research shows job design can make a big difference
- Written by Rose-Marie Stambe, Adjunct Research Fellow, social and economic marginalisation, The University of Queensland
Inflation has steadied and interest rates are finally coming down. But for many Australians, especially those in low-paid, insecure or precarious work, the cost-of-living crisis feels far from over.
The federal government has recently focused on improving outcomes for this group in a number of ways. Labor has advocated strongly for real wage increases and taken measures to protect weekend penalty rates.
Such wage-based policies go some way towards addressing workers’ financial struggles. But they aren’t the only way to improve workers’ lives.
We know that in contemporary society, having a job is important for subjective wellbeing. We also know not all jobs are equal in terms of quality. Permanent, full-time employment is considered the gold standard, with insecure or precarious work the most detrimental.
Yet not all insecure work is the same. Our recent study provides additional evidence that how a job is designed may be just as important as what kind of job it is. It also hints at the ingredients for designing better jobs.
Good jobs, bad jobs
Many books – from Arne Kalleberg’s Good jobs, Bad jobs to Guy Standing’s The Precariat – have explored the negative impacts job insecurity can have on individuals, their families and communities.
“Bad jobs” are more likely to affect waged workers with low levels of education or those with a history of unemployment.
But many different types of insecure work are bundled into what researchers call “contingent employment” – which can include labour hire, casual work and self-employment. And not all have to be “bad jobs”.
Our research
Using 16 years of nationally representative data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, we examined the relationship between different forms of contingent employment and job satisfaction.
We found the link between employment type and job satisfaction (our proxy for worker wellbeing) isn’t straightforward. Some forms of contingent work are clearly worse for workers. Others, under the right conditions, can support job satisfaction and wellbeing.
This is where it becomes important to understand the concept of “job resources” – such as high skill use, autonomy or job security – which help to reduce the cost of meeting job demands.
Without adequate resources to support job demands, workers’ wellbeing can suffer, including through increased risk of burnout.
It all depends on job design
We found that job satisfaction varies significantly across different kinds of contingent roles.
For example, self-employment is, on average, associated with higher job satisfaction. Our study suggests a number of reasons for this, including that this group enjoys greater autonomy, more flexibility and more opportunities to use a range of skills.
These “job resources” appear to compensate for the lack of traditional employment benefits, such as job security.
At the other end of the spectrum, labour hire workers (who are hired by a labour hire agency and then supplied to a host organisation to perform work under its direction), experience lower job satisfaction than permanent workers.
While these jobs tend to be less demanding in terms of workload, they offer very few job resources. Labour hire positions are often marked by low levels of autonomy, minimal skill use and little opportunity for development.
These conditions are closely linked with lower motivation, disengagement and long-term dissatisfaction.
Casual differences
Casual employment sits somewhere in the middle, and our findings reveal important gender differences.
For men, we found casual work is associated with lower job satisfaction. For women, however, the picture is more complicated.
Our analysis suggests women in casual jobs may experience certain unmeasured benefits, such as work-life balance, that offset some of the downsides.
We couldn’t directly measure these benefits in our dataset. But our results align with other studies, showing how the flexibility of casual work can be useful for some women with caregiving responsibilities.
There were gender differences in the satisfaction levels associated with casual work.
Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock
Job design is the missing link
What connects these findings is the role of job characteristics. Across the board, we found that features like skill use, autonomy, task variety and flexibility play a major role in shaping workers’ satisfaction.
When insecure jobs include these positive characteristics, they can be satisfying. When they don’t, the downsides build on each other.
In an ideal world, there should be a perfect trade-off between positive and negative job characteristics. For example, jobs with undesirable characteristics, such as job insecurity, would offer higher wages to attract workers or other desirable characteristics.
In our study, that only held true for some groups, such as self-employed workers and women in casual roles. For many others, casual or labour hire jobs offer neither security nor satisfaction.
Designing better jobs
These findings have implications for how we think about work and wellbeing.
For employers and policy makers the message is clear: improving job quality isn’t just about offering permanent contracts. While security matters, it’s also about how the job itself is designed.
Even in non-permanent roles, providing workers with more autonomy, opportunities to use their skills, and flexible scheduling can significantly improve job satisfaction and retention. It’s also important for supporting gender equality in the workplace.
Authors: Rose-Marie Stambe, Adjunct Research Fellow, social and economic marginalisation, The University of Queensland
