رفاه، رضایت شغلی و تحرک نیروی کار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|6097||2010||7 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 6300 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Labour Economics, Volume 17, Issue 6, December 2010, Pages 897–903
I investigate whether two indicators of job-related well-being predict subsequent quitting. I find that both the Depression–Enthusiasm scale and the Anxiety–Comfort scale predict quitting, the former more strongly, and this contributes an element of criterion validity to their use as welfare measures. However, overall job satisfaction, which implicitly captures well-being relative to outside job opportunities, predicts job mobility better than either the Depression–Enthusiasm or the Anxiety–Comfort scale. I also find asymmetric effects: relative to intermediate levels, low well-being or job satisfaction are associated with greater quitting, yet high well-being or job satisfaction are not significantly associated with reduced quitting.
Well-being measures are increasingly being developed in economic analysis (Kahneman and Krueger, 2006), and are set to form a focal point for applied welfare analyses in several fields. However, their use in labour economics has so far largely been confined to the study of job satisfaction. This paper investigates whether the concept of job-related well-being could be a useful indicator. Although the analysis of well-being can be justified in itself, even if it does not correspond closely to decision utility, labour economists would feel naturally uneasy targeting an indicator that had no relation to workers' choices. Understanding how job-related well-being is related to labour mobility should therefore be of interest, not only in itself but also as an element in the criterion validation of the indicators used. The contribution of this paper is to provide evidence on whether measures of job-related affective well-being are significant predictors of labour mobility; and if so, whether they are better, or worse, predictors than job satisfaction. I do this using representative data in Britain.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
I have presented a simple validation test of two indices of job-related subjective well-being that are being used in psychological research, with a view to investigating whether these indices are also appropriate for use in labour market research. It is assumed that, if well-being indicators are to gain credence in labour economics they should be related to behaviour and to other variables in expected ways. While there is considerable evidence about the antecedents of different measures of well-being, studies of their consequences are relatively scarce, especially in the case of labour mobility. The findings are quite positive, supporting the use of these well-being indicators. In each case there is found to be a moderate negative association between the level of well-being and subsequent quitting, with the largest effect coming from the Depression–Enthusiasm scale. However, when combined it is only this scale that has a significant impact on mobility, suggesting that the impact of the Anxiety–Comfort scale is derived from the fact that it is correlated, if imperfectly, with the Depression–Enthusiasm scale. In the best fit model involving well-being measures, a one standard deviation reduction along the Depression–Enthusiasm scale increases the probability of quitting by 1.70 points, which is approximately 19% of the actual quit rate. In addition the effect of Depression–Enthusiasm on involuntary mobility is small and insignificant. Thus, the evidence supports the use of the Depression–Enthusiasm scale, and provides an interest in finding which factors can promote greater well-being on this axis. Nevertheless, my second finding is that an indicator of overall job satisfaction is unambiguously better at predicting quitting than either of the job-related well-being scales. The interpretation of this superior fit is that, despite the potential advantage of the well-being scales in covering the “arousal” as well as the “pleasure–displeasure” dimension of happiness, the evaluative nature of job satisfaction, whereby it compares the current job with outside opportunities, trumps the advantages of the well-being scales in the arena of mobility. My third finding is that there is some asymmetry in the effects of both job satisfaction and job-related well-being on quitting. In particular, it is the low levels of either that have the significant impacts; and in this asymmetric setting the Depression–Enthusiasm scale has the explanatory power alongside job satisfaction. Thus, despite the general superiority of the job satisfaction measure in anticipating quitting, one can conclude that job-related well-being could be a useful additional welfare measure for explaining mobility. Moreover the object of policy should be to target the level of well-being, not the difference between the current and outside levels which is arguably what job satisfaction measures. It remains an open question as to whether work-related well-being measures will be better predictors than job satisfaction of internal performance indicators such as absenteeism, where the outside comparison is not so relevant. Moreover, occupational research is already finding discriminating patterns in the determinants of the varied dimensions of well-being and of job satisfaction. Other indicators are being developed and tested in micro settings. The objective of this strand of methodological research should be to arrive at good measures of well-being in which analyses and policies can be framed. Part of this research should be looking further into the labour market behavioural consequences of job-related well-being.