By Steven Mowforth | Consultant | Coach & Trainer
There is growing attention to the quality of work in the UK (and elsewhere), as highlighted by the CIPD (2023) for instance. This article contrasts my interpretation of two books examining the good work agenda and considers recent UK government policy and prospective legislation, along with the impact of technology, on the quality of work.
Better Work: The Impact of Automation, Flexibilization and Intensification of Work (Kremer, Went & Engbersen, 2021), focuses on the Netherlands, identifying broad trends shaping job quality and the conditions necessary for work to be good and drawing on insights from the social sciences.
Mapping Good Work: The Quality of Working Life Across the Occupational Structure (Williams, Zhou & Zou, 2020) has a more quantitative and sociological focus in a UK context, reviewing the occupational structure and using ‘occupation’ as its primary unit of analysis and fundamental framework.
CONCEPTUALISING GOOD WORK
While there is no internationally agreed definition of good work there appears to be a broad consensus around its dimensions (Dobbins, 2022). The two books align broadly over the constituent elements of good work but have differing approaches. Better Work considers three macro-level trends affecting work quality (negatively and positively) – automation, flexibilization, and work intensification – identifying good work by the presence of certain core conditions.
Contrastingly, Mapping Good Work focuses on the multidimensional composition of good work, emphasising intrinsic qualities beyond pay and conditions and considers wellbeing to be a subjective outcome of job quality, rather than a job feature per se.
BETTER WORK…
The book views the development of good work as a societal mission. Its intention is to formulate policy recommendations for how the Dutch government and other stakeholders can promote and expand better work.
Three Conditions
The book identifies three core conditions for individuals to experience good work: control over income (for instance, security of employment and access to professional development); control over work (including a degree of autonomy and camaraderie); and control in life (for example, work life balance and flexibility). If the work meets those conditions, it is considered to be ‘good work’.
Decline in Work Quality
Relating to the three trends (automation, flexibilization and intensification), the book considers a range of factors contributing to the decline in work quality. Some individuals will benefit from the comparative flexibility afforded by temporary and part-time work and the ‘gig economy’, increasing their sense of control over work and contributing to a sense of control in life – especially if they can find ways to manage various restrictions. The reality for many people, however, is that they feel controlled by the systems that supply or administer their work: consider electronic monitoring of self-employed delivery drivers or strict time controls on warehouse operatives or highly regulated roles in the public sector. The book considers other contributors to the decline of work quality, such as uneven distribution, power imbalance, cost of emotional labour, limited professional development opportunities, and erosion of camaraderie.
Creating Better Work
The book makes recommendations to governments and other stakeholders for the promotion of better work. These centre around increasing the three control factors outlined above: income, work and life. In particular, it highlights employer and government policies, for instance: access to professional development; facilitating camaraderie and fostering a sense of belonging in work situations; legislation around workers’ rights; and enhancing workers’ sense of work autonomy. It suggests that these areas of improvement are applicable to countries beyond the Netherlands.
MAPPING GOOD WORK…
Unit of Analysis
Selecting ‘occupation’ as its primary unit of analysis, the book uses various sources of occupational data in proposing a methodology to create a hierarchical index of good work to: “score all jobs according to a common metric” (Williams, Zhou & Zou, 2020, p.51). It opts against relative pay levels alone as a measure of job satisfaction in favour of a multidimensional weighted index, since this approach can facilitate mapping the occupational hierarchy and exploring occupational and class disparities. Similarly to Better Work, the authors conclude with policy recommendations.
Nine Key Dimensions
The authors liken the design of their good work index to the inflation measure – based on a weighted basket of goods and services. Drawing on social science research they begin by identifying nine key dimensions approximating to good work: hourly pay, job security, continuous learning, skill-use, task variety, task discretion, job demands, work time control, and participation opportunities. They use datasets from the SES (Skills and Employment Survey) – originating in workers’ own evaluations – to establish a weighting for each of the dimensions, which they use to calculate weighted rankings for a list of occupations.
Occupation and Socio-Economic Class
The book emphasises the empirical relationship between occupation and socio-economic class. It uses the NS-SEC (National Statistics Socio Economic Classification) to examine good work across occupational classes. It finds that, in general, higher GWI (Good Work Index) scores were associated with managerial and professional occupations, while routine and manual occupations tended to have the lowest scores.
The book proposes that there is scope for: “a national index of job quality along the lines of [its] GWI” (Williams, Zhou & Zou 2020, p.124). My independent enquiry indicated that the book’s authors went on to contribute to the writing of the 2020 CIPD Good Work Index (Williams et al., 2020). My reading is that the CIPD scale differs in some aspects from the book’s methodological approach.
IMPACT OF AI AND AUTOMATION ON WORK QUALITY
The authors of Better Work question whether robots in the workplace will disempower humans or lead to more interesting tasks, asserting that human agency can influence these outcomes. While automation, as seen with order pickers and truck drivers, can result in increased workload, reduced enjoyment, minimal social interaction, and tight performance monitoring, it can also facilitate labour market inclusivity and professional knowledge acquisition.
They point to research published in 2018 suggesting that AI (artificial intelligence) has potential to rehumanise work. Ultimately, the impact of robots and AI on work quality is influenced by policy decisions made by employers and governments, with disproportionate effects on different groups.
Mapping Good Work adopts a “nuanced upgrading” perspective of technology’s impact on work quality. My reading is that, while pay alone shows polarisation (routine middle paying jobs get automated, non-routine high/low-paying occupations expand), a multidimensional ‘good work’ definition – including development and fulfilment – reveals general occupational upgrading across the structure. Within this upgraded occupational structure, however, intrinsic job quality deteriorates, becoming more routine, controlled, and intense due to technology. By mapping automation probability against occupational quality – including the GWI – the authors find lowest quality occupations have the highest automation potential. Displaced workers’ transition to higher-quality roles is uncertain and lifelong education or retraining services are crucial for occupational mobility.
The final report of the UK Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing is the culmination of a three-year project. It proposes “a new model of human-centred automation” (Institute for the Future of Work, 2025, p.2). It includes exploration of how technologies influence workers’ experience of their jobs. While digital ICTs (information and communication technologies) generally enhance quality of working life they could negatively impact wellbeing for some through an ‘always on’ culture. However, newer technologies were found generally to diminish life quality. Also, these more recent technologies tended to be associated with perceptions around risk of job loss, and certain demographics had lesser capability to cope with technological disruption. The report finds both positive impacts, regarding things like flexibility and improved decision making, and negative impacts, for example routinisation and feelings of surveillance. It concludes that outcomes can be shaped by the choices of governments, businesses, and individuals.
UK RESEARCH, POLICY & PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION
Good Work: The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017) was commissioned in 2016 by then prime minister, Theresa May. It highlights six (QuInnE) key dimensions approximating to good work, which I see as broadly aligning across those described in the two books and in the CIPD 2020 Good Work Index (Williams et al., 2020), referred to above. The report recognises the importance of quality work for workers, employers and the economy. It acknowledges recent changes to the economy impacting on job quality, particularly the role of technology and the significance of new business models. The Taylor Review has served to inform government policy, for instance the Good Work Plan (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017) and the Employment Rights Bill 2024-25 (Department for Business and Trade, 2024a).
As part of the UK Government’s plan to Make Work Pay, the Employment Rights Bill 2024-25 addresses some of the work quality issues considered in the two books. According to the Department for Business and Trade (2024b, p.3): “Many policy changes in the bill will target the issues identified by the independent Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices”.
The same document indicates that the bill aims to provide security and predictability for workers, strengthen rights from day one, help balance work and personal responsibilities, raise business protections to discourage competitive undercutting (low pay, standards and job security), ensure equality and inclusion, improve industrial relations, enforce employment rights, boost workplace fairness, and enhance transparency and standards in public procurement. As of mid-July 2025, the bill is scheduled to be at the report stage in the House of Lords (UK Parliament, 2025). Relatedly, the proposed Equality (Race and Disability) Bill promises to enhance equal pay rights.
FINALLY
I found both Better Work and Mapping Good Work to be instructional, providing useful background knowledge for my work as an employability professional and it was interesting that they addressed a similar set of good work dimensions.
Along with issue 10 of this journal, the two books proved to be useful background for exploring UK research, policies and legislation, and the influence of technology on work quality.
REFERENCES
CIPD (2023) Urgent action needed on UK job quality as new research suggests people are less engaged, less fulfilled and more stressed in their working life, 13 June [press release]. Available at: https://www. cipd.org/en/about/press-releases/good-work-index-job-quality-new-research (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
Department for business and Trade (2024a) Employment Rights Bill: factsheets. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/employment-rights-bill-factsheets (Accessed 15 August 2025).
Department for Business and Trade (2024b) Employment Rights Bill: Economic analysis and summary impact assessment. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/employment-rights-bill-impact assessments (Accessed:15 August 2025).
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2017) Good Work: The Taylor review of modern working practices. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor review-of-modern-working-practices (Accessed: 14 August 2025).
Dobbins, T. (2022) Good Work: policy and research on the quality of work in the UK. House of Commons Library. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9561 (Accessed: 10 June 2025).
Institute for the Future of Work (2025). Final Report of the Pissarides Review into the Future of Work and Wellbeing. London: Institute for the Future of Work. Available at: https://www.ifow.org/publications/ the-final-report-of-the-pissarides-review (Accessed 15 August 20125).
Kremer, M., Went, R. and Engbersen, G. (2021) Better Work: The Impact of Automation, Flexibilization and Intensification of Work. Switzerland: Springer.
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2018) Good Work Plan. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-plan (Accessed: 26 June 2025).
UK Parliament (2025) Parliamentary Bills ‘Employment Rights Bill’. Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3737 (Accessed: 15 August 2025).
Williams, M., Zhou, Y., and Zou, M. (2020) Mapping Good Work: The Quality of Working Life Across the Occupational Structure. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Williams, M., Zhou, Y., Zou, M. and Gifford, J. (2020) CIPD Good Work Index 2020: UK Working Lives Survey. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Available at: https://www.cipd. org/uk/knowledge/reports/goodwork/#download-previous-cipd-good-work-index-reports [2020 section] (Accessed: 6 June 2025).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
STEVEN MOWFORTH | Consultant | Coach & Trainer
Steve has worked in the UK Higher Education CEIAG (Careers Education, Information, Advice and Guidance) sector for over twenty years.
At the time of writing, he was employed as Knowledge & Diversity Specialist at the Coventry University Talent Team. He now works freelance offering consultancy, coaching and training, with a specialisation in navigating the metacrisis. Steve is available for conferences and public speaking.