JCQ Version 2.0

JCQ Version 2.0

(DRAFT, not for circulation, until Board approval December 1, 2004)

Part I. Outline: Overview of New Directions

1. Summary of Points from the Minutes of the Meeting

2. Summarizing the JCQ "Evolutionary Directions" at the broadest level

3. Figure 1: Outline of Proposed Extended Dimensions and Evolution of JCQ 2.0

4. Detailed Discussions of Proposed New Dimensions

1. Summary of Points from the Minutes of the Meeting

After 18 years of use since 1985, the primary critique of the JCQ is "omission." It is now missing areas of importance in workplace change in the global economy. Some of the missing dimensions, ironically, are recommended components of the JCQ 1.0 that have simply not been utilized by researchers (macro decision latitude and job insecurity). However, these dimensions are in areas of active change in working life in the past two decades and need current redefinition. Selected Points noted in the workshop (See II above, Minutes for five versions of the actual workshop discussion) are listed below:

1.The main goal of the JCQ remains epidemiological investigations with a public health focus and similar smaller studies.

2. Use of the JCQ for social policy discussions - costs of competitive work under neo-liberalism - could be possible and is much needed since there is really no alternative available in terms of accumulated data

3. Intervention use would be a common goal for the JCQ, but its specific coverage of many work situations is insufficient.

4.Macro level decision latitude must assess the effects of neo-liberalism in the global economy - job insecurity, downsizing, labor protection losses, aggressive "flexibility" of employment contracts, work intensification, etc.

5. There is a need for macro decision latitude measures at an individual and an organization level.

6. Broad social effects at the company-level - relating to job stability, trust, ideological cost-cutting - link macro decision latitiude with job insecurity , and perhaps macro social support

7. Macro level concepts of decision latitude linked to macro-level social support include: organizational justice, organizational entitlements, perceived organizational trust.

8. Mid-level decision latitude (or social support) constructs exist: collective control, production organizational context and control procedures, fairness, and may need measurement.

9. The core of psychological demands is quantitative demands, but this scale needs purification and clarification.

10. Beyond quantitative psychological demands and physical demands (needed in their own right for OHS, and to clarify mental demands), emotional demands should be measured in the JCQ.

11. It is not clear if cognitive demands - concentration, etc. - should have a JCQ scale (such questions were dropped from JCQ 1.0 in 2002).

12 Beyond a standard JCQ core, industry or occupation-tailored question packages may be needed - in particular for psychosocial demands.

13. Population-specific job demand packages would still have to have full-questionnaire common components to allow generalizable scaling.

14. Some scale questions psychometrically "diverge" from the meaning of the reminder of the scale, and may need to be dropped (conflicting demands, repetitive work). However, the real issue is theoretical congruence and predictive validity.

15. Social support scales are psychometrically excellent, but have so far had rather limited predictive validity and limited convergent validity.

16. Objective verification is a goal for the JCQ - but it is not always clear how to achieve it for many scale areas. Some data could be gathered via expert interviews. This would not omlu allow objective comparison, but could save questions in the questionnaire. Self-reflexive questions should be avoided

17. Active Job hypothesis testing require new dependent variable questions (in JCQ ?).

18. Will expansions undermine the theoretical coherence of the JCQ? and the D/C model testing research?

19. Can the simple four cell D/C model version be maintained in the context of addition of the new macro dimensions of job insecurity?

20. Will overlaps with other conceptual frameworks resulting from expansion of the instrument go too far? This was mentioned for "fairness" (E/R); social capital; and emotional coping styles?

21. What extensions beyond task-level measurement are supported by the new Stress-Disequilibrium theory framework which underlies the D/C model, but is only now being articulated (question not asked in Workshop - inserted by R.K. see section II-9).

2. Summarizing the JCQ "Evolutionary Directions" at the broadest level

A. JCQ 1.0.

There is a theoretically integrated core for the JCQ, which consists of mainly small sets of pre-validated questions selected from US national surveys in 1984 (and congruent with Swedish questions) to measure the Demand/Control/Support model's dimensions. Two additional areas needed to assess the clarity of those basic concepts were added. Physical demands had to be measured to be able to assess the mental component of demands effects (important, of course, in its own right in classic OHS, and current OSH ergonomics). Additionally, concepts such "work stress" and "powerlessness" could hardly be comprehensively discusses without measurement of job insecurity -(whether a demand or a type of lack of control). Thus, the core of JCQ 1.0 was composed. Beyond the core were supplemental questions on physical hazards, and dependent variables: job satisfaction and depression.

JCQ 1.5, a minor 1995 update, added more thoroughly validated psychological strain/depression scales (CES-D, plus other), and a test set of questions on global economy effects.

B. Toward JCQ 2.0.

Over the last two decades major changes in the political context of work in the global economy, and the service nature of work in the developing economies may be causing changes in work's risks and effects, thus potentially requiring major JCQ modifications. Some modification would represent whole new areas, others only improvements. In general, the theoretical utility of the current JCQ dimensions has been good, with an enormous range of use and a range of findings, which if not always completely consistent, represents an almost unparalleled accumulation of predictive validation for a simple set of questions. However, accumulating evidence of some unclarities - primarily with the meaning, breadth, and consistency of the psychosocial demands scale - now has reached the point that improvement must be made - but even in this dimension there is no reason to completely reject a basic core of JCQ questions. The goal would be improvement or "enhancement." In general, both because of their continuing utility to date, and the future possibility that they can represent a comparison basis across time and across countries, a "core of JCQ questions" must be preserved. Thus, for several scales the challenge is to "purify and enhance" - with minor modifications - such that comparative utility is not damaged: decision latitude (skill discretion, decision authority), a core of psychological demands (quantitative), physical demands, job insecurity, supervisor and coworker support.

New areas are also needed. The first new area represents a combination of factors which links macro-level decision latitude, institutional job insecurity factors, and macro-level social support concepts. Clearly, all are a part a single, integrated extension. But this extension spans - without boundaries hard to define -(a) the worker's macro-level possibility of maintaining control over his/her work context; (b) an organization level climate of trust and wellbeing guarantees; together with (c) the increasing exposure to raw market pressures in the labor market and company competitive pressures. Even if the specific boundary lines between the original dimensions may be hard to clearly map onto these macro level constructs, such an extension of the JCQ is needed, and represents an extension of original Demand/Control/Support concepts to the current new working life contexts. To clarify these "macro organizational" effects on individual workers, further objective information about organizational production policy and communication policy may be necessary - potentially another dimension, or even another mode of data collection.

The second area of change is needed - partly to clarify the meaning of the psychological demand dimension - and partly to more sensitively measure the mental work load costs of engaging in complex, strategically planned, and emotionally engaging social behaviors in organizationally complex situations. The requirement is for a new "emotional load" scale. In the "demands" case physical demands, measured before, must be continued. However, in both this dimension, and well as the current psychological demands dimension - which is mainly a "quantitative load" dimension - need to drop and add some question/s to increase accuracy. There is always a trade off - in the work stress area between simply assessing to overall effects of, for example, sympathetic arousal so as to assess the most generalizable "stress" effects, and the utility obtained from increasing the number of sub-scales to specify the manner in which these demands are produced with enough detail that modifications could be made to redesign jobs. Thus another suggestion has been to create specific psychological demand questionnaire packages for specific occupational types or industries - a suggestion not made as frequently for the decision latitude/job insecurity/social support dimensions.

These suggestions lead to the following diagrammatic presentation of modification toward a JCQ 2.0, at the broadest level:

3. Figure 1: Outline of Proposed Extended Dimensions and Evolution of JCQ 2.0

I. Decision Latitude - Extended

A. DL-I: Task-level Decision Latitude: (= current Skill discretion and Decision Authority

B. DL-IIa: Organizational Context of Decision Latitude [??include??]

C. DL-IIb: Macro-level Decision Latitude (= Job Insecurity II = Macro-level Support IIb)

II Psychological Demands - Extended (plus Physical Demands)

A. PDQ: Quantitative Psychological Demands ( = current PsycDem. modified)

(mental load induced sympathetic arousal)

B. PDE: Emotional/Cognitive Psychological Demands

(=/=concentration demands)

C. PDP: Physical Demands

a. Aerobic and maximum load demands

b. Posture/isometric physical demands

III. Job Insecurity - Extended

A. JI I: Individual Job Insecurity

(individual/labor market job insecurity)

B. JI-II: Company-policy-based Job Insecurity (= Decision Latitude IIb = Macro-level Support IIb)

(labor market, company market, social protections)

C. JI-III: Society/Economy-based Job Insecurity

IV. Social Support - Extended

A. SS-Ia: Task-level Social Support

(= current supervisor and coworker social support- modified)

B. SS-Ib: Extended Task-level Social Support [??include??]

(Fairness and group-level social support)

C. SM-IIa: Value Platform Support [??include??]

(Ideological and moral congruence, meaningfulness, social capital/ conducivity)

D. SM-IIb: Macro-level Social Support (= Job Insecurity II = Macro-level Decision Latitude IIb)

V. [not included in core] PH-I: Physical Hazard Scales - JCQ 1.0

The Psychological Demand Scale is the most often cited as in new of repair. The primary solutions offered are to append coverage of specific new job demands areas which are only weakly covered in the current instrument. Another similar suggestion is to develop specific "demand" packages for specific occupation or industry groups (see section II-7).

Another needed repair is to address the interpretability problems relating to some overlap of mental and physical demands, particularly in blue collar workers. This may be achieved by most specifically assessing central nervous-system mediated physical demand arousal, and by modifying/deleting some questions.

The most commonly cited missing area is "emotional demands" - reflecting much research on (a) care giving workers and (b) the need to more sensitively measure the mental work load costs of engaging in complex, strategically planned, and emotionally engaging social behaviors in organizationally complex situations.

A. PDQ: Quantitative Psychological Demands: Mental load-induced sympathetic arousal

(= current Psychological Demands modified) (for modifications, see section II-5)

(the beginnings of a more comprehensive documentation, to be added to by others..).

1. Social -interaction-based mental load is discussed by Gardfoss (Lund U., P-O Ostergren, personal communication) showing that social interactions can involve three full levels of cognitive complexity in mental processing, several more levels than non-social actions.

2. Kristiansen (2002) Copenhagen Instument's prediction of health outcomes, supplemental to qualitative mental demands, using an Emotional Load scale.

3. Hochshild (since 1983): Job-related exaggeration or suppression of emotional feelings in personal service jobs.

b. Posture/isometric physical demands (for minor modifications see section II-5)

Perhaps the most clearly articulated future JCQ need is for a modification of the Decision Latitiude Scale that reflects the impact of neo-liberal changes in labor markets and international production organization. Workers have lost the protections of paternalistic companies and national labor relations programs an are more exposed to pure market forces. Companies have outsourced jobs, and internal production processes relinquish control to environment-driven inventory chain systems (lean production), sometimes worldwide in scope. However, the resulting threats to workers are in overlapping areas: loss of company-level decision influence, loss of job security, loss of small-scale production control to new work systems and monitoring, a less protective social environment threatening workers basic security platforms and undermining trust. Thus, the new Decision Latitude measures could easily overlap with two other JCQ scale areas: Job Security, and a broadly interpreted form of Social Support that includes Trust and Fairness.

(=current Skill discretion and Decision Authority scales) (for minor modifications see section II-5).

B. DL-IIa: Production Organizational Context of Macro Decision Latitude [?? To be included??]- (See below)

C. DL-IIb: Macro-level Decision Latitude (= Job Insecurity II = Macro-level Support IIb)

The primary issue is the growing concern that the work situation no longer provides a stable platform for life and family development - something that in earlier times was provided in a package along with skilled performance and a wage - as a "job." The "job" is a support for starting and raising a family; it is a support for personal development in a career; it is the basis of a meaningful identity and social role in the society; and, related to all of these, the job is a daily platform of stable, manageable, and sustaining activity.

(1.) Macro-level decision latitude is obviously at the core of this construct: it is a measure of how much "long-term, broad-ranged control" the worker has over his life, via his employment. If the worker can maintain an easy equilibrium is his/her context, work can be used as the platform for further growth (family, career, etc.). A new, more general notion of control is needed, for example: "'control' is the freedom to act using your repertoire of skills, within the social structures where you have made your social investments and where your get your major life-sustaining rewards." In section II-9 below, we further see that this concept, while broader than the conventional Decision Latitude measure, is congruent with the underlying theory for the D/C model, now being articulated in the Stress-Disequilibrium Theory ("...of chronic disease development," but there is a theoretically consistent "active" side of this theory as well, see section II-9).

Clearly this measurement provides linkages to job insecurity, including new topics: (2.)Company-policy-based job insecurity and a Society/economy based job insecurity (as well as to individual's job insecurity -already in JCQ 1.0). All of these are active risk areas a neo-liberal global economy.

At the same time many of the "supports" that would provide a stable platform are just that: measures of (3.) Macro level social support (provision of "entitlement benefits to organizational "citizens," social trust through fairness, avoidance of threats; congruent social value platform, social capital at individual firm and community).

In summary, threats to fairness, organizational citizenship entitlements, and perceived trust all have components that span macro-level decision latitude, company-policy-based job insecurity, and macro-level social support. Thus, a single integrated scale, the Control-Security-Support Dimension, is probably needed for measurement of these issues.

Such a dimension may require theoretical reformulation of the "control" concept - at multiple levels (see comments below in section II-9). Task demands and control in the micro work setting, based on the presumption of a stable "job-role" context, was a conceptual structure that explained much risk variance in the job-stable 1970's in the US and Sweden (except for a few unemployed). With the loss of this stability under Neo-liberalism, new measurements are needed. The "degree-of-freedom" of action (i.e., control) both (a) with respect to those company policies which impinge on work security (JI-II), and (b) the worker's outside-the-job "pool of alternative employment opportunities," in the context of his/her special labor market competitive conditions, need measurement (JI-III).

In terms of analytic modeling, future discussions will needed to determine how to proceed with a new macro decision latitude measure. Should it be, for example: (1) a single "control" measure aggregating over the above areas; (2) two separate demand/control quadrants at both a micro and macro level; or (3) a descriptive macro dimension, separated into components analytically: one as control, the second as an added demand, and the third a moderator?

1. Macro-level Decision Latitude IIb ( = SM-IIb: Macro-level Social Support = Job Insecurity II)

Included here are important issues related to the reduction in unionization, and contract form. Additional protections of worker benefits can be threatened (health benefits - US), and workers with even work-related disabilities can face dismissal. These issue may be a component of the "organizational justice" construct, below

Programs to support work well-being vary not only by company, but vary nationally depending on health care systems for example. Support for child care and health promotion programs and additionally worker access to skill development programs and healthy work design and OSH programs might be assessed.

The overall perception of fairness or of threat can be an important determinant of a workers effective degree-of-freedom to take action on work related problems. It can effect well-being also in the form of a macro-level form of social support.

Theoretical Bases and Existing Measures: Control-Insecurity-Support Dimension (Social Context Component)

(the beginnings of a more comprehensive documentation, to be added to by others..).

1. Elovanio, Kivimaki and Vatera's "Organizational Justice" (2002, also 2003, citing Mooreman, 1991, Cropanzano, et al, 2001). This measures the concept of fair and consistent organizational decision procedures and considerate supervisorial treatment.

2. Siegrist's "status control" relates to ability to "manage" the level of threats to social status at work (Siegrist, 1996), potentially coming form high-level company policies. The primary operating measure in the ERI is job insecurity (2[?] questions) - other measures relate more to fairness of reward, below.

3. Siegrist's, "Fairness" in general of treatment at the workplace, and specifically the effort/reward balance (Siegrist, 1996) - four questions in the ERI[?].

4. Johnson's Collective Control (Johnsson, 1992). This is operationalized in a short set of questions on mid-range, group or department-based social support. Lysgaard's (1960) concept of worker solidarity, as a defense mechanism against management demands is invoked here.

2. DL-IIa: Production Organizational Context of Macro Decision Latitude [?? to be included??]

To clarify and validate the above "macro organizational" effects on individual workers, further objective information about organizational production policy and communication policy may be necessary - potentially requiring another dimension, and even additional modes of data collection (see Expert Data section II-6).

There are many new technically sophisticated production organizational strategies (lean production coordination dependencies, rigid quality limits, inventory monitoring procedures, micro-level work rules), many new forms of financial cost control and resulting cost cutting pressures, and electronic monitoring of worker location, worker activity, visual and radio tracking, etc. Basic information about the nature of the production process: standard mass production, lean production, customization, personal service, for example, may complete this dimension.

The difficulty here is that questions about particular output "control" strategies would be very specific to each industry's production situation (hospital, vs. production quality control). This may make it difficult to include such a universal sub-dimension.

b. Organizational communication patterns: open communication, communication punishment, rigid bureaucratic communication structure, etc. What specific sources here and how to measure this?

Theoretical Bases and Existing Measures: Production Organizational Context Macro Decision Latitiude

(the beginnings of a more comprehensive documentation, to be added to by others..).

1. M. Starr or other "Production-Organization-Management" business school course textbooks (since the early 1980's) outline a broad range of production control strategies - meant to reduce worker-based "'variances" in production flow. Many commonly used methods include: control charts, critical path methods, time-and-motion measurement (older), lean production inventory control, etc.

Job insecurity includes new topics: company policy-based job insecurity and an society/economy based job insecurity, as well as individual's job insecurity, which is already in JCQ 1.0. All of these are active risk areas a neo-liberal global economy.

(= current individual/labor market job insecurity and skill obsolescence) (for minor modifications see section II-5).

B. JI-II: Company-policy-based Job Insecurity (= Decision Latitude IIb = Macro-level Support IIb) (labor market, company market, social protections) (See above)

The exposure to market forces inherent in the neo-liberal political-economic paradigm implies that it is not a particular organizational context that determines the level of job-insecurity but global market forces - and all its variability. This means that the parameters of those market forces - on the company- now become a direct component of job insecurity and of risk to the worker's stable social platform, as do the details of remaining social welfare platform (local, state/regional, national) These could be measured in several ways: either by self-report or by expert information (see section II-6), or with register data (in some cases)..

For single company studies, of course, this data would be constant for all respondent, but between companies substantial differences would exist. The company's economic context includes a stable environment vs. a growing or declining environment, as measured by: company global competitive strength; planned increases/reduction in labor force (outsourcing plans), product market outlook (mature, obsolete, innovative).

Social regulatory decisions would likely be constant in the majority of individual studies, but could easily vary across studies in different countries or regions of countries, and thus represent important data for international comparisons in the global economy. Measures could include: status of government protections for unemployment insurance, social security and disability coverage, medical coverage; national economic growth status ( business cycle position); societal support for worker's rights (support for labor unions, OSH, family/work benefits).

The Social Support dimension received less specific discussion time in the 2002 and 2003 workshops. There are few specific psychometric problems noted. However, there are very broad new issues on the horizon which raise the possibility of future extensions of the Social Support.

This is one place that the old JCQ could be reduced with little pain - allowing space for new questions in JCQ 2.0. A significant number of the social support questions could be dropped, because of lack of use or there limited predictive strength combined with good scale reliabilities (allowing removal of questions without jeoparodizing the scale).

(= current Supervisor and Coworker social support- modified) (for minor modifications see section II-5)