Suchergebnisse

This book examines the new ways of working and their impact on employees' well-being and performance that have resulted from a changed world of work. It concentrates on job demands and flexible work emanating from current economic and organizational change, and assesses impact on workers' health and performance. The development of issues such as globalization, rapid technological advances, new management practices, organizational changes and new job skills are addressed. This book gives an overview and discusses the potential negative and positive effects of such new job demands and new forms of work.

Die Verfasserinnen behandeln aus interdisziplinärer Perspektive die sich verändernde Arbeitswelt in der Wissenschaft. Sie diskutieren, welche Auswirkungen die Anwendung von markt- und betriebswirtschaftlichen Managementansätzen an Universitäten auf Wissenschaftler hat. Anhand der Integration von Erkenntnissen der Arbeits-, Geschlechter- und Wissenschaftsforschung arbeiten sie heraus, dass insbesondere die Arbeitssituation des wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchses durch Prekarisierungstendenzen und weiterhin bestehende patriarchale Strukturen gekennzeichnet ist. Dies hat nicht nur Auswirkungen auf die Karrieremöglichkeiten und Arbeitszeiten einzelner Wissenschaftler, sondern wirkt auch auf die Universitäten und die Gesellschaft zurück - beispielsweise dann, wenn Gremienarbeit als nicht karriereförderliche Arbeit hintangestellt oder die Produktion von Wissen in erster Linie an prestigeträchtigen Publikationsmöglichkeiten ausgerichtet wird. (ICE2)

"Die gegenwärtige Zeitdiagnose der "Ökonomisierung" der Gesellschaft hat längst die Wissenschaft und die Hochschulen erreicht. Der Sammelband diskutiert aus der Perspektive der Geschlechterforschung die Neuorganisation von Hochschulen nach dem Leitbild der "unternehmerischen Hochschule". Zunehmende betriebs- und marktwirtschaftliche Prinzipien verändern Arbeits- und Karrierebedingungen, Organisationen und Professionen, Gleichstellungspolitiken die Produktion und Vermittlung wissenschaftlichen (Geschlechter)Wissens. Kommen vergeschlechtlichte, segregierende Praktiken möglicherweise in Bewegung und welche (neuen) vergeschlechtlichten Effekte bringt die Umsetzung gegenwärtiger Reformen und Initiativen hervor? Wie berühren aus der Wirtschaft bekannte Anforderungen nach Mobilität und Flexibilität, die verstärkt an Wissenschaftssubjekte gerichtet werden, deren Arbeits- und Alltagspraxis? Wie werden Gleichstellungsstrategien wie Gender Mainstreaming und Diversity Management von Hochschulakteur_innen übersetzt und was bedeutet dies für Gleichstellungspolitik? Wo kann sich die Geschlechterforschung unter diesen Bedingungen verorten? Wie und welches Geschlechterwissen findet Eingang in die Hochschulen? Mit Blick auf Entwicklungen in unterschiedlichen europäischen Ländern resümieren die Beiträge "zwischen Aufbruch und Beharrung"." (Verlagsinformation)

PurposeIn order to understand the driving forces behind intensified job demands (IJDs), the purpose of this paper is to examine demographic factors, structural work-related factors, personal and job resources as antecedents of IJDs.Design/methodology/approachThe study is based on cross-sectional (n=4,963) and longitudinal (n=2,055) quantitative data sets of Austrian employees. Data sets were analyzed via regression analyses.FindingsThe results showed that IJDs, as assessed through five sub-dimensions: work intensification, intensified job-related, career-related planning and decision-making demands, intensified demands for skills and for knowledge-related learning, remained fairly stable overtime. The most consistent antecedents of IJDs were personal initiative and ICT use at work. Job resources, e.g. variety of tasks and lacking support from supervisor, related to four sub-dimensions of IJDs.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings suggest that personal (being initiative) and job resources (task variety) may have negative effects as they associated with IJDs. Moreover, supervisors' support is crucial to counteract IJDs.Practical implicationsEmployers should recognize that certain personal (e.g. personal initiative) and job-related resources (e.g. lacking supervisory support) might implicate higher IJDs, which, in turn, may cause more job strain as IJDs can be conceived as job stressors.Originality/valueIJDs have received very little research attention because they are new job demands, which however, can be expected to increase in future due to faster technological acceleration in working life. The study has methodological value as longitudinal design was applied.

Purpose
– Increasing speed in many life domains is currently being discussed under the term "social acceleration" as a societal phenomenon which not only affects western societies, but may also lead to job demands arising from accelerated change. Demands such as work intensification and intensified learning and their changes over time may increase emotional exhaustion, but may also induce positive effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine how increases in demands arising from accelerated change affect employee well-being.


Design/methodology/approach
– A total of 587 eldercare workers provided data on work intensification and intensified learning as well as on exhaustion and job satisfaction at two points in time.


Findings
– Work intensification was negatively related to future job satisfaction and positively related to future emotional exhaustion, whereas intensified learning was positively associated with future job satisfaction and negatively with future emotional exhaustion.


Social implications
– Intensified demands represents a growing social as well as work-specific challenge which needs to be addressed by practitioners.


Originality/value
– Using a longitudinal perspective this study is the first to examine the relationship of increases in work intensification and intensified learning with job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion at work.

Despite the high potential of artificial intelligence (AI), its actual adoption in recruiting is low. Explanations for this discrepancy are scarce. Hence, this paper presents an exploratory interview study investigating HR professionals' beliefs about AI to examine their impact on use cases and barriers and to identify the reasons that lead to the non-adoption of AI in recruiting. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 HR professionals from 21 companies. The results revealed that HR professionals' beliefs about AI could be categorised along two dimensions: (1) the scope of AI and (2) the definition of instruction. "Scope of Al" describes the perceived technical capabilities of AI and determines the use cases that HR professionals imagine. In contrast, the "definition of instruction" describes the perceived effort to enable an AI to take on a task and determines how HR professionals perceive barriers to Al. Our findings suggest that HR professionals' beliefs are based on vague knowledge about AI, leading to non-adoption. Drawing on our findings, we discuss theoretical implications for the existing literature on HR and algorithm aversion and practical implications for managers, employees, and policymakers.

AbstractThis study investigates how cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility (i.e. to coordinate with others, to structure work tasks and to organize work and private obligations) relate to work–home outcomes among health care professionals. To understand the underlying psychological mechanisms of the relationship between cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility and work–home outcomes, we combined the challenge–hindrance approach with role theory. We hypothesized a positive relationship between cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility and work–home conflict via cognitive effort (strain process) and between cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility and work–home enrichment via learning to self‐organize (learning process). Eighty‐eight health care professionals working in eldercare homes participated in a diary study and provided 407 day‐level datasets. They completed questionnaires twice a day over 5 working days. Our analyses show that the relationships between daily cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility and work–home outcomes depend on strain and learning processes. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that cognitive demands resulting from employer‐oriented flexibility, although ambivalently related to work–home outcomes on the person level, trigger distinct strain and learning processes on the day level: daily coordinating with colleagues and daily structuring work tasks were related to work–home conflict via cognitive effort, whereas daily organizing work and family obligations was associated with work–home enrichment via learning to self‐organize.