁸ Everyone, regardless of age, appreciates a steady job, a good employer and a reasonable salary.⁵⁹ Everyone, regardless of age, appreciates ​​the value of security. In sum, the quality of work, according to Dutch workers, concerns pay and security; autonomy and belonging in the workplace; and being able to combine work with private life.

2.4 Consequences of Good Work for the Individual, the Economy and Society

Good work is not only good for workers; employers and society gain as well. Figure 2.2 shows how.

Fig. 2.2

Consequences of better work for the individual, the economy and society

2.4.1 Health and Well-Being

Good work is good for workers’ health and well-being, which means less absenteeism, higher productivity and lower costs for the welfare state. Numerous epidemiological studies show a causal relationship between the quality of work and the health and well-being of workers.⁶⁰ Although this applies to physical health as well, it is especially – and increasingly – the case for mental health.⁶¹

Occupational health is associated primarily with conditions in the workplace and the extent to which workers have control over their working lives. There is a direct link between high – and above all continuous – work-related stress and medical complaints.⁶² Mental-health issues can arise when employees are insufficiently challenged, when they do not feel that their tasks match their abilities, or when they lack opportunities for advancement.⁶³ Poor relationships with colleagues and bosses increase the risk of illness and can have major implications for a person’s mental health and subjective well-being.⁶⁴

Box 2.4 Burnout: A Product of Changes in Work and Society

The best-known negative effect attributed to bad work is burnout: mental and emotional exhaustion often accompanied by physical fatigue, cynicism towards work, insufficient sleep and flagging self-confidence. Burnout has many causes. Broader social developments play a role; in the performance society, work is an indicator of success and having a busy job is a status symbol.⁶⁵ Meanwhile, we devote our leisure time to even more activity, from sports to maintaining a social media presence, leaving us scant time to recover from work.⁶⁶

Other underlying causes of burnout can be traced to the changing nature of work, in particular its acceleration. The shift from an industrial to a service economy means that people are working less with their hands and more with their heads and hearts. Work nowadays is more likely to be mentally than physically taxing,⁶⁷ altering the pattern of occupational illness.

Workers today have fewer opportunities to tune out. More likely to be working with others, they are expected to keep their interactions civil, even under trying circumstances.⁶⁸ Many workers are increasingly engaged in emotional labour, tasks that require them to suppress their own feelings or to express emotions they are not experiencing. This can lead to all kinds of exhaustion from burnout to compassion fatigue, the diminished ability to feel empathy.

A great deal of research has been done on occupational factors that affect health. Of the frameworks seeking to predict which employees are at increased risk of illness, the demand-control model,⁶⁹ the effort-reward imbalance model⁷⁰ and the job demands-resources model are probably the best known.⁷¹ All recognize that certain negative factors (job requirements) increase the incidence of medical complaints and that certain positive factors (resources) reduce it.⁷²

Excessive workload is undeniably a negative factor: employees under great pressure are more likely to suffer symptoms of burnout.⁷³ While such pressure is usually manageable for short periods, prolonged exposure to stress puts the body in a constant state of maximum preparedness, which renders relaxation difficult.⁷⁴ Working to tight deadlines is fine so long as workers are allowed enough rest between them. Interruptions such as phone alerts are also not a problem unless they occur continuously and undermine concentration, which increases the chances of burnout.⁷⁵

To deal with the causes of workplace stress, employees need resources and control options at their disposal. With support from managers and colleagues, they are less likely to suffer from health issues.⁷⁶ Being able to talk freely about difficulties helps, which can also make it easier to hand work over to colleagues.⁷⁷ But colleagues can also be part of the problem when relationships are strained or when there is bullying in the workplace.⁷⁸ Autonomy at work can provide protection against illness and burnout. Heavy workloads can be better managed when workers are able to decide when and how they perform their tasks; workers entrusted with responsibility also feel more appreciated.⁷⁹ This is probably why people who are their own boss are less likely to burn out.⁸⁰

Box 2.5 Emotional Labour in the Service Economy

“Emotional labour” is increasingly widespread in the service economy, where more and more workers are expected to manage their feelings to present a particular image to clients and customers. In The Managed Heart, sociologist Arlie Hochschild⁸¹ shows how flight attendants are trained and controlled to be pleasant (smile!) at all times. Emotional labour, she warns, can lead to alienation, especially if one’s feelings do not match how one is expected to behave. This effect increases when a worker is being watched by a boss or colleagues. Since Hochschild coined the term, emotional labour has been studied in workplaces ranging from call centres to schools and hospitals. As the service economy expands, aspects of emotional labour are encroaching onto less obvious professions, for example movers and plumbers who must deal with customers of all kinds.

Although emotional labour can make work meaningful – it may add an extra or deeper dimension to the job – it can also lead to stress and burnout. This is especially the case when there is “emotional dissonance” – when workers, like actors, must feign emotions they are not actually feeling. People who work closely with others are more likely to take sick leave and suffer burnout. This is why emotional capital – the ability to feel and manage emotions – has become an increasingly important asset in the workplace.⁸²

The material aspects of work influence psychological well-being. Low earnings can lead to poverty while the poor are more likely to suffer poor health.⁸³ Job insecurity, especially flexible contracts, can negatively affect mental health.⁸⁴ International research consistently finds a link between long-term temporary working and the greater risk of health problems. Studies in the Netherlands are less clear-cut on this point, perhaps because people with chronic medical conditions are less likely to be working due to the country’s robust social-security system. Temporary agency work appears to have negative health effects while self-employed professionals report better health.⁸⁵

Work-life imbalance has psychological consequences. People who work long days are more likely to burn out,⁸⁶ while disrupting an existing equilibrium between care-giving and work often undermines health, well-being and workplace functioning.⁸⁷ Having to be continuously available for work can generate considerable stress for “task combiners”. While combining work with care-giving does not necessarily lead to stress or mental health problems, those who feel their work and care responsibilities are out of balance are more likely to experience symptoms of burnout.⁸⁸

Much also depends on the worker’s network of social support. Do they have people they can turn to at home for help with work-related stress, and people at work who can assist when they have domestic troubles? Tellingly, burnout is less common among task combiners, perhaps because their families offer more support.⁸⁹ But if there are problems at home – for example with the children or finances – the risk of burnout increases.⁹⁰ The incidence of sick leave is also higher among working care-givers; the longer they combine care duties and work, the longer they are off sick.⁹¹ Conversely, good work can have a protective effect, for example by keeping working care-givers from being overburdened by their care responsibilities. In short, the right combination of personal and work activities can energize employees and improve their productivity, motivation and engagement.

What are the consequences for society if work is not good? The resulting health problems increase absenteeism. Alongside workplace conflict, health problems – especially psychological ones – are the main reason people take time off from work.⁹² A significant proportion of absenteeism is due to problems with the work itself⁹³: overwork and stress are increasingly cited as reasons for reporting sick.⁹⁴ The Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment estimates that unfavourable working conditions cause 4.6% of the total burden of disease in the country, the same order of magnitude as environmental factors (5.7%), physical inactivity (3.5%) and obesity (5.2%).⁹⁵

Absenteeism is detrimental not only for workers but for employers and society. The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research calculates that an employee idle for a year due to burnout costs at least €60,000⁹⁶ and that all work-related absenteeism costs an estimated €5 billion annually. Of this, €2.7 billion can be attributed to “psychosocial workload”. In addition, healthcare costs for people with occupational disorders amount to €1.6 billion, and for occupational disabilities, €2.1 billion. In total, work-related health conditions cost the Netherlands €8.7 billion in 2018.⁹⁷

Good work can contribute to keeping people at work and keeping them in work longer, as well as enabling those with health problems to return to the workforce.⁹⁸ In addition to absenteeism, work-related psychological complaints can lead to “presenteeism” – the employee turning up to work but doing little once there, for example due to chronic fatigue. Improving the quality of work, the oecd concludes, reduces absenteeism and losses in productivity⁹⁹ as workers become more physically and mentally present. In short, investing in good work benefits employees, employers and society alike. Good work is good for everyone.

2.4.2 Engagement

One consequence of good work is engagement,¹⁰⁰ deftly described in workplaces past and present by the sociologist Richard Sennett¹⁰¹ in The Craftsman. Employee engagement affects how organizations function.¹⁰² Engaged employees work harder and deliver better results.¹⁰³ Effectory – a firm that has surveyed employees across Dutch companies and institutions, including the entire central government – no longer only asks about job satisfaction, which it deems a too-passive concept. Nowadays, Effectory asks about enthusiasm at work and commitment to the organization.¹⁰⁴ Alongside the formal contract, every employment relationship contains a reciprocal “psychological contract”, “a perception of promises made between employer and employee, expressed or implied, about their exchange relationship.”¹⁰⁵

Employers able to engage their employees, typically through non-hierarchical relationships, consultation and worker participation, promote “organizational citizenship behaviour”. Staff are then more inclined to take on work left by absent colleagues, to not cause problems for others and to commit themselves to the company.¹⁰⁶ When people feel safe, secure, supported and appreciated at work, they often do more for the organization than is required by their formal contract.¹⁰⁷ Such engagement is good not only for the functioning of the company, but benefits its clients.¹⁰⁸

Good work contributes to innovation and economic growth by encouraging workers to think about how products, services and work processes can be improved.¹⁰⁹ Eurofound finds that “job quality contributes to developing organisational commitment and motivation among workers, as well as shaping a climate that is supportive of creativity and innovation”.¹¹⁰ Social innovation – structuring work organizations in ways that bring out the best in people (see Box 2.6) – is crucial for our knowledge and service economy, which primarily depends on human capital.¹¹¹ Innovations often happen when employees have ideas about how work processes can be improved. But this only happens when workers enjoy real autonomy. Offices are cleaned better and faster when cleaners can suggest improvements.¹¹² Starbucks’ Frappuccino was the brainchild of an employee given room to experiment after returning from a holiday in Greece.

Insecurity at work inhibits innovative behaviour. Companies that depend on flexible workers tend to focus on bureaucracy and controlling their staff.¹¹³ Temporary contracts also undermine innovative behaviour.¹¹⁴ Staff who do not know whether they will be employed in a few months have few incentives to brainstorm improvements or to provide feedback on how things could be done better. Lack of autonomy interacts with job insecurity to adversely affect innovation and economic growth.

Box 2.6 Social Innovation in the Netherlands: Past, Present and Future

At the beginning of this century, Dutch employers’ organizations and trade unions agreed to promote “social innovation”.¹¹⁵ They joined the Smarter Work Platform, and later, the Netherlands Centre for Social Innovation, in which academic institutions also participated. In a 2005 report, the Social Innovation Task Force described social innovation as “renewing the work organization and maximizing its use of skills with the aim of improving business performance and talent development.”¹¹⁶ The Netherlands Centre for Social Innovation received government support; one of the national employers’ association (awvn) played a major role in the initiative, focusing on co-creation.

As a concept, social innovation is meant to offset the general bias towards technological innovation. It is about “the participative and interrelated renewal of work, organizations and personnel policy in order to improve human functioning and so take organizational performance, the quality of work and labour relations to a higher level. Obviously, this will almost always be done in conjunction with technological innovation.”¹¹⁷ “Organizational performance” here primarily refers to labour productivity and innovative ability; “quality of work” to enriching tasks, developing skills and mitigating stress-related risks. An evaluation of 10 years of social innovation in the Netherlands found that organizations committed to the concept had gone some way to achieve these goals.¹¹⁸

The number of socially innovative companies nevertheless remains limited. In 2019, the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment announced that he would turn to the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands – an advisory body of employers, employees and independent experts – for advice on the “broader and better application of social innovation”, meaning smarter working, flexible organization, co-creation and dynamic management.¹¹⁹

2.4.3 Sense of Community

Finally, good work is good for the individual’s sense of belonging to the community and for social cohesion. Insufficient income and insecure work limit opportunities in the housing market and, especially for men, in the life-partner market. People with permanent positions are more likely to have children.¹²⁰ For young flexible workers, putting off starting a family is almost the norm; as a German Minister of Family Affairs once said, temporary contracts are “the best contraceptive”.¹²¹ The same applies to possibilities for combining work and care; countries with paid parental leave have higher birth rates.¹²² Workers with both uncertain and irregular hours can never be sure if and when they will be called into work and so experience particular difficulties combining work and care.¹²³ The consequences of good work thus extend to social and family life.

Lack of good work can fuel social discontent. More and more workers in jobs with low wages, little security, scant autonomy and few or no control options are turning their backs on society and growing pessimistic about the future.¹²⁴ Why is this happening? First of all, bad work is widely experienced as demeaning. People in such jobs feel little respect and appreciation, and often sense that they are interchangeable: “If you go, there are ten more waiting to take your place”.¹²⁵ Negative workplace experiences – tasks one is overqualified for, discrimination or “flexism” (the unequal treatment of people with temporary positions) – are easily projected onto society as a whole. Second, social unease grows when people do not experience control over their own lives, their futures and that of their children.¹²⁶ This leaves them unable to look ahead, consigned to be “prisoners of the present”.¹²⁷ As work is central to everyone’s existence, job insecurity easily engenders insecurity in all aspects of life.¹²⁸ Finally, bad work can induce feelings of marginalization, especially when others are perceived to have better work. If their work seems peripheral, people have no incentive to engage. Better work can draw people towards the heart of society.

Sharp distinctions between good and bad jobs can put social cohesion under particular pressure. Indeed, qualitative job polarization may trigger all kinds of new social problems from the increased mistrust of institutions and incidence of mental ill-health¹²⁹ to the creation or deepening of social divisions along education, gender and ethnic lines. Good work for all is crucial for society.

2.5 Conclusion: Good Work Means Control

People in the Netherlands do not want work to dominate their lives, crowding out family and leisure time. But paid work continues to have important social functions. Work provides status and gives people the feeling that they are contributing to something larger than themselves. Work is a major source of self-esteem, satisfaction and a sense of belonging – but only if it fulfils certain requirements.

The scientific literature reveals three key conditions for good work, all of which align with the expressed wishes of Dutch workers and the needs of the country’s economy.

• 1. Control over income. Good work provides financial security, also in the long term, and a fair wage.

• 2. Control over work. Good work allows for appropriate workplace autonomy and supportive social relationships.

• 3. Control in life. Good work allows sufficient time and space to combine work with care responsibilities and a private life.

For work to qualify as good, all three conditions must be met; they cannot be traded off against one another. While one condition might (temporarily) trump another in individual cases, proportionality is crucial. While autonomy is a hallmark of good work, workers can also suffer from too much latitude. Although good work allows workers to have private lives away from the workplace, it also allows reasonable demands to be placed upon workers.

People without (good) work suffer psychological and social consequences. Good work increases workers’ well-being and makes them feel visible, recognized and part of society. Work that is not good is problematic not only for the individual worker but for society. The economy benefits from productive workers, not from those who are made ill or exhausted (which ultimately undermines the finances of the welfare state). Engaged workers benefit the economy by contributing to well-functioning companies and workplace innovation. Good work benefits social cohesion by enabling workers to build social relationships, feel recognized and look ahead rather than living on society’s margins. To maximize social cohesion, everyone must have good work.

The following three chapters focus on the quality of work in the Netherlands. Where does the country have the most to improve? How are new technologies, flexible contracts and new workplace pressures affecting Dutch workers? We focus in turn on control over income (Chap. 3), control over work (Chap. 4) and control in life (Chap. 5).

A Day at Work: The Primary-School Teacher

Marijke, a self-proclaimed teacher in heart and soul, has been in the classroom for more than 25 years. She is at school by 7.30 am each day, where she teaches a third-grade class. Today she has the help of a trainee teaching assistant who comes in once a week. Marijke prepares the lessons while the teaching assistant sets up the classroom. The 29 miniature desks are arranged in six groups, crammed into the available space.

The children start trickling in at 8.20 with their parents. Within minutes the place is bustling. Some parents read or play with their children; others need to see “Miss” about something or ask her “a quick question”. Then Marijke claps her hands and shouts, “Let’s start!”

The first lesson today is reading. The assistant takes a handful of pupils who are behind in their reading out of the classroom to teach them separately. Those left behind read independently in groups. Marijke calls those children whom she suspects have dyslexia up to her desk, one by one. Half an hour later the class is reunited. The reading books are put away and language textbooks come out. After some commotion and instruction, the children again work on their own. This gives Marijke and the assistant space to help those who get stuck one-to-one. Hands are going up all the time. The maths lesson after the break is similar: a short introduction followed by independent work. Marijke walks around the classroom, at times giving pupils individual attention, but “always less than you would like”. The children are allowed to ask each other for help “but kids just tend to give the right answer rather than explaining how it works”.

Children differ not only in achievement, but in learning skills, working pace and behaviour. Identifying and responding effectively to such differences is the big challenge facing teachers, says Marijke. The magic words are differentiation and customization. With 29 faces looking at her, that is a task and a half. “On the days without an assistant, I can’t give the kids all the guidance they need.”

The children are tested regularly to monitor their development. While their scores reveal deviations from average performance, Marijke says they do not take into account the child’s individual circumstances. While she takes the results with a pinch of salt, Marijke realizes her attitude is a luxury she can afford due to her experience; things are harder for her younger colleagues. The tests take up a lot of teaching time – three to four times a year for 29 children in Dutch language, reading and maths – and generate a lot of administrative work. Each pupil’s results and how they affect the way he or she is taught must be recorded in a digital tracking system. Marijke does some of this work at home.

“Appropriate education” – recently added to Marijke’s job description – aims to keep children with learning difficulties, from Down’s syndrome to autism, in mainstream education as much as possible. It requires additional expertise. The teaching profession is changing, says Marijke. Co-ordination is essential for pupils across the spectrum of abilities to flourish throughout their school careers. Teaching is increasingly becoming a team effort, at the expense of the individual teacher’s autonomy.

The relationship with parents is also more intensive than when Marijke entered the profession, with both under-involved and over-involved parents creating further stress. But Marijke is no shrinking violet and knows how to manage both. “Parents demand attention – and rightly so, as long as it’s about their child, not themselves – but they also need to realize that there are 20 to 30 other children who also deserve attention.”

This afternoon, one parent arrives too late to pick up his child. Marijke must thus play babysitter. She then has a meeting with another parent about examining her child for suspected autism. While Marijke knows how to keep the meeting to the agreed 20 minutes, not all of her colleagues are so adept at time management. She then sits down with the trainee teaching assistant to discuss her progress. They then tidy the classroom together and prepare for the next day. As they are doing so, another teacher enters, in need of a shoulder to cry on. After she has left, Marijke expresses her own concerns: “Teachers want the best for the kids, so it can be hard to draw boundaries. Especially for the younger ones. They experience real emotional distress.”

At 5.15 pm Marijke shuts down her computer and checks her to-do list for the day. Only half of the items can be crossed off. Later tonight, at home, she will go through her e-mails, including some from parents. It is 5.30 pm when she finally leaves the school, 10 h after arriving.

The Netherlands has 155,000 primary-school teachers, more than 80 per cent of them women. Most have vocational degrees; two-thirds work part-time. Teaching leads all professions in work-related stress. The rate of sick leave is 50 per cent higher than the average for all occupations. A full-time primary teacher earns between €2600 and €4200 gross per month. The average (modal) income in the Netherlands in 2020 will be just over €2800 euros per month, excluding holiday pay. Since 2017, primary-school teachers have been campaigning to reduce their workload and for pay rises to bring their salaries in line with those of secondary-school teachers, who also typically have vocational degrees.