Transcript The Prevalence and Consequences of Distributed Work in Europe

Satu Ojala & Pasi Pyöriä
The Prevalence and Consequences
of Distributed Work in Europe
IS1202 Training School on Virtual Work , 16–20 September, University of Malta
Spatial Dispersion of Work - SPACE
0 The Aim of the Project:
• To analyze the prevalence and consequences of mobile
work arrangements, e.g. working at home
• Funded by the Academy Finland (2010–2013)
0 The data:
• Statistics (European Working Conditions Survey EWCS
and representative stats from Finland: Finnish Quality of
Working Life Survey & Use of Time Survey)
• Case study material (20 interviews collected from two
Finnish public sector organizations)
Distributed Work – An Alternative
to Working at the Traditional Office
•
•
•
•
Satellite & neighborhood work centers
Flexible work arrangements (e.g. flexi-time)
Generic offices (hoteling)
Telework (usually home) and mobile work (vehicles,
customers’ premises, cafes etc.)
0 25 % of European employees and entrepreneurs are “e-nomads”,
working sometimes on the road, at their homes or at customers’
premises, using information technology. In Finland, Denmark,
Sweden and the Netherlands the proportion of e-nomads is over
40 %. (Eurofound 2012).
The Main Dimensions of
Telework
1. Time
2. Space
3. Technology
4. Agreement
European Framework Agreement on Telework:
Telework is a form of organizing and / or performing work,
using information technology, in the context of an
employment contract / relationship, where work, which
could also be performed at the employer’s premises, is
carried out away from those premises on a regular basis.
European Working Conditions Survey 2010
0 44 countries
0 At about 1000 respondents per country
0 90–95 % employees
0 5–10 % self-employed / entrepreneurs per country
0 Collected by the European Foundation for the Improvement of
Living and Working Conditions, www.eurofound.europa.eu
0 Our selection of respondents:
0 27 countries: EU + Norway
0 All employed wage-earners
0 Small entrepreneurs: all self-employed without employees + selfemployed with 1–3 employees
European Working Conditions Survey 2010
0 Measures for distributed work:
1. Where is your main place of work?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
My employers / My own business premises
Clients’ premises
A car or another vehicle
An outside site
My own home
Other
Have you worked in any other location in the past 3 months
1.-6. Equal alternatives
 respondent can choose several locations
HIGHLY
EDUCATED
EMPLOYEES
MAIN PLACE
OF WORK
OTHER THAN
EMPLOYERS’
PREMISES
2,00 isced 4-6 High
Clients premises
Vehicle
Outside
Own home
Other
Total: EU+NO
Slovakia
Hungary
Slovenia
Portugal
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Luxembourg
Italy
Finland
Sweden
Poland
Denmark
Austria
Germany
United Kingdom
Romania
Ireland
Belgium
Greece
Estonia
France
Lithuania
Norway
Bulgaria
Latvia
Netherlands
Malta
Spain
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Isced 0-3 Basic/Intermediate
LESS
EDUCATED
EMPLOYEES
MAIN PLACE
OF WORK
OTHER THAN
EMPLOYERS’
PREMISES
Clients premises
Total: EU+NO
Malta
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Denmark
Poland
Norway
Cyprus
Austria
Luxembourg
Germany
Italy
Czech Republic
Ireland
Sweden
Netherlands
Hungary
Slovakia
Finland
Estonia
Portugal
Belgium
Bulgaria
France
Lithuania
Romania
Latvia
Greece
Spain
0%
5%
10%
Vehicle
15%
20%
Outside
25%
30%
Own home
35%
40%
Other
45%
50%
Clients premises
HIGHLY
EDUCATED
SMALL
ENTREPRENEURS
MAIN PLACE
OF WORK
OTHER THAN
OWN
BUSINESS
PREMISES
Vehicle
Outside
40%
60%
Home
Other
Total: EU+NO
Cyprus
Greece
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
Spain
Germany
Belgium
Slovenia
Norway
France
Poland
Austria
Lithuania
Hungary
Czech Republic
Sweden
Portugal
Malta
Finland
Denmark
Italy
Ireland
Romania
Netherlands
Slovakia
Estonia
Latvia
United Kingdom
0%
20%
80%
100%
Clients premises
LESS
EDUCATED
SMALL
ENTREPRENEURS
MAIN PLACE
OF WORK
OTHER THAN
OWN
BUSINESS
PREMISES
Vehicle
Outside
Home
Other
Total: EU+NO
Luxembourg
France
Slovenia
Italy
Netherlands
Germany
Czech Republic
Belgium
Spain
Norway
Greece
Malta
Slovakia
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Estonia
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Portugal
Lithuania
Poland
Latvia
United Kingdom
Romania
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AMOUNT OF
SECONDARY
PLACES IN
WORK IN 3
MONTHS
Education: Isced 4-6: High, SecondaryLocations in 3 months
HIGHLY
EDUCATED
EMPLOYEES
0
Total: EU+NO
Italy
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Romania
Hungary
Ireland
Poland
Spain
Latvia
Malta
Greece
Cyprus
Slovakia
Belgium
Estonia
United Kingdom
Norway
Portugal
Czech Republic
France
Luxembourg
Austria
Slovenia
Germany
Sweden
Netherlands
Finland
Denmark
0%
10%
1
20%
30%
2 to 6 secondary locations
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
LESS
EDUCATED
EMPLOYEES
AMOUNT OF
SECONDARY
PLACES IN
WORK IN 3
MONTHS
Education: Isced 0-3 Basic/Intermediate: SecondaryLocations in 3 months
0
1
2 to 6 secondary locations
Total: EU+NO
Bulgaria
Hungary
Poland
United Kingdom
Malta
Spain
Italy
Romania
Ireland
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Norway
Greece
Belgium
Netherlands
Latvia
Czech Republic
Cyprus
France
Estonia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Portugal
Germany
Austria
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SMALL
ENTREPRENEURS
(ALL
EDUCATIONAL
LEVELS DUE TO
LOW
FREQUENCIES)
AMOUNT OF
SECONDARY
PLACES IN
WORK IN 3
MONTHS
Small entrepreneur (all education levels)
0
1
2 to 6 secondary locations in 3 months
Total: EU+NO
Bulgaria
Spain
Greece
Malta
Italy
Cyprus
Lithuania
Latvia
Norway
Portugal
Poland
Hungary
United Kingdom
Belgium
Ireland
Luxembourg
Romania
Czech Republic
France
Slovakia
Austria
Estonia
Finland
Netherlands
Sweden
Slovenia
Germany
Denmark
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
When does this work take place?
0 Finnish Use of Time Survey 2010 by Statistics Finland
0 Time diaries:
0 10 minute-episodes throughout 24 hours
0 2 days / each respondent
0 Contains details on:
0 What is the respondent doing
0 Both mainly & secondarily
0 With whom
0 Where is she/he
0 Next: when and where do employees and small
entrepreneurs work in a work day?
0 Work days with a minimum of 10 minutes work per that day
All employees, a regular weekday
(% of employees working at a certain 10-minute episode)
90
80
Work at employers
premises
70
60
Work at home
50
Work at other
locations
40
30
Work at private
vehicle
20
10
Work at a vehicle
(public transport)
0
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-
8
7
Work at home
6
Work at other
locations
5
4
Work at private
vehicle
3
Work at a vehicle
(public transport)
2
1
0
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-
White-collars, a weekday
100
Work at employers
premises
90
80
Work at home
70
60
Work at other
locations
50
40
Work at private
vehicle
30
20
Work at a vehicle
(public transport)
10
0
14
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-
12
Work at home
10
Work at other
locations
8
6
Work at private
vehicle
4
Work at a
vehicle (public
transport)
2
0
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-
Nature of work at home
(Quality of Work Life Survey 2003 & 2008, Finland)
“Do you sometimes do
work connected with
your main job at
home?”
All
“Is this work mainly:”
Homeworking
employees
Works occasionally or
partially at home
32
“Overtime work without
compensation” (informal
overtime)
56
Works at home only
2
“It is agreed that some of the
normal working hours are
done at home (telework)
33
Does not work at home at
all
Total
66
“Both” / does not know
11
100 %
Total
100 %
N
8496
N
2748
Entrepreneurs are the most distributed
(all work days)
90
Work at business
premises
80
70
Work at home
60
Work at other
locations
50
40
Work at private
vehicle
30
20
Work at a
vehicle (public
transport)
10
0
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
9-
10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 00- 01- 02- 03-
Agricultural entrepreneurs work the most
90
Work at
business
premises
80
70
Work at
home
60
50
Work at
other
locations
40
Work at
private
vehicle
30
20
10
0
4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 00 01 02 03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Work at a
vehicle
(public
transport)
How work at multiple locations (1 or 2–6
secondary locations) is related with certain
consequences? (EWCS 2010)
0 Speed of work:
0 Work at very high speed AND to tight deadlines
0 1 Never …. 7 All of the time
0 Work in free time to meet work demands:
0 1 Never … 5 Nearly every day
0 Work fit with family:
0 Working hours fit family and/or social commitments
0 1 Very well ... 4 Not at all well
0 Multivariate GLM-model that controls for gender, age, country,
education, being an employee & being a small entrepreneur
0 Interaction terms between working at secondary locations & gender;
education; small entrepreneurs (; country)
0 N=36.457 (28 countries)
Work fit with
family
1 Very well ...
4 Not at all well
0 Means:
0 0 secondary
locations:
1.85
0 1: 1.85
0 2+: 1.93
0 Means for
highly
educated:
0 0: 1.81
0 1: 1.81
0 2+: 1.94
Work in free
time to meet
work demands:
0 1 Never … 5
Nearly
every day
0 0: 2.2
0 1: 2.6
0 2+:2.9
0 For highly
educated
with 2+: 3.1
Work at very high
speed and to tight
deadlines
0 1 Never ….
7 All of the time
0 Work at several
locations strongly
increases sense of
haste
0 Means:
0 0: 3.2
0 1 : 3.3
0 2+: 3.6
Take Home Lessons
• Although distributed work is on the increase, the majority of
employees still carry out most of their work at their employers’
premises during “normal” working hours
• Homeworking is often informal overtime without extra
compensation:
• There is no consensus on how to measure distributed work arrangements
BUT the aspect of agreement should be taken into account (telework vs.
overtime at home)
• An agreement would benefit both employer and employee
• Work combining main work place + 1 additional location may
increase sense of control / balance for work and family (e.g.)
• More distribution of work increases negative outcomes for employee &
family
• In virtual environments, work process may become fragmented and
information overload may increase – increased work in free time
• Distributed work only at reasonable levels!
• E.g. 1–3 days per week outside of an office appears to be optimal for most
teleworkers
THANK YOU!
Follow our work on
www.researchgate.net
References
0 Eurofound (2012) Fifth European Working Conditions Survey.
0 Nätti, Jouko & Tammelin, Mia & Anttila, Timo & Ojala, Satu (2011) Work at Home
and Time Use in Finland. New Technology, Work and Employment 26(1): 68–77.
0 Ojala, Satu (2011) Supplemental Work at Home among Finnish Wage Earners:
Involuntary Overtime or Taking the Advantage of Flexibility? Nordic Journal of
Working Life Studies 1(2): 77–97.
0 Ojala, Satu & Nätti, Jouko & Anttila, Timo (2014) Informal Overtime at Home
instead of Telework: Increase in Negative Work-Family Interface, International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, (3) 2014.
0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2003) Knowledge Work in Distributed Environments: Issues and
Illusions. New Technology, Work and Employment 18(3): 166–180.
0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2009) Virtual Collaboration in Knowledge Work: From Vision to
Reality. Team Performance Management: An International Journal 15(7–8): 366–
381.
0 Pyöriä, Pasi (2011) Managing Telework: Risks, Fears and Rules. Management
Research Review 34(4): 386–399.
0 Vartiainen, M. & Hakonen, M., Koivisto, S. & Mannonen, P. & Nieminen, M.P. &
Ruohomäki, V. & Vartola, A. (2007) Distributed and Mobile Work. Places, People
and Technology. Helsinki: Otatieto.