Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Experiences of work and employment continue to change but the concepts of job quality, job satisfaction and quality of working life remain compartmentalised and contextually disconnected due to entrenched disciplinary divisions, which hinder multi-level work quality theorisation. This article contributes to research on the sociology of work by integrating divergent streams of literature on these concepts with labour process theory to offer a more holistic and integrated perspective on work quality. Our multidisciplinary systematic review (n = 345) reveals the conceptual challenges and dynamics work quality researchers face within and between analytical levels, which we synthesise in this article in Figure 1. Three interrelated research agendas are proposed to bridge the gaps between different disciplines, work quality models and contexts. We argue that research combining objective and subjective features of work quality with wider labour process considerations can lead to richer interdisciplinary understandings and support improvements to working lives.

Keywords

job quality job satisfaction labour process theory literature review quality of working life work quality

Introduction

This article contributes to research on the sociology of work by systematically integrating multidisciplinary work quality literature with labour process theory to enable a more holistic, multi-level perspective on work quality. The article addresses the limitations of existing research by integrating the concepts of job satisfaction (JS), job quality (JQ) and quality of working life (QWL). JQ research mainly, but not exclusively, uses objective measures to evaluate various job aspects (Findlay et al., 2013), while JS research typically focuses on workers’ subjective job evaluations (Judge et al., 2017). Neither concept adequately conveys the complexity of lived experiences of work: JQ is often framed in terms of organisational perspectives and priorities, describing jobs in terms of objective tasks and rewards (Budd and Spencer, 2015), while psychologically oriented JS research typically focuses on conceptual antecedents, models and subjective measures rather than explicitly situating JS within its broader context. Despite previous calls in this and other journals for more research incorporating subjective experiences and objective measures (e.g. Brown et al., 2012), these streams of literature have rarely been integrated.

The concept of QWL offers the scope to extend sociological understandings by combining objective and subjective dimensions to work quality (Butler and Hammer, 2019), but neither of the two main QWL approaches provides a means of examining the broader context of work (e.g. political, geographic, economic or socio-cultural). Furthermore, while QWL is a normative concept encouraging organisational practices to support worker well-being, it does not necessarily capture the dynamic multi-level tensions impacting work quality.

The first conceptualisation of QWL was a psychological needs-based model (Porter, 1961), which was later updated to incorporate needs satisfaction and spillover theories (Sirgy et al., 2001). The second conceptualisation of QWL (Walton, 1973, 1974) was more political and captured the emancipatory ethos of the 1960s and 1970s. It generated tangible improvements to worker welfare but eventually fell out of favour due to the neoliberal turn emphasising financialised organisational interests (Guest, 2022). Noting the detrimental effects of this philosophical shift on contemporary workers, Grote and Guest (2017) reinvigorated interest in QWL by building on Walton’s (1973, 1974) framework to highlight what procedural elements of work (e.g. pay) and more communal work elements (e.g. organisational climate) should be present to contribute to workers’ emancipation. The dimensions in their framework resemble those studied by JQ researchers, but Grote and Guest also argue that QWL is a subjective concept reflecting how work is experienced. Their framework focuses on advancing high-quality work at meso and micro levels but does not extend to the macro level.

Grote and Guest (2017) propose that part of their model’s value lies ‘in stimulating research and provoking debate’ (p. 163). Warhurst and Knox (2022) answer this provocation in their manifesto, arguing that contemporary QWL frameworks should acknowledge and address challenges introduced with the rise of non-standard employment. Rather than proposing an alternative model, they suggest legislative interventions through the introduction of statutory minimum standards along with seven commonly accepted dimensions to JQ (e.g. representation and pay). In arguing for what could be, Warhurst and Knox focus their QWL article on urgent issues shaping our lived experiences of work. Yet beyond focusing on what should or could be, we need a more holistic and dynamic multi-level perspective to help researchers examine how work quality is experienced and how this can change over time.

To this end, we conduct a multidisciplinary review integrating research on JQ, JS and QWL with labour process theory (LPT). This is because LPT offers the scope to connect micro-level experiences to broader, shifting factors (Braverman, 1974; Edwards and Hodder, 2022; Laaser and Karlsson, 2021; Smith, 2015; Thompson and Vincent, 2010). Hence, it provides a theoretical basis to bridge the conceptual gaps between JQ, JS and QWL and enable more impactful multi-level research.

The article proceeds as follows. First, we provide a more detailed account of LPT’s links with the concept of ‘work quality’ and explain our aims and research questions. Next, we outline our systematic review process and findings. Based on our integrative review, we develop a multi-level framework to illustrate the inter-level and inter-disciplinary challenges work quality researchers face and outline promising future research agendas. Finally, we expand these debates by focusing on the diverse disciplinary perspectives and challenges underpinning work quality research to help academics from different disciplines engage with more comprehensive sociological understandings of work quality.

Labour process theory and work quality

JS, JQ and QWL are directly related to dynamic inter-level tensions over labour process control (Edwards, 1990). LPT can advance understandings of JQ, JS and QWL by offering a critical lens to examine how ongoing struggles over work quality at the point of production or service delivery are linked to broader shifts in capitalist systems (e.g. developments in technology, financialisaton, globalisation, labour markets and social factors). LPT assumes that employment relationships are underpinned by enduring tensions between managerial control (e.g. direct, technological, bureaucratic) and worker autonomy (e.g. decision-making power, discretion, locational flexibility).

Changing labour processes over the past 40 years (Wegman et al., 2018) have created or exacerbated problems such as work intensification (Adăscăliței et al., 2022), digital surveillance and algorithmic control (Wood et al., 2019), job polarisation (Visser, 2019) and casualisation (Olding et al., 2021). These changes have serious sociological implications for work and employment because post-Fordist institutional regimes drive the spread of low-autonomy, low-skill work that fails to ‘provide decent living standards for the workers who fill these positions’ (Vidal, 2013: 605) and can adversely impact their physical and mental health (Cottini and Lucifora, 2013; Van Aerden et al., 2016). Empirical studies examining work quality and explicitly discussing LPT mainly engage with the concept of job quality and are surprisingly rare (Vidal, 2013; Wood et al., 2019; Yates, 2022).

We adopt Cooke et al.’s (2013: 504) concept of ‘work quality’ to align with LPT’s multi-level approach. ‘Work quality’ encompasses non-waged variants of work such as entrepreneurship and ‘places the job against its wider socio-economic context’. We extend this concept to include the micro-level personal context of work. While our sociological objectives align with Cooke et al. (2013), we are not implying that future research should abandon JS, JQ and QWL for a new conceptualisation of work quality as a distinct phenomenon. Instead, we primarily use the phrase ‘work quality’ to refer to the integration of JS, JQ and QWL literatures for the sake of clarity and to reflect our engagement with LPT (Vincent et al., 2020). Going forward, the QWL concept has the potential to explicitly integrate JS and JQ streams of literature given its aim of combining subjective and objective dimensions, but it currently lacks a focus on broader contexts.

Accordingly, this article has two aims: first, to consolidate JQ, JS and QWL literature to evaluate the breadth and limitations of these concepts; second, to develop a more holistic framework, which captures the challenges work quality researchers face and illustrates multi-level future research agendas. Consequently, we pose the following questions: how are the concepts of JS, JQ and QWL applied in work quality research? And how can existing inter-disciplinary and inter-level challenges be addressed in future research? In the following section, we explain the method adopted to identify and analyse articles about JS, JQ and QWL.

Method

To add to our existing knowledge of significant and highly cited texts on work quality we conducted a systematic literature review; this approach offered comprehensiveness within the boundaries of the inclusion criteria and enabled transparent reporting of the review process (Hiebl, 2023; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). First, a scoping exercise identified key terms used in work quality articles from different disciplines. The first author then conducted searches for empirical articles on JQ, JS and QWL through two extensive databases (Scopus and Web of Science) using broad search terms reflecting the focus of the research questions, namely ‘job quality’, ‘job satisfaction’ and ‘quality of work* life’. Combined, the searches generated 7729 results.

We applied the timeframe of January 2007 to March 2022 for online publication as an inclusion/exclusion criterion (some articles appeared in print after March 2022). We selected this period because it was bracketed by two major incidents that generated significant challenges to good-quality work. First, the global financial crisis resulted in widespread austerity measures (Ayudhya et al., 2019; Cunningham et al., 2021) and accelerated structural changes to work (Richards and Sang, 2019). Second, COVID-19 widely disrupted working life and led to measurable impacts on individuals (Venkatesh et al., 2021), organisations (Hadjielias et al., 2022) and economies (Probst et al., 2020).

Next, we applied quality and discipline filters as further inclusion/exclusion criteria to facilitate a more manageable number of high-quality search results. We focused on articles published in journals from the disciplines of social sciences, human resource management (HRM), management, organisational studies, entrepreneurship and organisational psychology rated 4*, 4 and 3 by the Chartered Association of Business Schools’ (2021) Academic Journal Guide.

Applying these exclusion criteria and removing duplicates reduced the number of articles to 3123. The articles were then screened for relevance by title and abstract, leaving 1005 articles. As Table 1 indicates, these articles were grouped by journal subject. Articles in which JQ, JS and/or QWL were of secondary or incidental interest were excluded from the literature base (n = 528) via a second review of abstracts. The discussion and conclusion sections of the remaining 477 articles were reviewed, leading to the retention of 345 empirical articles focusing on the analysis of JQ, JS and/or QWL.

Table 1.

The progressive filtering of the search results.

Search terms	Database and N of search results		N of articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria (CABS journal rating, publication date and duplicates)	N after first title/abstract review
‘job quality’	Scopus	637	179	141
	Web of Science	516	179	141
‘job satisfaction’	Scopus	1605	2866	816
	Web of Science	3831	2866	816
‘quality of work* life’	Scopus	815	78	48
	Web of Science	325	78	48
	Total	7729	3123	1005
		↓
Journal field		N after second abstract review	N after discussion / conclusion review	% of total
Entrepreneurship & small business		12	7	2%
General management		84	60	17%
HRM & employment		200	163	47%
Organisational psychology		130	81	23%
Organisational studies		22	14	4%
Social sciences		29	20	6%
Total		477	345	100%

The 345 articles were read in full and key theories, approaches, settings and contributions were recorded and discussed repeatedly among the project team. We also noted the appearance of key texts (e.g. Kalleberg, 2011) and included these to facilitate a comprehensive integration of the literature. The next section provides an overview of the work quality literature.

Findings

Grouping the articles (n = 345) in our final sample by journal subject facilitated an understanding of the major concerns and perspectives by field. Our final sample of articles highlighted disciplinary divisions, with the majority of work quality research adopting either organisational psychology perspectives or HRM and employment perspectives. Table 2 shows that JS is by far the largest of the three streams of literature, and as expected organisational psychology research has overwhelmingly focused on JS. This was also the case for general management, entrepreneurship and small business research. HRM and employment, organisation studies and social science literature has been more balanced between JS and JQ research. We found only 14 articles using QWL frameworks, supporting Grote and Guest’s (2017) assertion that QWL has been overlooked in the recent past.

Table 2.

Number of articles by field and concept.

Discipline	JQ	JS	QWL	Total
Entrepreneurship and small business	0	7	0	7
General management	4	50	6	60
HRM & employment	65	93	5	163
Organisational psychology	2	78	1	81
Organisational studies	8	5	1	14
Social sciences	11	8	1	20
Total	90	241	14	345

We identified three dominant levels of analysis in the work quality literature: micro-level individual, meso-level organisational and macro-level social/institutional. However, conceptual and empirical interconnections meant we could not exclusively discuss JS at the micro level, QWL at the meso level and JQ at the macro level as we had expected.

Micro-level findings and limitations

Micro-level research explored individuals with identifiable internal and external characteristics such as personality types (Templer, 2012) and disabilities (Haile, 2022). While most micro-level research has explored JS from a psychological perspective, some JQ and QWL scholars adopting sociological or managerial perspectives have focused on the micro level. Researchers have tended to use psychological approaches to explore how dispositional factors such as personality traits influence work experiences, or sociological and managerial approaches to study situational factors such as life stage and disability status. While scholars broadly agree that dispositional and situational factors influence work quality experiences, a core micro-level debate is the relative strength of these factors (Keller and Semmer, 2013).

Dispositional research demonstrates that individual factors such as self-esteem influence JS (Judge et al., 2008), and some personality traits have been shown to have a positive relationship with JS in Western and Asian contexts (Templer, 2012). Intrinsic preferences also shape JS (Boezeman and Ellemers, 2009). For instance, an individual’s calling orientation (perceiving work as intrinsically meaningful and socially beneficial) can impact JS, especially for workers who feel unable to adequately fulfil their calling through their work (Duffy et al., 2022).

Situational research often explores work quality for people with culturally meaningful socio-demographic traits such as gender, race and disability. For example, non-White and ethnic minority workers in the US are more likely to experience poor JQ as inequities in shift assignments, shift cancellations and working hours push them towards more precarious employment (Storer et al., 2020). Milner et al. (2015) show that disability status modifies the relationship between JQ and mental health outcomes, with disabled workers more likely to experience low-quality work and more likely to have negative health outcomes in low-quality work. While much of this research focuses on single traits, some articles (e.g. Lundquist, 2008; Smyth et al., 2021) adopt intersectional perspectives. Salter et al. (2021) explore intersectional impacts of age, race, gender, sexual orientation and disability on JS, demonstrating that certain groupings of demographic characteristics result in stronger negative effects depending on an individual’s social context.

Micro-level debates often fail to consider the situation and disposition of individuals in tandem. Person–environment fit (Chen et al., 2016; Gabriel et al., 2014; Yu, 2016) and life stage research (Keller and Semmer, 2013) are notable exceptions. For example, life stage research affirms that core self-evaluation (disposition) and level of job control (situation) work together to affect JS longitudinally (Keller and Semmer, 2013). However, more problematically, studying individual characteristics such as gender, ethnicity or personality as discrete phenomena overlooks broader factors emphasised in LPT, including meso-level organisational practices, power relations between actors and wider socio-economic and political contexts.

Meso-level findings and limitations

Meso-level work quality research is primarily concerned with phenomena directly impacting working life such as HRM practices, working relationships, and specific professions and workplaces; it attempts to determine which factors are important (and to what degree) in terms of JS, JQ and QWL. Research at this level often adopts managerial organisation-centric approaches (Snyder et al., 2021) or sociological workforce-centric (Jones et al., 2017) approaches, which contributes to a more-or-less implicit debate regarding the chief beneficiaries of work quality and the degree to which organisations are responsible for facilitating good-quality work.

Some workforce-centric research focuses on work quality in regard to specific professions and occupations, including agricultural work (Fabry et al., 2022), cleaning (Lene, 2019), the judiciary (Anleu and Mack, 2014) and IT (Trusson et al., 2018). Such research demonstrates that occupational pressures and opportunities influence work quality across as well as within organisations. For example, frontline healthcare workers describe the intrinsic satisfaction that comes from interactions with patients and peers, but also report how dissatisfaction with extrinsic aspects of their job, such as low pay, can cause them to leave (Morgan et al., 2013).

Other workforce-centric research explores relational work aspects, such as Artz et al.’s (2017: 419) longitudinal research, which found ‘a boss’s technical competence is the single strongest predictor of a worker’s JS’. Beyond this first-line relationship, Dalal et al. (2011) found that employees’ satisfaction with upper and middle management has measurable impacts on other types of satisfaction (e.g. pay) and overall JS.

Organisation-centric research is sometimes sympathetic to worker experiences and outcomes but theorises about organisations and/or from organisational perspectives. For instance, Abasabanye et al. (2018) show how perceived JQ is higher among office cleaning workers when they are seen (literally and metaphorically) by service recipients and conclude that contact leads to more socially responsible behaviour by organisations.

HRM research adopts organisation-centric approaches to describe work quality’s influence on organisational commitment and turnover (Rajabi et al., 2021): an intention to leave is strongly linked to low JS (Chen et al., 2011; do Monte, 2012; Staelens et al., 2018), and JS can be a strong predictor of organisational commitment (Dirani and Kuchinke, 2011; Saridakis et al., 2020; Top and Gider, 2013). This stream of research also explores the performance and productivity implications of work quality, typically in terms of JS (Alessandri et al., 2017; Bockerman and Ilmakunnas, 2012; Netemeyer et al., 2010).

Despite offering insights into workplace interactions and how they are subject to management practices, meso-level research (like micro-level research) usually neglects the relationship between control, autonomy and power emphasised by LPT and the socio-economic, institutional and political factors shaping JS, JQ and QWL. Moreover, meso-level research usually overlooks micro-level dispositional and situational factors, which may provide more refined conceptualisations of how work quality is experienced in organisations.

Macro-level findings and limitations

At the macro level, scholars position workers as living in geographically specific places, subject to cultural and politico-economic influences. The main conceptual divide at this level is between sociological research adopting institutional perspectives (e.g. Kalleberg, 2011) and sociological research taking a more socio-cultural focus (e.g. Pacheco et al., 2016; Shoss and Kueny, 2022).

Trade unions and other collective organisations (e.g. works councils) operate at multiple levels, but research into trade unions is usually framed by macro-institutional perspectives. Industrial relations scholars use both cross-national (Hipp and Givan, 2015) and country-specific research (Garcia-Serrano, 2009) to demonstrate how the nature and strength of the trade union–JS relationship varies by national context, suggesting that socio-political identity, or citizenship, is a key factor shaping work quality experiences. Collective voice is a vital mechanism linking trade unions and JQ; union members with an on-site representative reported higher JQ than those without (Hoque et al., 2017). However, Wood’s (2016) study of a retail company illustrated issues around power and influence by revealing how the recognised union was unable to influence management decisions regarding flexible working policies, even when these were detrimental to workers’ JQ.

Institutional research also shows how legislative environments can cause variation in work quality outcomes across nations. Holman (2013) found the presence and quality of job types (e.g. high-strain or passive) in the EU differed by institutional regime (e.g. continental or transitional). Frege and Godard (2014) compared JQ in Germany and America using a novel conceptualisation of JQ as a composite of civic principles (e.g. fulfilment, empowerment). They contend Germany’s more institutionalised environment supports higher JQ than America’s liberal market approach, but it is important to acknowledge within-country variation in such national-level assessments.

While institutions clearly influence work quality, scholars have shown that less explicit socio-cultural systems also impact work experiences. For instance, Wu and Chiang (2007) tested the relationship between Chinese cultural values and JS for Chinese and Taiwanese employees, finding moral discipline to be the only dimension with an equally strong effect for the two groups. Brazilian hotel workers’ JS was influenced more by intrinsic factors (e.g. achievement, responsibility) than extrinsic factors, which Sledge et al. (2008) attribute to Brazilian cultural values celebrating hard workers. In the EU, older workers’ internalised national stereotypes about age influenced how they interpreted their working life and in turn impacted their JS (Shiu et al., 2015).

Macro-level research provides important insights into external actors and their power, and how economic, institutional and socio-cultural systems influence work quality. However, research at this level tends to neglect micro-individual and meso-organisational variation within wider contexts. Relatedly, macro-level research usually lacks a focus on workplace control regimes and how they link to broader political economy contexts as highlighted in LPT.

The next section builds on the above overview of JS, JQ and QWL literatures and presents a multi-level work quality framework. This more holistic and dynamic framework can be used to guide future research, policy and practice.

A multi-level work quality framework

Our findings demonstrate that work quality theorisation is often fragmented, focusing on JS, JQ or QWL at selected micro, meso or macro level(s). Consequently, Figure 1 advances a multi-level framework drawing on LPT. The framework bridges work quality perspectives by capturing the conceptual challenges researchers need to navigate between and within analytical levels. We do not suggest that scholars must resolve these conceptual challenges to produce impactful research, but we do argue that understanding key debates outside one’s immediate discipline, research interest and onto-epistemology enables more refined and compelling theorisation.

Figure 1.

A multi-level perspective for future work quality research.

Based on the challenges illustrated in the framework, we identify three interrelated agendas for future research that can facilitate more holistic, nuanced and sociologically relevant understandings: ‘Greater contextualisation of work quality research’, ‘Wider incorporation of the interests, power and agency of multiple actors’ and ‘Deeper engagement with work quality dynamics’.

Greater contextualisation of work quality research

As Figure 1 shows, our review of existing work quality literature highlights the challenge of balancing ‘foci of analysis and context’ across micro-, meso- and macro-level perspectives. While LPT encourages linking micro-level experiences to broader meso and macro contexts, few work quality studies have been multi-level; those that do exist make strong and nuanced contributions. For example, Cunningham et al. (2021) focus on HRM capacities and priorities in care work at the meso level but contextualise how these priorities were impacted by macro-level austerity measures in Scotland. Likewise, Benton and Kim (2022) illustrate how economic policies can encourage industry-wide dependency structures leading to market concentration; the resulting surpluses or deficits at the firm (meso) level impact JQ for individuals. Multi-level studies on job satisfaction are even rarer, but Liu et al.’s (2012) longitudinal research shows that mismatches between individual and unit-level JS changes turnover intentions, and that both levels of JS change over time.

QWL may lend itself more readily to multi-level research than JQ and JS because it promotes studying objective and subjective factors in tandem. For instance, Danford et al. (2009) explore how climatologists at a government-owned British research institute experienced declining QWL, especially in terms of autonomy, as the macro-level turn towards science as a commercial enterprise led to further bureaucratisation of meso-level structures and practices. The scientists’ experience of QWL included tensions between their desire to ‘do science’ and the need to ‘perform’ according to bureaucratic diktats; unfortunately, climatologists also reported a loss of voice and influence over their working environment.

Micro-level work quality research can contribute to meso- and macro-level research by providing valuable insights into how individual characteristics and personal contexts shape perceptions and experiences of work quality. However, meso-level research adds to micro and macro research a focus on organisational policies, practices and how they are experienced by workers and managers. Moreover, in line with LPT assumptions, macro-level research can help situate micro and meso factors within broader political, economic and social conditions; for example, to understand how manager and worker choices are constrained (Thompson, 2013). However, although LPT encourages researching individual experiences, LPT research tends to overlook individual characteristics shaping those experiences. Additionally, while LPT highlights the need to situate work experiences within broader political economy contexts, LPT research could focus more on socio-cultural factors.

To provide an example of how multi-level research can contribute to current debates, life stage studies are rare examples of micro-level research considering dispositional and situational factors in tandem (as noted in the findings section). However, in line with LPT assumptions, the situational concept of ‘job control’ needs contextualising beyond the micro level to consider organisational voice practices (Wilkinson et al., 2020), power relations and broader conditions impacting organisational strategies.

To further illustrate, micro-level research on disabilities would benefit from insights into how individual and organisational factors interact to shape work quality. For example, Haile (2022) found that although disabled employees’ JS was higher in organisations with robust inclusion policies, their non-disabled peers had lower levels of JS, emphasising the varied nature of work quality experiences. To extend our understanding, the impact of broader factors such as labour markets and societal perceptions of disability and mental health should also be evaluated.

Furthermore, more multi-level research is needed on how unions influence workers’ JS, JQ, QWL and the micro-, meso- and macro-contextual conditions shaping their impact. Green and Heywood (2015) affirm dissatisfaction among union members, suggesting that satisfaction peaks at the beginning of their membership, then typically diminishes over time. Bessa et al. (2021) agree that union members have higher levels of dissatisfaction than non-union members but argue that membership is a consequence rather than a cause. Moreover, Blanchflower et al. (2022) claim that union members in Europe and the US have higher JS than their non-union peers, which they suggest may be due to collectively agreed higher wages and stronger institutional protections for employees. Given that union effectiveness is partially dependent upon employers’ behaviour (Simms, 2017), researchers should examine how management styles (Artz et al., 2017; Dalal et al., 2011) and micro-level personality traits (e.g. narcissism) impact management–worker relations as situated within their broader political, economic, institutional and cultural contexts.

As Figure 1 shows, ‘onto-epistemological challenges’ can emerge when integrating analytical levels and philosophical assumptions. Yet the disciplinary compartmentalisation of knowledge poses greater risks for individuals, organisations and society because addressing complex and interconnected work quality issues requires multi-level perspectives. Researchers could adopt materialist sociological approaches that ontologically and epistemologically accommodate multi-level research (Dundon and Dobbins, 2015; Edwards, 2017). Future studies may continue to contribute to knowledge at a specific level but engage with multi-level influences in the analysis undertaken. Researchers can also acknowledge relevant literatures and suggest future research avenues that extend beyond their own interests, onto-epistemologies and methodological preferences.

Wider incorporation of the interests, power and agency of multiple actors

Our consolidation of work quality articles identified a third challenge of incorporating ‘differing actor interests, agency and power’, which spans micro-, meso- and macro-level perspectives. We support Grote and Guest’s (2017) assertion that work quality research considering the perspectives and interests of workers and managers is relatively rare, especially at the meso level and outside industrial relations literature. Our framework encourages expanding analyses to acknowledge micro- and macro-level influences. For example, as indicated in Figure 1, evaluations of individual power resources and agency are crucial in examining work quality variations between and among worker groups.

As an illustration, suppose we wanted to conduct a sociological study of workers in manufacturing, combining the analysis of worker- and organisation-centric approaches and examining the experiences of marginalised migrant workers. We might begin by conducting ethnographic observations and interviewing workers to better understand their day-to-day labour process and working lives. We could then collect employer survey data about a range of QWL dimensions and organisational outcomes. Using our framework as a guide, we may be more likely to ask workers specific questions about power and influence at work. We could include questions about micro- and macro-level influences in our employer survey, perhaps by incorporating life stage factors or asking about perceived community and state support. Later, analysis of our rich, multi-level data could support novel theorisation at the nexus of workforce- and organisation-centric approaches.

Relatedly, understanding how ‘control and autonomy tensions’ within the employment relationship cut across micro, meso and macro levels and impact work quality is a key challenge. For work quality researchers focusing on the micro or meso level, incorporating analyses of broader contextual conditions would encourage examining how a wide range of external actors such as the state, unions, civil society organisations, employer representatives and transnational bodies shape these control–autonomy tensions. For example, external actors can support workers to challenge managerial control over work quality. Control–autonomy tensions are highlighted in LPT but are rarely explicitly incorporated into work quality research. However, we extend LPT research because external actors like the state and unions have received far more attention in broader industrial relations literature (Nechanska et al., 2020).

Koumenta and Williams (2019) demonstrate why a multi-stakeholder perspective on work quality is essential. They attribute the prevalence of zero-hours contracts to enhanced employer power, the lack of institutional labour protections and trade union involvement in organisational governance structures. They demonstrate that zero-hours contracts are not evenly distributed across occupations but mainly clustered in low-skilled and semi-skilled work, arguing that this concentration is due to power imbalances between employers and workers in largely labour-intensive service sectors such as hospitality and care work. Their study facilitates debate over who benefits from and who is responsible for work quality by considering the implications of zero-hours contracts for workers and organisations, while also assessing the role of the state and trade unions.

Deeper engagement with work quality dynamics

The fifth challenge included in our framework is navigating between ‘static and dynamic assessments’ of work quality, which is again relevant across micro-, meso- and macro-level perspectives. Integrating insights from research at each analytical level can help embed temporal and methodological dynamism into future work quality studies. LPT encourages a temporal focus on how socio-political transformations impact workplace relationships and control patterns over time. However, LPT research could focus more on situating micro-level temporality within wider contexts.

At the micro level, JS and JQ change as people gain work experience (Li et al., 2016) and move through different life stages (Georgellis et al., 2012). For instance, Belardi et al. (2021) demonstrate that chefs’ subjective assessments of objective JQ dimensions vary by life stage. The physical strain of restaurant work is objectively and steadily high, but its impact on subjectively experienced JQ tends to increase as chefs age. JQ also changes alongside meso-level HRM practices (Lindsay et al., 2014) and shifting ethical climates influence JS (Itani et al., 2019). Process studies naturally foreground dynamism and can highlight changes to work quality, as in Van der Borg et al.’s (2017) nuanced description of how meso-level changes intended to improve service quality in care homes also improved workers’ QWL. Likewise, macro-level changes to the economic climate (Visser, 2019) and cultural values (Huang and Gamble, 2015) dynamically shape JQ and JS, respectively. For example, austerity measures taken after the 2010 Greek economic crisis substantially degraded working conditions in Greece (e.g. by reducing the availability of basic supplies and support personnel), leading to a lower-QWL for high-skilled workers (Ayudhya et al., 2019).

A related challenge illustrated in Figure 1 is navigating between ‘comparative and non-comparative research’. While overly broad research designs may lack depth, incorporating dynamism could involve undertaking more comparative research over time, a more common feature of macro-level research (across countries, e.g. Greenan et al., 2014) or meso-level research (across occupations in a national setting, e.g. Anleu and Mack, 2014; Danford et al., 2009; Lene, 2019). Institutional perspectives often show that work quality is dynamic over time through comparative studies of international trends. For instance, Bisello et al. (2022) show that the relationship between the 2008 recession, employment mobility and JQ in Europe was substantially different on a by-country basis due to national socio-economic contexts. Moreover, longitudinal institutional research has stimulated debates over the relationship between low- and high-quality jobs, which can be extended further by future research. For example, Greenan et al. (2014) argue that QWL in the EU declined from 1995 to 2005, and the increased use of temporary contracts from 2000 to 2005 contributed to declining QWL across member nations (Wagenaar et al., 2012). In contrast, Oesch and Piccitto (2019) argue that polarisation is overstated, demonstrating that between 1992 and 2015 the number of low-quality jobs (in terms of wages, education, prestige and JS) decreased alongside a larger increase in higher-quality jobs in Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Cultural expectations also change over time. Shoss and Kueny (2022: 1205) take a macro-level approach to study the ‘socio-cultural-economic-temporal context’ of JS in the US from 1989 to 2016. They found a negative trend whereby mismatches between employees’ desired and actual job characteristics resulted in lower JS in 2016 than in 1989. Shoss and Kueny argue this was due to changes in the nature of work over the period, and in the more recent past, employees’ increased desire for meaningful work. Comparative research adopting institutional and cultural perspectives could add to micro-level studies. For example, race and ethnicity are popular topics for micro-level work quality research. Surprisingly, this research overwhelmingly focused on the US, which is far from the only nation with a complex racial and ethnic environment. Moreover, changes to institutional contexts and cultural values over time impact how individual characteristics shape work quality.

Deeper engagement with work quality in future research designs includes potentially re-visiting widely used models and methodological approaches and assessing whether they need further development to better account for changing work contexts. Work quality research at the macro level predominately uses JQ frameworks and often utilises secondary data sets such as the European Working Conditions Survey (e.g. Holman, 2013) and European Labour Force Survey (e.g. Oesch and Piccitto, 2019), which can sometimes limit scholars to blunt proxy measures of JQ (typically wages) rather than more nuanced and dynamic multidimensional JQ constructs. Additionally, non-standard work arrangements are a pressing concern in workforce-centric scholarship. Dunn (2020) accounts for new forms of employment, finding workers’ subjective assessments of JQ resulted in varied work experiences. However, Myhill et al. (2021) and Dunn (2020) argue that current JQ models have limited relevance for new forms of employment because they are based on standard employment relationships, suggesting that traditional JQ models may need adapting over time.

Having presented a holistic work quality framework and three interrelated research agendas, we now explain the implications for work quality theory and policy.

Discussion and conclusion

This article offers four main contributions. First, our multidisciplinary review contributes to JQ, JS and QWL research by highlighting the value of integrating these streams of literature. Work quality as a lived phenomenon is messy, dynamic and sometimes confusing, but JS, JQ and QWL theorising often fragments the world beyond the point of pragmatism into siloed debates that cannot meaningfully contribute to practice or policy because they do not account for complexity or offer sufficient nuance. We found that most articles on work quality focus on JS and adopt psychological micro-level perspectives. These findings echo broader debates in work and employment literature around the psychologisation of HRM (Dundon and Rafferty, 2018; Vincent et al., 2020) and employee voice (Barry and Wilkinson, 2016; Nechanska et al., 2020). JS research can offer insights into how human factors influence work quality; for example, researchers can examine work quality contradictions that potentially constrain improvements in JQ, such as individual satisfaction with low-quality jobs (Lene, 2019). However, work quality is situated within institutional and socio-cultural contexts. Therefore, holistic JS research must include these factors to provide sociologically relevant theorising. The concept of QWL implicitly encourages studying objective and subjective factors in tandem and therefore could integrate JQ and JS literatures in the future. We join Warhurst and Knox (2022) and Grote and Guest (2017) in advocating for increased use of QWL as a sociologically relevant and potentially emancipatory framework for understanding and improving work quality. However, at this stage of its (re)development, key QWL conceptualisations operate at either micro (Sirgy et al., 2001), meso (Grote and Guest, 2017) or macro (Warhurst and Knox, 2022) levels.

As a second contribution, we develop a more holistic and multi-level framework based on our integrative literature review that work quality researchers can use to guide research designs and foci of analysis. The framework adds to existing QWL literature because where Grote and Guest (2017) normatively describe what should be at the meso level and Warhurst and Knox (2022) argue for what could be at the macro level, our framework illustrates the challenges of integrating diverse perspectives and encourages researchers to evaluate how work quality is shaped by micro, meso and macro factors. By operating mainly at the meso level, Grote and Guest’s (2017) QWL model misses the implications of micro-level dispositional and situational influences on individuals’ QWL. For instance, the model encourages organisations to ‘accommodate diversity’, presumably through HRM practices, but the experience of social integration is rooted in individuals’ dispositions and situations (which change over time). However, individuals’ QWL is also subject to dynamic political, economic and cultural influences, which current QWL frameworks struggle to account for. Grote and Guest (2017: 157) acknowledge that effective QWL theorising should ‘take into consideration needs and interests stemming from living in different social, political and economic contexts’, implying that part of the scholarly ‘reinvigoration’ of QWL should address this concern. Situating QWL theorising in its wider context allows researchers to position the ‘voice’ of individuals within institutional and socio-cultural influences and facilitate more nuanced and realistic arguments about the model. This is especially pertinent for criteria such as Social Relevance (adherence to socially responsible practices in the organisation) and Constitutionalism (respect for and protection of employees’ rights and mechanisms for employee representation).

The integration of different levels and concepts will elicit further challenges that require careful reflection and reconciliation by scholars for coherence and consistency to be achieved and sustained. However, to overcome existing limitations in work quality research, these challenges need navigating rather than avoiding. Thus, we encourage scholars in the field to embark on the future research agendas outlined and meet growing calls for more multidisciplinary and contextualised work quality research (e.g. Brown et al., 2012; Findlay et al., 2013; Shoss and Kueny, 2022; Spencer, 2013).

Relatedly, as a third contribution, our integrative review demonstrates that work quality research needs to place more emphasis on different forms of dynamism. Work quality inevitably changes over time as an individualised, subjective experience and as an objectively measured phenomenon, yet the majority of work quality research is cross-sectional and therefore obscures temporal changes, which even secondary analysis of longitudinal waves of assessment may not fully capture. We encourage researchers to consider the impact of complex changes to work quality within and across levels. Researchers should foster methodological dynamism by reassessing taken-for-granted models, systems and contexts in light of significant changes to the structure and meaning of work in the 21st century. A greater willingness to update, adapt, or discard extant theory may help bridge the research/practice gap by generating more dynamic understandings of relevant theories and by exposing areas where truly novel theorisation is required.

Finally, the article extends LPT research, which to date has rarely explicitly investigated work quality (Vidal, 2013; Wood et al., 2019; Yates, 2022). LPT provides a solid theoretical foundation to embed work experiences and workplace control patterns within broader political economy factors and constraints (Thompson and Vincent, 2010). However, more focus on situating dispositional micro-level factors within broader contexts would advance LPT research and provide new insights into workplace struggles, including those over work quality. For example, LPT research has generally disregarded how overt and covert narcissists in the workplace impact power relations. In addition, while LPT focuses on political economy contexts, social-cultural forces and institutional factors (e.g. collective bargaining) can be overlooked and so our more holistic perspective encourages an expanded view on broader contexts.

Policy implications

Our review suggests that multi-level theorising can help researchers meaningfully contribute to ongoing debate around individual, organisational and policymaker responses to work quality challenges and offer sociologically sound theorising to support mutually beneficial interventions. While one aim of QWL is to bridge ‘the widening gap between academia and practice’ (Grote and Guest, 2017: 154), a lack of focus on broader context hampers QWL’s utility outside the academy. Equally, while we strongly concur with Warhurst and Knox’s (2022) argument that a lack of macro-level legislative action has clear negative implications for meso-level QWL, our multidisciplinary review illustrates the pressing need for simultaneous meso-level organisational actions as suggested by Grote and Guest’s (2017) model. More holistic work quality debates at the legislative level would affirm the importance of the individual voice in policymaking and would help politicians and civil servants develop targeted interventions to address specific influential factors at the micro and meso levels, such as individual life stage (Georgellis et al., 2012) and worker voice and representation (Warhurst and Knox, 2022; Wilkinson et al., 2020).

Limitations

We focused on articles published in highly rated journals and included additional works that these articles indicated were significant. Although we emphatically acknowledge that impactful research exists beyond our search parameters (Ramani et al., 2022), our choice was practical rather than ideological and made our expansive approach more manageable. Likewise, we excluded related but informative concepts including decent work, meaningful work, work–life balance and well-being. Future research could more fully explore how these concepts relate to work quality.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Dr Elizabeth Cotton, Professor Irena Grugulis and the three anonymous reviewers for their feedback and support. We also wish to thank Professor Caroline Gatrell, Professor Joep Cornelissen and Professor Roy Suddaby for their guidance on earlier drafts of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Lisa Chamberlain

Emma Hughes

Rory Donnelly

Lisa Chamberlain is a Lecturer in Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour at Adam Smith Business School. Her research interests include quality of working life, HRM in small businesses, and craft and creative work.

Emma Hughes is a Senior Lecturer in Employment Studies at Alliance Manchester Business School. Her work has been published in journals such as Human Resource Management, Economic and Industrial Democracy, and Work, Employment and Society.

Rory Donnelly is a Professor of Human Resource Management and Organisational Behaviour at University of Liverpool Management School. His work has been published in journals such as Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Journal, and Work, Employment and Society.

References

Abasabanye

Bailly

Devetter

(2018) Does contact between employees and service recipients lead to socially more responsible behaviours? The case of cleaning. Journal of Business Ethics 153(3): 813–824.

Adăscăliței

Heyes

Mendonca

(2022) The intensification of work in Europe: a multilevel analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations 60(2): 324–347.

Alessandri

Borgogni

Latham

(2017) A dynamic model of the longitudinal relationship between job satisfaction and supervisor-rated job performance. Applied Psychology 66(2): 207–232.

Anleu

Mack

(2014) Job satisfaction in the judiciary. Work, Employment and Society 28(5): 683–701.

Artz

Goodall

Oswald

(2017) Boss competence and worker well-being. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 70(2): 419–450.

Ayudhya

UCN

Prouska

Beauregard

(2019) The impact of global economic crisis and austerity on quality of working life and work-life balance: a capabilities perspective. European Management Review 16(4): 847–862.

Barry

Wilkinson

(2016) Pro-social or pro-management? A critique of the conception of employee voice as a pro-social behaviour within organizational behaviour. British Journal of Industrial Relations 54(2): 261–284.

Belardi

Knox

Wright

(2021) Too hot to handle? An analysis of chefs’ job quality in Australian restaurants. Journal of Industrial Relations 63(1): 3–26.

Benton

Kim

(2022) The dependency structure of bad jobs: how market constraint undermines job quality. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 75(1): 3–27.

10.

Bessa

Charlwood

Valizade

(2021) Do unions cause job dissatisfaction? Evidence from a quasi-experiment in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Industrial Relations 59(2): 251–278.

11.

Bisello

Maccarrone

Fernández-Macías

(2022) Occupational mobility, employment transitions and job quality in Europe: the impact of the Great Recession. Economic and Industrial Democracy 43(2): 585–611.

12.

Blanchflower

Bryson

Green

(2022) Trade unions and the well-being of workers. British Journal of Industrial Relations 60(2): 255–277.

13.

Bockerman

Ilmakunnas

(2012) The job satisfaction-productivity nexus: a study using matched survey and register data. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 65(2): 244–262.

14.

Boezeman

Ellemers

(2009) Intrinsic need satisfaction and the job attitudes of volunteers versus employees working in a charitable volunteer organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82(4): 897–914.

15.

Braverman

(1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

16.

Brown

Charlwood

Spencer

(2012) Not all that it might seem: why job satisfaction is worth studying despite it being a poor summary measure of job quality. Work, Employment and Society 26(6): 1007–1018.

17.

Budd

Spencer

(2015) Worker well-being and the importance of work: bridging the gap. European Journal of Industrial Relations 21(2): 181–196.

18.

Butler

Hammer

(2019) ‘A minute’s a life-time in fast-food!’: managerial job quality in the quick service restaurant sector. Work, Employment and Society 33(1): 96–111.

19.

Chartered Association of Business Schools (2021) Academic journal guide 2021. Available at: https://charteredabs.org/ (accessed 30 March 2022).

20.

Chen

Ployhart

Thomas

, et al (2011) The power of momentum: a new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover intentions. Academy of Management Journal 54(1): 159–181.

21.

Chen

Sparrow

Cooper

(2016) The relationship between person-organization fit and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology 31(5): 946–959.

22.

Cooke

Donaghey

Zeytinoglu

(2013) The nuanced nature of work quality: evidence from rural Newfoundland and Ireland. Human Relations 66(4): 503–527.

23.

Cottini

Lucifora

(2013) Mental health and working conditions in Europe. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 66(4): 958–988.

24.

Cunningham

Lindsay

Roy

(2021) Diaries from the front line: formal supervision and job quality among social care workers during austerity. Human Resource Management Journal 31(1): 187–201.

25.

Dalal

Bashshur

Credé

(2011) The forgotten facet: employee satisfaction with management above the level of immediate supervision. Applied Psychology 60(2): 183–209.

26.

Danford

Durbin

Richardson

(2009) ‘You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows’: public sector reform and its impact upon climatology scientists in the UK. New Technology, Work and Employment 24(3): 215–229.

27.

Dirani

Kuchinke

(2011) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: validating the Arabic satisfaction and commitment questionnaire (ASCQ), testing the correlations, and investigating the effects of demographic variables in the Lebanese banking sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(5): 1180–1202.

28.

do Monte

(2012) Job dissatisfaction and labour turnover: evidence from Brazil. International Journal of Human Resource Management 23(8): 1717–1735.

29.

Duffy

Spurk

Perez

, et al (2022) A latent profile analysis of perceiving and living a calling. Journal of Vocational Behavior 134: 1–13.

30.

Dundon

Dobbins

(2015) Militant partnership: a radical pluralist analysis of workforce dialectics. Work, Employment and Society 29(6): 912–931.

31.

Dundon

Rafferty

(2018) The (potential) demise of HRM? Human Resource Management Journal 28(3): 377–391.

32.

Dunn

(2020) Making gigs work: digital platforms, job quality and worker motivations. New Technology, Work and Employment 35(2): 232–249.

33.

Edwards

(2017) Making ‘critical performativity’ concrete: Sumantra Ghoshal and linkages between the mainstream and the critical. British Journal of Management 28(4): 731–741.

34.

Edwards

(1990) Understanding conflict in the labour process: the logic and autonomy of struggle. In: Knights

Willmott

(eds) Labour Process Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 125–152.

35.

Edwards

Hodder

(2022) Conflict and control in the contemporary workplace: structured antagonism revisited. Industrial Relations Journal 53(3): 220–240.

36.

Fabry

Van den Broeck

Maertens

(2022) Decent work in global food value chains: evidence from Senegal. World Development 152: 105790.

37.

Findlay

Kalleberg

Warhurst

(2013) The challenge of job quality. Human Relations 66(4): 441–451.

38.

Frege

Godard

(2014) Varieties of capitalism and job quality: the attainment of civic principles at work in the United States and Germany. American Sociological Review 79(5): 942–965.

39.

Gabriel

Diefendorff

Chandler

, et al (2014) The dynamic relationships of work affect and job satisfaction with perceptions of fit. Personnel Psychology 67(2): 389–420.

40.

Garcia-Serrano

(2009) Job satisfaction, union membership and collective bargaining. European Journal of Industrial Relations 15(1): 91–111.

41.

Georgellis

Lange

Tabvuma

(2012) The impact of life events on job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(2): 464–473.

42.

Green

Heywood

(2015) Dissatisfied union workers: sorting revisited. British Journal of Industrial Relations 53(3): 580–600.

43.

Greenan

Kalugina

Walkowiak

(2014) Has the quality of working life improved in the EU-15 between 1995 and 2005? Industrial and Corporate Change 23(2): 399–428.

44.

Grote

Guest

(2017) The case for reinvigorating quality of working life research. Human Relations 70(2): 149–167.

45.

Guest

(2022) The quality of working life. In: Warhurst

Mathieu

Dwyer

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Job Quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 23–40.

46.

Hadjielias

Christofi

Tarba

(2022) Contextualizing small business resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from small business owner-managers. Small Business Economics: An Entrepreneurship Journal 59: 1351–1380.

47.

Haile

(2022) Workplace disability and job satisfaction in Britain: a co-worker test? Economic and Industrial Democracy 43(3): 1467–1487.

48.

Hiebl

MRW

(2023) Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organisational Research Methods 26(2): 229–261.

49.

Hipp

Givan

(2015) What do unions do? A cross-national reexamination of the relationship between unionization and job satisfaction. Social Forces 94(1): 349–377.

50.

Holman

(2013) Job types and job quality in Europe. Human Relations 66(4): 475–502.

51.

Hoque

Earls

Conway

, et al (2017) Union representation, collective voice and job quality: an analysis of a survey of union members in the UK finance sector. Economic and Industrial Democracy 38(1): 27–50.

52.

Huang

Gamble

(2015) Social expectations, gender and job satisfaction: front-line employees in China’s retail sector. Human Resource Management Journal 25(3): 331–347.

53.

Itani

Jaramillo

Chonko

(2019) Achieving top performance while building collegiality in sales: it all starts with ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 156(2): 417–438.

54.

Jones

Haslam

(2017) What is a ‘good’ job? Modelling job quality for blue collar workers. Ergonomics 60(1): 138–149.

55.

Judge

Heller

Klinger

(2008) The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: a comparative test. Applied Psychology 57(3): 361–372.

56.

Judge

Weiss

Kammeyer-Mueller

, et al (2017) Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: a century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology 102(3): 356–374.

57.

Kalleberg

(2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

58.

Keller

Semmer

(2013) Changes in situational and dispositional factors as predictors of job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(1): 88–98.

59.

Koumenta

Williams

(2019) An anatomy of zero-hour contracts in the UK. Industrial Relations Journal 50(1): 20–40.

60.

Laaser

Karlsson

(2021) Towards a sociology of meaningful work. Work, Employment and Society 36(5): 798–815.

61.

Lene

(2019) Job satisfaction and bad jobs: why are cleaners so happy at work? Work, Employment and Society 33(4): 666–681.

62.

Zhang

Stanek

, et al (2016) Are genetic and environmental influences on job satisfaction stable over time? A three-wave longitudinal twin study. Journal of Applied Psychology 101(11): 1598–1619.

63.

Lindsay

Commander

Findlay

, et al (2014) ‘Lean’, new technologies and employment in public health services: employees’ experiences in the National Health Service. International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(21): 2941–2956.

64.

Liu

Mitchell

Lee

, et al (2012) When employees are out of step with coworkers: how job satisfaction trajectory and dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal 55(6): 1360–1380.

65.

Lundquist

(2008) Ethnic and gender satisfaction in the military: the effect of a meritocratic institution. American Sociological Review 73(3): 477–496.

66.

Milner

Krnjacki

Butterworth

, et al (2015) Does disability status modify the association between psychosocial job quality and mental health? A longitudinal fixed-effects analysis. Social Science and Medicine 144: 104–111.

67.

Morgan

Dill

Kalleberg

(2013) The quality of healthcare jobs: can intrinsic rewards compensate for low extrinsic rewards? Work, Employment and Society 27(5): 802–822.

68.

Myhill

Richards

Sang

(2021) Job quality, fair work and gig work: the lived experience of gig workers. International Journal of Human Resource Management 32(19): 4110–4135.

69.

Nechanska

Hughes

Dundon

(2020) Towards an integration of employee voice and silence. Human Resource Management Review 30(1): 100674.

70.

Netemeyer

Maxham

Lichtenstein

(2010) Store manager performance and satisfaction: effects on store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer satisfaction, and store customer spending growth. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(3): 530–545.

71.

Oesch

Piccitto

(2019) The polarization myth: occupational upgrading in Germany, Spain, Sweden, and the UK, 1992–2015. Work and Occupations 46(4): 441–469.

72.

Olding

Boyd

Kerr

, et al (2021) ‘And we just have to keep going’: task shifting and the production of burnout among overdose response workers with lived experience. Social Science and Medicine 270: 113631.

73.

Pacheco

van der Westhuizen

Ghobadian

, et al (2016) The changing influence of societal culture on job satisfaction across Europe. British Journal of Management 27(3): 606–627.

74.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA; Oxford; Carlton, VIC: Blackwell Publishing.

75.

Porter

(1961) A study of perceived need satisfactions in bottom and middle management jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 45(1): 1–10.

76.

Probst

Lee

Bazzoli

(2020) Economic stressors and the enactment of CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors: the impact of state-level context. Journal of Applied Psychology 105(12): 1397–1407.

77.

Rajabi

Boles

Alejandro

TGB

, et al (2021) Revisiting and replicating the dominant logic on salesperson job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover. Journal of Business Research 126: 524–532.

78.

Ramani

Aguinis

Coyle-Shapiro

JAM

(2022) Defining, measuring, and rewarding scholarly impact: mind the level of analysis. Academy of Management Learning & Education 21(3): 470–486.

79.

Richards

Sang

(2019) The intersection of disability and in-work poverty in an advanced industrial nation: the lived experience of multiple disadvantage in a post-financial crisis UK. Economic and Industrial Democracy 40(3): 636–659.

80.

Salter

Sawyer

Gebhardt

(2021) How does intersectionality impact work attitudes? The effect of layered group memberships in a field sample. Journal of Business and Psychology 36(6): 1035–1052.

81.

Saridakis

Lai

Muñoz Torres

, et al (2020) Exploring the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment: an instrumental variable approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management 31(13): 1739–1769.

82.

Shiu

Hassan

Parry

(2015) The moderating effects of national age stereotyping on the relationships between job satisfaction and its determinants: a study of older workers across 26 countries. British Journal of Management 26(2): 255–272.

83.

Shoss

Kueny

(2022) From speculation to substantiation: empirically-testing societal changes in impact of fit on job satisfaction from 1989, 1998, 2006, and 2016. Group & Organization Management 47(6): 1181–1217.

84.

Simms

(2017) Unions and job quality in the UK: extending interest representation within regulation institutions. Work and Occupations 44(1): 47–67.

85.

Sirgy

Efraty

Siegel

, et al (2001) A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research 55(3): 241–302.

86.

Sledge

Miles

Coppage

(2008) What role does culture play? A look at motivation and job satisfaction among hotel workers in Brazil. International Journal of Human Resource Management 19(9): 1667–1682.

87.

Smith

(2015) Continuity and change in labor process analysis forty years after Labor and Monopoly Capital. Labor Studies Journal 40(3): 222–242.

88.

Smyth

Nielsen

Cheng

, et al (2021) The paradox of the contented female worker: the mediating role of income and the moderating role of sexual orientation. International Journal of Human Resource Management 32(3): 573–595.

89.

Snyder

Stewart

Shea

(2021) Hello again: managing talent with boomerang employees. Human Resource Management 60(2): 295–312.

90.

Spencer

(2013) Promoting high quality work: obstacles and opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics 114(3): 583–597.

91.

Staelens

Desiere

Louche

, et al (2018) Predicting job satisfaction and workers’ intentions to leave at the bottom of the high value agricultural chain: evidence from the Ethiopian cut flower industry. International Journal of Human Resource Management 29(9): 1609–1635.

92.

Storer

Schneider

Harknett

(2020) What explains racial/ethnic inequality in job quality in the service sector? American Sociological Review 85(4): 537–572.

93.

Templer

(2012) Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: the importance of agreeableness in a tight and collectivistic Asian society. Applied Psychology 61(1): 114–129.

94.

Thompson

(2013) Financialization and the workplace: extending and applying the disconnected capitalism thesis. Work, Employment and Society 27(3): 472–488.

95.

Thompson

Vincent

(2010) Labour process theory and critical realism. In: Thompson

Smith

(eds) Working Life: Renewing Labour Process Analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 47–69.

96.

Top

Gider

(2013) Interaction of organizational commitment and job satisfaction of nurses and medical secretaries in Turkey. International Journal of Human Resource Management 24(3): 667–683.

97.

Trusson

Hislop

Doherty

(2018) The role of ICTs in the servitisation and degradation of IT professional work. New Technology, Work and Employment 33(2): 149–170.

98.

Van Aerden

Puig-Barrachina

Bosmans

, et al (2016) How does employment quality relate to health and job satisfaction in Europe? A typological approach. Social Science and Medicine 158: 132–140.

99.

Van der Borg

Verdonk

Dauwerse

, et al (2017) Work-related change in residential elderly care: trust, space and connectedness. Human Relations 70(7): 805–835.

100.

Venkatesh

Ganster

Schuetz

, et al (2021) Risks and rewards of conscientiousness during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Applied Psychology 106(5): 643–656.

101.

Vidal

(2013) Low-autonomy work and bad jobs in postfordist capitalism. Human Relations 66(4): 587–612.

102.

Vincent

Bamber

Delbridge

, et al (2020) Situating human resource management in the political economy: multilevel theorising and opportunities for kaleidoscopic imagination. Human Resource Management Journal 30(4): 461–477.

103.

Visser

(2019) Restructuring opportunity: employment change and job quality in the United States during the Great Recession. Socio-Economic Review 17(3): 545–572.

104.

Wagenaar

Taris

Houtman

ILD

, et al (2012) Labour contracts in the European Union, 2000–2005: differences among demographic groups and implications for the quality of working life and work satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 21(2): 169–194.

105.

Walton

(1973) Quality of working life: what is it? Sloan Management Review 15(1): 11–21.

106.

Walton

(1974) Improving the quality of work life. Harvard Business Review 52(3): 12–155.

107.

Warhurst

Knox

(2022) Manifesto for a new quality of working life. Human Relations 75(2): 304–321.

108.

Wegman

Hoffman

Carter

, et al (2018) Placing job characteristics in context: cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in job characteristics since 1975. Journal of Management 44(1): 352–386.

109.

Wilkinson

Barry

Morrison

(2020) Toward an integration of research on employee voice. Human Resource Management Review 30(1): 100677.

110.

Wood

(2016) Flexible scheduling, degradation of job quality and barriers to collective voice. Human Relations 69(10): 1989–2010.

111.

Wood

Graham

Lehdonvirta

, et al (2019) Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society 33(1): 56–75.

112.

Chiang

(2007) The impact on the cultural diversity to employees’ job satisfaction between mainland China and Taiwan: a comparison of Taiwanese invested companies. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(4): 623–641.

113.

Yates

(2022) Developing or degrading young workers? How business strategy and the labour process shape job quality across different industrial sectors in England. Work, Employment and Society 37(5): 1186–1205.

114.

KYT

(2016) Inter-relationships among different types of person-environment fit and job satisfaction. Applied Psychology 65(1): 38–65.

Bridging the Gaps in Work Quality Research: A Multi-Level Interdisciplinary Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Labour process theory and work quality

Method

Findings

Micro-level findings and limitations

Meso-level findings and limitations

Macro-level findings and limitations

A multi-level work quality framework

Greater contextualisation of work quality research

Wider incorporation of the interests, power and agency of multiple actors

Deeper engagement with work quality dynamics

Discussion and conclusion

Policy implications

Limitations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

ORCID iDs

References