Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify lessons and implications on the theme of decent work in social care. This has long been highlighted as integral to improving social care for the elderly. The COVID-19 pandemic experience reveals lessons and implications about the systemic absence of decent work in one place, Scotland, in care homes. The main lesson and implication is a need for change beyond the focus on levels of pay and systemic advocacy of decent work as it is conventionally understood.

Data was collected using qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 20 care workers in care homes.[AQ4] A range of care system institutional stakeholders was also interviewed. A range of care system institutional stakeholders was also interviewed.

Decent work in social care may only be progressed to the extent that a culture change is achieved, transcending the institutional stasis about who owns and engages with progressing decent work.

This is a study in one place, Scotland, with a small sample of frontline care workers in care homes and representatives from a range of institutions.

Effective culture change for decent work in care homes needs to be a higher research priority. More explicit culture policies can be a mechanism by which overall decent work and system change may be catalysed and sustainably secured together. Explicit culture change is here set out with respect to operational, institutional and national domains.

There needs to be social policy and political support for situating decent work to be part of a broader culture change around care work with the elderly. A culture-oriented change plan as well as new resourcing and structures can together ensure that the nadir of the pandemic experience was a historical turning point towards transformation rather than being just another low point in a recurring cycle.

The situating of systemic decent work progress within a broader culture change, and modelling that culture change, are original contributions.

Recruitment to social care roles can be the weakest link in many integrated systems, with vacancy rates being very high compared to other sectors, especially in remote and rural places. Analysis of Employer Value Propositions (EVPs) in social care can capture and challenge perceptions of care work.

This study of EVP in four organisations in a rural setting in Scotland focussed on young people as a target demographic. This study interprets recruitment challenges in social care in three contexts, the technical-instrumental, the hermeneutic and the emancipatory.

EVP articulation is at present not effective. Refreshed and new messaging has potential to attract, employ and nurture young people to the social care sector in remote and rural places.

Recruiting to social care vacancies is crucial for sustainable social care. Improving the recruitment of young people is a key part of the longer-term solution. More studies on recruitment in a variety of remote and rural contexts, with a range of demographics, are needed.

The potential impact is attracting more young people to the social care workforce, enhancing capacity for integrated care improving lives for people who receive care and for paid care workers and unpaid carers.

Remote and rural areas often feature a generational imbalance, with more older people from in-migration and fewer young people from out-migration. Employment in social care has the capacity to redress that to some extent.

This study is original in outlining the messages and methods that can be adopted to boost recruitment to social care.

The purpose of this study is to model and explore kindness as a factor in employment contexts. “Kindness among colleagues” is a particular context for the scientific study of kindness which has been under-researched. There is scope within the burgeoning study of kindness for research concerned with employment contexts and colleagues, adopting an employment context appropriate construct of kindness, generating and considering evidence that might be evaluated rigorously in the employment context where kindness is both advocated and critiqued.

The literature review identifies and explores the gaps in kindness research in the employment context. A construct distinguishing a set of antecedents of kindness among colleagues was developed to address these gaps. The relevance and usefulness of the construct was tested in semi-structured interviews among some work colleagues in a specific organization setting.

The results show that the four antecedents of kindness can be used to capture and explore perceptions and experiences of kindness among colleagues. There is scope for analysis at the levels of individuals, teams and organizations using data about these antecedents which allows for individual and more general workplace dynamics to be described and explored.

The antecedents of kindness construct are validated to an extent by this initial study. The potential of this for describing and analyzing kindness and workplace relevant themes makes it worth further development; to refine and validate an instrument for measuring kindness among colleagues.

Kindness among colleagues, if understood in the nuanced way presented here, can help individuals, teams and organizations review and evaluate themselves in diverse contexts. Contexts can be expected to vary with workforce demographics, leadership style and organization cultures.

Kindness is a burgeoning theme and concern across diverse social and cultural contexts for various reasons. The scientific contribution to the advocacy or critique of kindness, in this case kindness among colleagues, provides value in rigor, operationalization and evidencing of the case for and against advocacy of the value of kindness in general.

This is a focused review and study of kindness among colleagues which contributes to the nomological and methodological development of a scientific approach to organizational analysis concerns with this important theme in contemporary times.

What matters most for improving work quality and who can make a difference are perennial topics in employee relations research. The literature on work quality provides answers to these with regard to various constructs on a continuum from “soft” to “hard” variables and stakeholders seeking to influence employers who fall short of reasonable expectations with regard to these. A construct of “decent work” with both soft and hard variables was adopted for research and methods which were collaborative and participative with stakeholders in one national context.

The “decent work” construct was operationalised from the literature and refined by collaborative and participative research. Exploring the relative importance of the constituent parts of decent work involved research with a range of stakeholders; employees, employers and advocates. The study involved most prominently low-paid workers, with employers and advocates also engaged through interviews.

Primarily hard “decent work” variables were identified among employees, primarily soft variables among employers and a mix of hard and soft among advocates. There are some common priorities across these stakeholders.

The main implication is that to engage a range of stakeholders requires a combination of soft and hard variables to be included in research and policy development. However, generalisation about what matters most and who makes a difference to work quality is intrinsically limited in context and time. In this research, the extent of employer engagement in the collaboration initiated by advocates and concerned most with the experiences of low-paid workers is a limitation.

What matters most are a set of soft and hard priorities to engage across stakeholders. Pay is an abiding priority among these and the priority most prominent for many advocates seeking to make a difference through influencing low-paying employers to provide a living wage. While the living wage is a significant focus for work quality, it is not in itself sufficient, as other soft and hard variables in the workplace matter as well. Those who can make a difference are the employers falling short of benchmark standards. Influence on these may emerge through decent work knowledge and skills in management and professional development programmes as well as in initiatives advocating wider adoption of the living wage.

Problem areas of work quality, and problem employers, can be influenced by strategies shaping “hard” factors, including legislation. This needs to be complemented and integrated with strategies on “soft” factors, including identifying positive role models on themes of well-being, work–life balance and precarious forms of employment, as well as pay.

The identification of what matters and who can make a difference is based on an original, collaborative, research project, in one national context, offering analytical generalisability about “decent work” and an experience of collaborative research.

This paper aims to develop a model of collective innovation, with respect to innovation strategy, structure and culture in heterarchies. The enabling of collective innovation in heterarchies is conceptualised as “responsible exposure”.

A study adopting cross-case analysis was undertaken with five organisations perceived to have heterarchical characteristics. These included one small company, two medium-sized companies and two larger companies, all were European. Data from semi-structured interviews, a survey of staff and other sources provide evidence of collective innovation practices.

The cross-case analysis suggests that the management of collective innovation is different from “classic” innovation management. It is more about enabling “responsible exposure” than the management of “shelter” for collective innovation.

The strength of cross-case analysis and conceptual framework validation is limited by the cases being all from the European region.

What strategy, structure and culture for “responsible exposure” may mean can be described. Heterarchies will always be relatively rare, though lessons from how they enable collective innovation can be more widely learned. Lessons for the wider population of organisation that combine hierarchical and heterarchical characteristics and seek greater innovation are identified.

Collective innovation, which requires “responsible exposure” has implications for the capabilities of managers and professionals concerned with innovation.

The cross-case analysis of innovation in heterarchies is original, leading to the description of a model of “responsible exposure” for collective innovation.

The purpose of this paper was to test and explore alignment theory as a guiding principle for human resource development (HRD) by performing an empirical study. HRD scholars, professionals and others have adopted or assumed alignment theory to help explain HRD effectiveness.

Constructs to measure an organisation’s strategic priorities and its HRD practices. A measure of HRD effectiveness was developed. A survey gathered data from 270 employees, managers and HRD staff in a sample of 76 organisations.

The results show that HRD effectiveness does not vary with alignment as predicted. Forms of partial alignment, or the relations of an “odd couple”, are more strongly associated with HRD effectiveness than high alignment.

The use and integration of both normative measures (Likert scale) and ipsative measures (ranking) is necessary to capture alignment, but this limits the inferential statistics available to test validity and reliability. Qualitative data on case studies would be useful to explore alignment issues in context and depth.

Stakeholders in organisations can use the “odd couple” interpretation of alignment as a fresh way to review and explore the opportunities and challenges of managing HRD effectiveness in an era where a narrowing and retrenchment of provisions is occurring and increasing.

This study provides evidence which raises questions about alignment theory and policies intended to increase alignment. It suggests in the case of HRD, an alternative perspective that validates partial alignment can support effective HRD provisions.

This editorial advocates the establishment of a National Research Forum for information, advice and guidance (IAG) about learning and work. The editorial proposes that the existence of such a forum would potentially raise the level and calibre of guidance research, enabling new thinking and models to emerge and enhancing, in turn, the quality of guidance services on offer.