2004
Volume 38, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0169-2216
  • E-ISSN: 2468-9424

Abstract

Samenvatting

Platformwerk is een arbeidsovereenkomst die zich kenmerkt door het gebruik van digitale platformen om arbeid en monetaire beloning uit te wisselen. Steeds meer mensen werken via online platformen. Daarom is het belangrijk om mogelijke verschillen met andere arbeidsovereenkomsten in kaart te brengen, zodat kan worden nagegaan of een specifiekere aanpak nodig is. In deze bijdrage bekijken we daarom de resultaten van een onderzoek dat de samenhang van platformwerk met werkomstandigheden en welzijn peilt (N = 3620). We bekijken hoe platformwerk samenhangt met demografische variabelen, werkomstandigheden en de mentale gezondheid. Uit de resultaten blijkt dat platformwerk in Nederland voornamelijk wordt uitgevoerd door jonge mensen zonder kinderen. Opvallend is dat personen die platformwerk verrichten minder autonomie, verhoogde werkbelasting, meer monotoon werk, vaker onheuse bejegening, en minder emotionele steun rapporteren. Met name platformwerkers zagen zowel de kansen als bedreigingen van technologische ontwikkelingen voor hun werkzame leven. Platformwerkers rapporteerden minder balans tussen werk en thuis, meer baanonzekerheid, hogere uitputting en minder bevlogenheid dan mensen die geen platformwerk verrichten. Uit de analyses bleek dat hogere uitputting en lage bevlogenheid onder platformwerkers kan worden verbeterd als platformwerkers zelf proactief hun welzijn verbeteren, bijvoorbeeld door .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2022.4.008.SCHA
2022-12-01
2023-02-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202131
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashford, S. J., Caza, B. B., & Reid, E. M. (2018). From surviving to thriving in the gig economy: A research agenda for individuals in the new world of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2018.11.001
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. (2011). Subjective well-being in organizations. In K.Cameron & G.Spreitzer (Reds.), Handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 178-190). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brancati, U., Pesole, A., & Fernández-Macías, E. (2020). New evidence on platform workers in Europe. Results from the second COLLEEM survey. http://dx.doi.org/10.2760/459278
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brougham, D., & Haar, J. (2018). Smart technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and algorithms (STARA): Employees’ perceptions of our future workplace. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(2), 239-257. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.55
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cameron, L. D. (2022). “Making Out” while driving: Relational and efficiency games in the gig economy. Organization Science, 33(1), 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1547
    [Google Scholar]
  8. De Jonge, J., & Dormann, C. (2006). Stressors, resources, and strain at work: A longitudinal test of the triple-match principle. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1359-1374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.19.1.12
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Huang, G. H., Niu, X., Lee, C., & Ashford, S. J. (2012). Differentiating cognitive and affective job insecurity: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 752-769. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1815
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative science quarterly, 285-308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lennon, M. C. (1994). Women, work, and well-being: The importance of work conditions. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 235-247. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137278
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The Interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483-496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Maslowski, R. (2020). Onderwijs. In:De sociale staat van Nederland: 2020. https://digitaal.scp.nl/ssn2020/onderwijs
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), 845-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.845
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Gorgievski, M. J., Peeters, P, Rietzschel, E. F. & Bipp, T. (2016). Betrouwbaarheid en validiteit van de Nederlandse vertaling van de Work Design Questionnaire. Gedrag en Organisatie, 29(3), 273-301. https://doi.org/10.5117/2016.029.003.004
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Parent-Rocheleau, X., & Parker, S. K. (2021). Algorithms as work designers: How algorithmic management influences the design of jobs. Human Resource Management Review, 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100838
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Peeters, M. C., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1995). Social interactions and feelings of inferiority: among correctional officers: A daily event-recording approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(12), 1073-1089. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb00618
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Pesole, A., Brancati, U., Fernández-Macías, E., Biagi, F., & Gonzalez Vazquez, I. (2018). Platform workers in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/742789
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Rosenblat, A., & Stark, L. (2016). Algorithmic labor and information asymmetries: A case study of Uber’s drivers. International Journal of Communication, 10, 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2686227
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Rosin, A. (2022). Towards a European Employment Status: The EU Proposal for a Directive on Improving Working Conditions in Platform Work. Industrial Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac011
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rözer, J., Torre, A. V. D., & Roeters, A. (2021). Factsheet platformisering en de kwaliteit van werk. SCP.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Scharp, Y. S., Bakker, A. B., & Breevaart, K. (2022). Playful work design and employee work engagement: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 134, 103693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103693
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Scharp, Y. S., Bakker, A. B., Breevaart, K., Kruup, K., & Uusberg, A. (2021). Playful work design: Conceptualization, measurement, and validity. Human Relations, 00187267211070996. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070996
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Scharp, Y. S., Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Using playful work design to deal with hindrance job demands: A quantitative diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(3), 175-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000277
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Scharp, Y. S., Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., & van der Linden, D. (2019). Daily playful work design: A trait activation perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103850
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Scharp, Y. S., Ter Hoeven, C., Bakker, A. B., Gorgievski, M. J., den Dulk, L., & Koster, F. (2022). De impact van platformwerk in Nederland: Algemene rapportage over platformwerk. Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam. https://www.eur.nl/essb/nieuws/derealiteit-van-platformwerkers-baanonzekerheid-uitputting-en-weinig-bevlogenheid
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In A. B.Bakker & M. P.Leiter (Reds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 10-24). Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, A. P. (1996). Professional burnout. In M. J.Schabracq, J. A. M.Winnubst, & C. L.Cooper (Reds.), Handbook of work and health psychology (pp. 311-346). Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 287-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110369842
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Spreitzer, G. M., Cameron, L., & Garrett, L. (2017). Alternative work arrangements: Two images of the new world of work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 473-499. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113332
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., Prins, J., Van der Laken, P. A., & Dijkstra, L. (2015). QEEW2. 0: 42 short scales for survey research on work, well-being and performance. SKB.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: Autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33, 56-75. https://doi-org.eur.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2022.4.008.SCHA
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVA2022.4.008.SCHA
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error