[en] Societal, technological and economical changes in the last decades have led to the development of new work arrangements located in a « grey zone » between standard employment and classical self-employment (Cappelli & Keller, 2013a; ILO, 2016; Katz & Krueger, 2016).
Official labour market statistics must be adapted to provide researchers and policymakers with relevant data on this population (Gazier et al., 2016; National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2017; ILO, 2018).
Cappelli & Keller (2013b) point out that new work arrangements are characterized by changes in the management of the work relationships (with a growing intervention of labour market intermediaries) and in the way the work is supervised (from work processes to outcomes). The concept of autonomy thus becomes a central feature of new work arrangements leading to specific configurations of risks and opportunities for individual workers concerned.
Autonomy can be divided in three main dimensions: work status, work content and working conditions (Pichault & McKeown, 2019). International surveys such as the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) provide valuable data covering these dimensions of autonomy.
Our paper is focused on a specific category of workers experiencing the ambiguities of autonomy at work: Independent Professionals (Ipros). Ipros provide various forms of intellectual work in the service sector through self-employment and are often regarded as a highly autonomous workforce (Leighton & Brown, 2014; McKeown, 2015) while they can also be subject to precarious situations regarding their economic dependency or freedom of choice (de Peuter, 2011; Standing, 2011; Bergvall-Kåreborn & Howcroft, 2013).
The objectives of this paper are, first, to build a set of indicators likely to measure the various dimensions of autonomy, and, second, to provide an empirical typology of new work arrangements by using cluster analysis methods. Through the application of this analytical framework on the EWCS 2015 data, we observe various situations in terms of risk and opportunities related to autonomy, shedding light on unexpected precarious situations where Ipros face the risks of autonomy without getting the associated benefits. Our results provide a nuanced typology of empirical situations, overcoming such a dichotomic vision of nonstandard work arrangements.
Research Center/Unit :
LENTIC - Laboratoire d'Études sur les Nouvelles Formes de Travail, l'Innovation et le Changement - ULiège
Disciplines :
Sociology & social sciences
Author, co-author :
Florin, Louis ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > LENTIC
Pichault, François ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > UER Management : Gestion des ressources humaines
Language :
English
Title :
Emerging forms of precariousness related to autonomy at work: Towards an empirical typology
Publication date :
22 May 2020
Journal title :
Frontiers in Sociology
eISSN :
2297-7775
Publisher :
Frontiers Media S.A., Switzerland
Special issue title :
Non-Standard Work, Self-Employment and Precariousness
Attewell P. A., Monaghan D. B., (2015). Data Mining for the Social Sciences: An Introduction, 1st Edn. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Bazillier R., Boboc C., Calavrezo O., (2016). Measuring employment vulnerability in Europe. Int. Labour Rev. 155, 265–280. 10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00019.x
Bergvall-Kåreborn B., Howcroft D., (2013). ‘The future's bright, the future's mobile': a study of Apple and Google mobile application developers. Work Employ. Soc. 27, 964–981. 10.1177/0950017012474709
Bonet R., Cappelli P., Hamori M., (2013). Labor market intermediaries and the new paradigm for human resources. Acad. Manage. Ann. 7, 341–392. 10.5465/19416520.2013.774213
Bush J. T., Balven R. M., (in press). Catering to the crowd: An HRM perspective on crowd worker engagement. Hum. Resour. Manage. Rev. 1053–4822. 10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.10.003
Cappelli P. H., Keller J. R., (2013a). A study of the extent and potential causes of alternative employment arrangements. Industr. Labor Relat. Rev. 66, 874–901. 10.1177/001979391306600406
Cappelli P. H., Keller J. R., (2013b). Classifying work in the new economy. Acad. Manage. Rev. 38, 575–596. 10.5465/amr.2011.0302
Cascio W. F., Boudreau J. W., (2017). Chapter 26: Talent management of nonstandard employees, in The Oxford Handbook of Talent Management, eds Collings D. G., Mellahi K., Cascio W. F., (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 494–520.
Cieslik J., (2015). Capturing statistically the “intermediate zone” between the employee and the employer firm owner. Int. Rev. Entrepr. 13, 205–214.
Coyle-Shapiro J. A. M., Morrow P. C., Kessler I., (2006). Serving two organizations: Exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Hum. Resour. Manage. 45, 561–583. 10.1002/hrm.20132
de Peuter G., (2011). Creative economy and labor precarity: a contested convergence. J. Commun. Inquiry 35, 417–425. 10.1177/0196859911416362
Desrosières A., (2005). Décrire l'État ou explorer la société: les deux sources de la statistique publique. Genèses 58:4. 10.3917/gen.058.0004
Eurofound (2012). Trends in Job Quality in Europe: A Report Based on the Fifth European Working Conditions Survey. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2013). Self-Employed or Not Self-Employed? Working Conditions of ‘Economically Dependent Workers', Background Paper. Dublin.
Eurofound (2015). New Forms of Employment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2017a). 6th European Working Conditions Survey: Overview Report (2017 Update). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2017b). Classifying Self-Employment and Creating an Empirical Typology. Luxembourg: Eurofound Working Paper.
Eurofound (2017c). Exploring Self-Employment in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2018a). Does Employment Status Matter for Job Quality? Luxembourg: Publications office of the European Union.
Eurofound (2018b). European Working Conditions Survey Integrated Data File, 1991-2015. [Data Collection], 7th Edn. Luxembourg: UK Data Service. SN: 7363. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-7363-7
Everaere C., (2014). Les Emplois atypiques. Quelles réponses au besoin de flexicurité? Rueil-Malmaison: Liaisons.
Fleming P., (2017). The human capital hoax: work, debt and insecurity in the era of uberization. Org. Stud. 38 691–709. 10.1177/0170840616686129
Gautié J., Schmitt J., (2010). Low-Wage Work in the Wealthy World. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
Gazier B., Picart C., Minni C., (2016). La diversité des formes d'emploi, rapport. Paris: Conseil National de l'information Statistique.
Grugulis I., Stoyanova D., (2011). The missing middle: communities of practice in a freelance labour market. Work Employ. Soc. 25, 342–351. 10.1177/0950017011398891
Hirsch J., Seiner J. A., (2018). A modern union for the modern economy. Fordham Law Rev. 86, 1727–1783. 10.2139/ssrn.2924833
ILO (2016). Non-Standard Employment Around the World: Understanding Challenges, Shaping Prospects. Available online at: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_534326.pdf (accessed October 18, 2017).
ILO (2018). Résolution concernant les statistiques sur les relations de travail, in 20e Conférence internationale des statisticiens du travail (Genève).
Josse J., Husson F., (2016). missMDA: A package for handling missing values in multivariate data analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 70. 10.18637/jss.v070.i01
Katz L. F., Krueger A. B., (2016). The rise and nature of alternative work arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. National Bureau of Economic Research. Available online at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w22667
Kautonen T., Down S., Welter F., Vainio P., Palmroos J., Althoff K., et al. (2010). Involuntary self-employment as a public policy issue: a cross-country European review. Int. J. Entrepr. Behav. Res. 16, 112–129. 10.1108/13552551011027002
Keegan A., Huemann M., Turner J. R., (2012). Beyond the line: exploring the HRM responsibilities of line managers, project managers and the HRM department in four project-oriented companies in the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the USA. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manage. 23, 3085–3104. 10.1080/09585192.2011.610937
Koene B., van Riemsdijk M., (2005). Managing temporary workers: work identity, diversity and operational HR choices. Hum. Resour. Manage. J. 15, 76–92. 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2005.tb00141.x
Kuhn K. M., Maleki A., (2017). Micro-entrepreneurs, dependent contractors, and instaserfs: understanding online labor platform workforces. Acad. Manage. Perspect. 31, 183–200. 10.5465/amp.2015.0111
Leighton P., Brown D., (2014). Future Working: The Rise of Europe's Independent Professionals (iPRos). Available online at: http://crse.co.uk/sites/default/files/Future%20Working%20Full%20Report.pdf (accessed May 13, 2020).
Leighton P., McKeown T., (2015). The rise of independent professionals: their challenge for management. Small Enterpr. Res. 22, 119–130. 10.1080/13215906.2015.1085627
Lepak D. P., Snell S. A., (1999). The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Acad. Manage. Rev. 24, 31–48. 10.5465/amr.1999.1580439
Lorquet N., Orianne J.-F., Pichault F., (2018). Who takes care of nonstandard career paths? The role of labour market intermediaries. Eur. J. Industr. Relat. 24, 279–295. 10.1177/0959680117740425
McKeown T., (2015). What's in a name? The value of ‘Entrepreneurs' compared to ‘Self-Employed', in The Handbook of Research on Freelancing and Self-Employment (Dublin: Senate Hall Academic Publishing), 121–134.
McKeown T., Cochrane R., (2017). Independent professionals and the potential for HRM innovation. Person. Rev. 46, 1414–1433. 10.1108/PR-09-2016-0256
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Information Technology and the U.S. Workforce: Where Are We and Where Do We Go from Here? Committee on Information Technology, Automation, and the U.S. Workforce — Computer Science and Telecommunications Board — Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Osterman P., (2018). In search of the high road: meaning and evidence. ILR Rev. 71:334. 10.1177/0019793917738757
Pichault F., McKeown T., (2019). Autonomy at work in the gig economy: analysing work status, work content and working conditions of independent professionals. N. Technol. Work Employ. 34, 59–72. 10.1111/ntwe.12132
Rapelli S., (2012). European I-Pros: A Study. Professional Contractors Group (PCG), UK. Retrieved from: http://rapelli.free.fr/documents/rapelli_pcg_en.pdf (accessed October 18, 2017).
Sandberg J., Pinnington A. H., (2009). Professional competence as ways of being: an existential ontological perspective. J. Manage. Stud. 46, 1138–1170. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00845.x
Schmid G., (2015). Sharing risks of labour market transitions: towards a system of employment insurance: sharing risks of labour market transitions. Br. J. Industr. Relat. 53:70973. 10.1111/bjir.12041
Snijders T. A. B., (2011). Statistical Methods: Robustness. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Standing G., (2011). The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury.
Thompson P., Jones M., Warhurst C., (2009). From conception to consumption: creativity and the managerial missing link, in Creative Labour: Working in the Creative Industries, eds McKinlay A., Smith C., (London: Palgrave), 51–71. 10.1007/978-1-137-12173-8_3
Van Aerden K., Moors G., Levecque K., Vanroelen C., (2014). Measuring employment arrangements in the European labour force: a typological approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 116, 771–791. 10.1007/s11205-013-0312-0
Vandenbrande T., Vandekerckhove S., Vendramin P., Valenduc G., (2012). Quality of Work and Employment in Belgium. Leuven: KU Leuven HIVA.
von Hippel C., Kalokerinos E. K., (2012). When temporary employees are perceived as threatening: antecedents and consequences. Leader. Org. Dev. J. 33, 200–216. 10.1108/01437731211203483
Wynn M. T., (2016). Chameleons at large: Entrepreneurs, employees and firms – the changing context of employment relationships. J. Manage. Org. 22, 826–842. 10.1017/jmo.2016.40
Younger J., Smallwood N., (2016). Agile Talent: How to Source and Manage Outside Experts. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
