Employment and Society - Literature review Example

Employment and Society Introductions According to the Meaning of Work Survey, there are five principal aspects of life – work, family, community, religion and leisure. Respondents asked to rank the five according to their importance to them indicated in the majority that family came first then work second. However, a good number – accounting for slightly over one-fourth of all respondents – chose work above all, even family. The perspective implicitly assumed by the Survey is that the five aspects the respondents were asked to rank were different and mutually exclusive from each other, and that their apparent meanings are the basis upon which they were ranked. Studies have shown, however, that there are multiple dimensions from which to approach the meaning of work, that explains why individuals would consider it more important than some (or all) of the other aspects of life. The meaning and context of “Work” Overell (2009) what is obvious to all – that occupational work is important because joblessness is not an economically feasible option. Where remunerated work is viewed as scarce, therefore, the value of having a job rises dramatically. Other than this, however, work provides people with their self-identity, a structure to their time and activities, and a means of self-expression as much as a means to an economic end. Work is not a monolithic whole, however, but has many shades and implications. A study was conducted on three non-economic aspects of the work environment: job demands, job discretion, and job social relationships. According to Karasek (1976), a lack of discretion over the contents of a job tends to make the worker either passive in leisure and community associations or experience mental strain. On the other hand, work that is psychologically demanding does not always lead to deleterious effects, as long as the level of job discretion is not low. When job discretion is high, work that is psychologically demanding tends to make the worker more socially active in leisure and in community participation. In a more recent study, Knowles and Taylor (1990) identified two dimensions, each with two “poles”, that cut across work, family and leisure activities in general. For the first dimension, its positive pole involved activities viewed as challenging, creative and under the individual’s control, and were viewed as enjoyable – communicating with people, creating new business, and finding solutions – whether done at work or at home. Its negative pole involves the routine and mundane activities over which the individual exercises little control, such as completing paperwork, doing the shopping or general administration or housework, which are seen as necessary but stressful. In the second dimension, one pole involved socialization and moral obligation and included settling disputes, attending meetings, and doing things as a family. The other pole involved activities done alone, without any social or moral obligation, such as most leisure activities. It was found that whether the respondents chose work or home as preferable over the other, it usually involved pursuit of a lifestyle that was perceived as non-stressful, challenging, and enjoyable, and wherein they are free to exercise their freedom of choice and personal control. Frames of reference: Challenges to the traditional concept of work vs life There is a social context to work that is beside the concept of individual undertaking. In seeking to understand challenges to the traditional sexual/gender paradigm of “work-life balance” (WLB), it must be noted that a greater emphasis must be devoted to understanding the allocation of the burden of responsibilities discharged by adult members of a household, both as to size and composition. Another important consideration is the quality of recreational activity. WLB decisions take into account the normative expectations linked to gender roles, the regularities and patterns with which people meet these expectations, and the lifestyles and consumption habits that result from people’s proactive and reactive choices. Clearly, the evolution of technological, organizational, and legal changes in relation to employment has likewise altered the roles and expectations among the genders, ages, and physical circumstances, which poses a further challenge to the traditional stereotypes which have guided, or reined in, personal expectations and choices in the past (Ransome, 2007). There is a wider array of choices open to the individual at present, in terms of the type of work and conditions governing work, as well as more liberal arrangements concerning the availment of time for leisure and family, religious and community service, deliberately rather than passively. The study by Rehman (2002) has determined that researchers often frame their studies and interpret their results in the light of their own cultural orientations without being aware of it. Researchers’ personal biases as to gender, ethnicity, race, ability, sexual orientation and age would tend to influence perceptions of, say, women entrepreneurs operating their businesses from home to be closer to the family, or the emotional distance felt by male employees from their families, etc. There is therefore a need to deconstruct such existing orientations and other historical factors, the latter because culture is dynamic and tends to evolve over a period of time. One trend in earlier studies is that the role of fathers and fatherhood have traditionally been underplayed in leisure studies while that of mothers and motherhood are emphasized, particularly where leisure is family-related (Kay, 2006). More recently, there has been a turnaround in how fathers are perceived in family life and leisure, although studies in this area are still complicated by the variations in how fatherhood is practised within complex and diverse family situations. In any case, fatherhood and masculinity in the family is viewed as dynamic and evolving, and fatherhood in the context of family and leisure is in constant flux between the traditional role of provider and the more contemporary role of nurturer, even as the concept of motherhood likewise moves in similar but opposite direction. In this transition in the concept of fatherhood, relating with children through leisure activities is quickly arising as the most popular and effective technique. Work, Family, Leisure, Community, and Religion as integrating social spaces Davies and Niemann (2002) advanced an interesting theory based on Lefebvre’s concepts of everyday life and the way daily practices comprise its social spaces. The theory is that international relations seen through the perspective of social spaces gains a construct that demystifies political theory into practical struggles more easily grasped. The concrete experiences of people recast the concepts from the realm of the unattainable ideal (e.g., institutional rhetorics of “world without war”) to people’s practical struggle against their personal alienation to find common grounds (e.g., international sports events, or the interactions of individuals via online social networking). Conceptions of space as the “container of the interactions of states and firms” that constitutes reality without truth, is translated into the everyday social practices that produce such space (Daview & Niemann, p. 558). In the narrower perspective of domestic social interactions, the obsession with work has been shown to affect family life and enjoyment of leisure. Brady, Vodanovich and Rotunda (2008) explored the effects of workaholism. Studies employing the Work Addiction Risk Test have shown that workaholism is related to higher incidences and severity of work-family conflict and less gratification with leisure (i.e., non-work) time. Furthermore, in a parallel series of tests, high scores recorded for Drive in the Workaholism Battery test was likewise related to increased work-family conflict. On the other hand, scores measuring Work Enjoyment were positively correlated with lower levels of work-family conflict, higher satisfaction levels with the work itself and with worker’s overall personal circumstances. The value of leisure Leisure in this context does not merely focus on diversion; leisure is any activity undertaken outside of occupational work. Leisurely work may include working on one’s garden or tinkering with the car during one’s time away from work. The role of leisure activity as a means to relieve stress is instinctively accepted as truth, by virtue of common human experience. This has led to the systematic regard of leisure as coping strategy and therapeutic technique, to renew the physical, psychological, and spiritual health of distressed individuals. Professional counsellors see leisure as a potent tool for the restoration of a person’s well-being and work-life balance. Psychological literature has conclusively proven that “leisure can contribute to physical, social, emotional and cognitive health through prevention, coping and transcendence.” The common protective factors which are the source of its therapeutic qualities include its meaningfulness to the individual, the self-efficacy and competency he or she develops from participation in it, and the sense of self-determination and control derived as a result thereof. (Trenberth, 2005, p. 2) A worldwide study administered to 2000 respondents – involving sets of couples of 1000 households – found that proposals made for a four-day work week were not well received by all employees. The degree to which they favoured have three work-free days depends much on their orientation towards leisure, despite the fact that not all three days need be devoted to leisure. What is remarkable is that individuals’ attitude towards a compressed work week is not even influenced by their alienation from work (Allen & Hawkes, 1979). The value of religion The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) surveyed 11,820 persons from age 20 and older, and information obtained included self-reported frequency of attendance at religious activities, leisure time physical activity (LTPA), and limitation on mobility (pertaining to the elderly and disabled). LTPA in the active range is defined as having moderate physical activity (such as brisk walking or bicycling) for thirty minutes or more a day, for a minimum of five days in a week; and vigorous intensity (such as aerobics or running) for at least twenty minutes each day for not less than three days a week (Gillum, 2006). The decline of occupational physical activity (i.e., physical exertion at work) in the latter half of the twentieth century has increased the importance of LTPA as a tool for maintaining health. Additionally, religious behaviour has been positively linked to a decrease in mortality rates in several longitudinal studies (Hummer et al., 1999 & Strawbridge, et al., 2001). A more recent study drew associations between religion and psychological distress. Different dimensions of religious experience have different effects on the worker’s psychology and the incidence of distress. Positive predictors of the religion-mental health relationship include public forms of religiousness, intrinsic religiousness, and association with the image of God as a loving father. However, religiousness may result in tensions and mental ill-health where there exist religious doubts, negative religious coping mechanisms, guilt arising from the belief that one has sinned, the view of a remote or vindictive God, or something as simple as tensions or quarrels among congregation members. What is evident is that “religion provides spiritual support and an important sense of meaning and purpose that help one deal with life’s unfortunate and difficult situations” (Roemer, 2010, p. 562). The effect of religion depends much upon a person’s religious beliefs as much as on his culture, ethnic background, and upbringing (Gautam, et al., 2007). Conclusion: Work, family, leisure, religion and community The foregoing theories explored the expanded connotations of “work” beyond the mere economic activity that provides sustenance. Occupational work provides meaning to an individual’s self-worth, a means of self-definition and venue for self-expression. The discussion by Karasec, Overell, and Knowles and Taylor above show that not all occupational work is enjoyable to the individual, because those that are viewed as routinary, beyond his control, or unchallenging are seen as stressful, and those seen as creative, challenging and under his discretion are fulfilling; thus, when a person says he values his job, then it is the second aspect that he refers to. However, such elements are likewise present in family, leisure, religion, and community (which may be an extension of religion, leisure or family). Knowles and Taylor’s theory of polar undertakings apply as much to occupation as to family and leisure, where the activity is stressful or fulfilling depending on the attributes mentioned. It is also evident from the above discussion that religion, leisure, and community are vital to a person’s work-life balance, but then again there are activities that positively impact on the worker and those that are adverse. This being said, family, work, leisure, religion and community are all vital aspects of the broader social construct, affecting business and society in the domestic sphere and capable of reshaping the framework of international politics. In this brief discussion, therefore, it is evident that the relative significance of work and the other four aspects are capable of being viewed in an expanded perspective, and must, if insight must be drawn from them, be viewed in the larger sense than the Meaning of Work Survey appears to be attributing to them. Bibliography Allen, R E &Hawes, D K 1979 “Attitudes Toward Work, Leisure, and the Four Day Workweek.” Human Resources Management, Spring, pp. 5-10 Brady, B R; Vodanovich, S J; & Rotunda, R 2008 “The Impact of Workaholism on Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Perception of Leisure Activities.” The Psychologist-Manager Journal, vol. 11, pp. 241-263 Davies, M & Niemann, M 2002 “The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics: Work, Leisure, Family.” New Political Science, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 557-577 Gautam, R; Saito, T; & Kai, I 2007 “Leisure and religious activity participation and mental health: gender analysis of older adults in Nepal.” BMC Public Health, vol. 7, p. 299 Gillum, R F 2006 “Frequency of Attendance at Religious Services and Leisure-Time Physical Activity in American Women and Men: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,” Annals of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 30-35 Hummer, RA; Rogers, RG; Nam, CB; & Ellison CG 1999 “Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality.” Demography. vol 36, pp. 273–285 Karasek, R A Jr 1976 “The Impact of the Work Environment on Life Outside the Job.” Manpower Administration (DOL), Washington, D.C. Kay, T 2006 “Where’s Dad? Fatherhood in Leisure Studies.” Leisure Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, April, pp. 133-152 Knowles, M C & Taylor, D 1990 “Conceptualizations of work, family and leisure by managers of information technology.” International Journal of Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 735-750 Overell, S 2009 “The Meaning of Work” The Good Work Commission Provocation Paper 3. The Work Foundation, London. Ransome, P 2007 “Conceptualizing boundaries between ‘life’ and ‘work’,” International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 18, issue 3, pp. 374-386 Rehman, L A 2002 “Recognizing the Significance of Culture and Ethnicity: Exploring Hidden Assumptions of Homogeneity.” Leisure Sciences, vol. 24, pp. 43-57. Roemer, M K 2010 “Religion and Psychological Distress in Japan,” Social Forces, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 559-584 Strawbridge WJ, Shema SJ, Cohen RD, & Kaplan GA 2001 “Religious attendance increases survival by improving and maintaining good health behaviors, mental health, and social relationships.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine. Vol. 23, pp. 68–74 Trenberth, L 2005 “The role, nature and purpose of leisure and its contribution to individual development and well-being.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol. 33, no. 1, Feb, pp. 1-6 Read More