Promoting the value of good work: An important role for occupational professionals in a post-pandemic world?

1 Introduction

This editorial presents five issues related to occupational research and practice and invites researchers and practitioners to reflect on their role in contemporary society following the disruptions to workers, organisations and society related to the COVID-19 pandemic and other recent global events. The editorial seeks to be relevant to all disciplines working in the occupational area including rehabilitation, occupational injury, disability, ergonomics, human factors, occupational health and safety, organisational psychology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, occupational medicine, occupational hygiene and work design. The aim is that by encouraging reflection on these issues the community’s perception of the relevance of occupational professionals will be enhanced.

2 Issue 1 –Individuals and organisations are reassessing work

Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19 work had been undergoing considerable change, building on increased mechanisation, automation, and globalisation with changes in organisational strategies such as increased use of out-sourcing and relocating work off-shore to countries with lower wages and occupational health standards. The initial waves of COVID-19 saw the work of many individuals dramatically changed, with many losing work altogether and those with employment often experiencing very different ways of working [1].

In the wake of the 3 years of social disruptions related to COVID-19 there has been widespread individual [2, 3] and organisational reassessment of work [3, 4]. Many individuals reappraised what they valued in life with a shift to prioritise health and family over finances and career progression [5]. For some this reflection resulted in withdrawal from the workforce –dubbed ‘the great resignation’ [6, 7]. For others it resulted in a change in career direction towards work they considered more meaningful –dubbed ‘the great reshuffle’. For both of these groups there was the realisation that they did not like their work. For others in less advantaged circumstances they were constrained to continue in work they perhaps did not like. Interestingly, much of the community discourse has framed work as a negative thing for individuals. For example, the Sub-Reddit ‘Antiwork’ theme, characterised by the phrase “Unemployment for all, not just the rich!”, grew to over a million subscribers in 2021 [8]. While the assumption that many workers hate working is contested [9], it is commonly reported [4].

For organisations the societal disruptions of COVID-19, and the attendant changes in worker priorities, created challenges including trying to retain and attract workers to achieve organisational productivity goals. COVID-19 disruptions to supply chain logistics created concerns for organisations and these concerns have been added to by energy security concerns triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In response to these changing circumstances organisations are changing strategies (such as on-shoring manufacturing) and models of work (such as hybrid office/home work) [10].

As outlined above both workers and organisations have been reflecting on the value of work and this creates an opportunity for occupational professionals to promote the value of good work.

Reflection 1 –as a professional working in the occupational area have I perhaps inadvertently played a small role in reinforcing the negative impression of work?

3 Issue 2 –Work is generally good for individuals

In a time of considerable changes concerning work, it is important to consider the value of work for individuals (and their organisations and, more broadly, society).

Work often provides financial benefits to the individual enabling individuals to meet their, and their family’s, basic needs such as food and shelter. For many, work also provides sufficient financial benefits to supply comforts such as health insurance, child and elder care; and even luxuries such as holiday travel. Work also usually provides non-financial benefits such as a sense of community, social inclusion and a sense of worth. It can also provide structure for living and lower the risk of partaking in risky behaviours [11].

Workers also generally have better health and quality of life than non-workers. For example, the all-cause mortality of temporarily unemployed and long-term unemployed people in Sweden is 1.5–2.3 (males) or 1.3–1.6 (females) higher than workers and this effect is consistent for foreign born, second generation and native origin Swedes [12]. Similarly better life expectancy has been reported for Americans in work compared with those not in work, in relation to cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory, diabetes and liver disorders [13]. Workers also have a lower prevalence of chronic disease during life, for example employed South Africans are 30% less likely to have one chronic disease than the unemployed and 35% less likely to have multimorbidity (two or more chronic diseases) [14]. Systematic reviews highlight the evidence showing that workers have better mental health [15]. Overall, evidence syntheses suggest there is strong evidence that work is generally good for physical and mental health and that this association holds not only for generally healthy people but also for many people with chronic health conditions and with disabilities [16]. Further, work and health generally have a reciprocal association with work promoting better health and better health enabling work in a virtuous circle [16].

Reflection 2 –as an occupational professional have I sufficiently promoted the value of work to individuals?

4 Issue 3 –Not all work is good for individuals

However not all work is good for people. The nature of work is important, with poor quality of work associated with poorer health and other outcomes. For example, higher rates of depression have been reported for workers in jobs with poorer financial and psychological aspects [17]. Similarly, higher risk of musculoskeletal disorders has been reported for jobs with poorer physical aspects [18]. So although work is generally beneficial for most individuals, work has the potential to be harmful. Occupational disciplines have aimed to help individuals and their organisations by improving the quality of work using different approaches.

For much of the history of occupational practice a dominant approach to physical aspects of work has been the ‘less is better’ approach [19]. Some aspects of work always have a negative impact. For example, exposure to carcinogenic chemicals represents a physical aspect of work where eliminating all exposure is the desirable goal [20]. Similarly, exposure to sexual harassment represents a psychosocial aspect of work which organisations try to reduce as much as possible to the extent of removing all exposure [21]. For such aspects of work an occupational safety approach is suitable where the aim is to reduce poor quality work by minimising exposure to the hazard –‘aiming for zero’. Organisations have successfully improved work design using this approach, for example to reduce workplace bullying [22] and needle-stick injuries [23].

However, this approach has perhaps contributed to the negative impression of work within the community. The ‘less is better’ approach positions work as a hazardous place with a risk of injury, disease and death. Similarly, it suggests that occupational professionals are only concerned with reducing injury and death.

Reflection 3 –as an occupational professional do I think it is sufficient that workers don’t get killed, injured or abused at work or should we be more focussed on promoting the positive impacts of work that can enhance worker health and capacity?

5 Issue 4 –Can a different approach help work shed its negative image?

There are many aspects of work where minimising exposure is not the optimal outcome as some exposure is beneficial. For example, for the physical work aspect of heat, removing all heat is not suitable [24], but neither is too much heat [25]; rather a ‘just right’ amount of heat is desirable. Similarly for the psychosocial work aspect of social interaction, removing all social interaction is not suitable [26], but neither is too much social interaction [27]; rather a ‘just right’ amount of social interaction is desirable.

Whilst this appears obvious, some recent work place interventions have applied a ‘less is better’ approach when perhaps an ‘aiming for just right’ approach should have been used. For example, in the last decade sitting has typically been characterised as a negative aspect of work with intervention messaging to ‘sit less’ [28]. However this is only appropriate for workers who are sitting too much, as some sitting is likely essential to avoid over-exposure to standing, with its known problems including venous disorders, perinatal complications and low back pain [29].

Recent interventions using a ‘just right’ approach have shown promise [30] in not only improving the quality of work, but also exciting organisations and workers to engage in designing work to have more positive outcomes, rather than just less negative outcomes.

Reflection 4 –as an occupational professional have I considered using a different approach, such as Goldilocks Work, to reinvigorate engagement with workers and their organisations wearied of the prior risk-minimisation-focussed approaches?

6 Issue 5 –Can a focus on sustainability help occupational professionals communicate their contemporary relevance to the community?

Sustainability is “the quality of being able to continue over a period of time” [31] and this concept can be applied at the level of the individual worker, their organisation, and their society/environment.

Societal sustainability can be conceptualised as having a community environment functioning in a way which can continue for a long period of time. In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [32] to “guide humanity to a better and enduring world”. Several SDGs directly relate to the work of occupational professionals:

#8 decent work and economic growth –“promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all” [33].

By addressing these two SDGs through work design occupational professionals can contribute to societal sustainability by supporting organisational sustainability and individual sustainability.

Organisational sustainability is often conceptualised using the Triple Bottom Line idea where the last line in a balance sheet is not only concerned with financial ‘profit’ or loss but considers ‘people’ and the ‘planet’ or ‘economic, social and environmental impact’ [35]. Occupational professionals can contribute to organisational sustainability by supporting productive work (and thus the economic bottom line) [36] whilst also supporting worker health and capacity (and thus both organisational profit and people bottom line). Having sustainable organisations also contributes to societal sustainability.

Individual sustainability can be conceptualised as having sufficient health, well-being, and capacity to meet the ongoing functional needs of an individual across their lifespan. It thus aligns with the original World Health Organisation (WHO) definition of health that extended the concept of health to mean more than just the absence of disease and to include physical, mental and social well-being [37]. It also aligns with the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health [38] that articulates how the physiological and psychological functions of individuals provide the capacity that enables them to perform an activity and participate in life situations (such as work). Occupational professionals can contribute to individual sustainability by supporting worker health, well-being and physical and psychosocial capability. By enabling participation in productive work, occupational professionals can also contribute to an individual’s financial sustainability and societal participation. Having a sustainable workforce contributes to organisational sustainability and in turn contributes to social sustainability.

Reflection 5 –as an occupational professional can I better promote good work design to organisations and workers by focussing on individual and organisational sustainability?

7 Making occupational professionals relevant in a post-pandemic world

In a time of considerable societal flux it is important to recognise the positive role work has in supporting individual, organisational and thus societal sustainability. The current situation creates an opportunity for occupational professionals to make a valuable contribution to global debate on what makes good work. It also creates opportunities for occupational professionals to assist organisations design work that can provide sustained benefits to individuals, their organisations and thus society as a whole.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The author declares they have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

The author reports no funding.