Content uploaded by Daniel Wheatley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel Wheatley on Jun 20, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
SURVEY REPORT | June 2022
CIPD Good Work
Index 2022
UK Working Lives Survey
The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people
development. The registered charity champions better work
and working lives and has been setting the benchmark for
excellence in people and organisation development for
more than 100 years. It has more than 160,000 members
across the world, provides thought leadership through
independent research on the world of work, and oers
professional training and accreditation for those working in
HR and learning and development.
1
CIPD Good Work Index 2022: survey
report
Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2 The CIPD Good Work Index 2022 ............................................................................................... 7
3 The ‘great rethink’ ......................................................................................................................... 14
4 Flexible and hybrid working ...................................................................................................... 28
5 Career progression and social mobility ................................................................................. 42
6 Relationships at work and the quality of management ...................................................... 51
7 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 64
8 References ...................................................................................................................................... 70
Acknowledgements
This report was written by Dr Dan Wheatley, University of Birmingham, on behalf of the
CIPD.
Publication information
When citing this document, please use the following citation:
Wheatley, D. (2022) CIPD Good Work Index 2022: survey report. London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
1 Introduction
The CIPD Good Work Index is an annual benchmark of good work or job quality in
the UK. It measures a wide range of aspects of job quality, including employment
essentials, such as contractual arrangements, the day-to-day realities of work as
experienced by workers themselves, and the impacts on people’s health and
wellbeing.
This survey report is based on the fifth annual UK Working Lives survey conducted
in 2022, which draws on a representative sample of UK workers. The CIPD Good
Work Index measures a wide range of aspects of job quality, including employment
essentials, such as pay and contracts, the day-to-day realities of work as
experienced by workers themselves, and the impacts on people’s health and
wellbeing.
2
This report is also accompanied by appendices of data tables and methods. These
resources and past reports covering the data collected in previous rounds of the
survey can be found at cipd.co.uk/goodwork.
What is good work?
The CIPD’s purpose is to champion better work and working lives by improving
practices in people and organisation development for the benefit of individuals, the
economy, and society. The CIPD believes that good work is fundamental to
individual wellbeing, supports a strong, fair society, and creates motivated workers,
productive organisations and a strong economy.
The CIPD’s definition is:
• Good work is fairly rewarded.
• Good work gives people the means to securely make a living.
• Good work gives opportunities to develop skills and a career and gives a
sense of fulfilment.
• Good work provides a supportive environment with constructive relationships.
• Good work allows for work–life balance.
• Good work is physically and mentally healthy for people.
• Good work gives people the voice and choice they need to shape their
working lives.
• Good work should be accessible to all.
• Good work is affected by a range of factors, including HR practices, the
quality of people management and by workers themselves.
Read more about our perspective on good work at the CIPD’s viewpoint on job
quality.
Employers need to develop an effective people strategy across the following areas:
• values, culture and leadership
• workforce planning and organisational development
• employment relations
• people analytics and reporting.
Background to the CIPD Good Work Index
Measuring good work or job quality is increasingly acknowledged in both policy and
organisational spheres as being centrally important to assessing contemporary work
and the employment relationship, understanding their impact on lives and
productivity, and making sure that improvements can be made where possible.
In the UK context, the 2017 Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices identified
several key concerns of relevance to job quality in the modern labour market. In the
same year, the CIPD embarked on a project to review the research on job quality
and good work and to develop a tool to measure the main dimensions of job quality.
3
To this end, it commissioned two reviews: first, from the perspectives of workers, on
what constitutes good or poor job quality and what the opportunities and pitfalls are
in measuring it; and second, on the capacity workers have to influence their job
quality and the shifting balance of power between employers and workers. This
survey is based on this body of work and further consultation with academics, HR
experts and government officials. The Measuring Job Quality Working Group, of
which the CIPD was a member, adopted the CIPD’s seven dimensions of good work
and recommended approximate indicators to them – very similar or identical to the
ones reported.
The CIPD Good Work Index provides a key indicator of the current state of work in
the UK, giving insight and reference points for those involved in research, policy and
practice relating to good work. More specifically, it presents a regular,
comprehensive and broadly representative survey of workers across job types,
occupations and sectors, complementing other surveys of workers that are less
frequent (for example, the UK Skills and Employment Survey) or contain less detail
on job quality and good work (for example, the Labour Force Survey).
Seven dimensions of good work
The CIPD Good Work Index captures data on seven dimensions of good work,
summarised in Table 1. The index includes both objective and subjective measures.
Objective measures capture aspects that in principle should be unbiased: for
example, data on contract type and union membership.
Subjective measures reflect an opinion, preference or feeling, for example, how
meaningful people find their work, the quality of relationships at work, and measures
of satisfaction with job or life.
Further, both aspects of good work that are universal (what is good for one person
will be good for anyone) and aspects that are relative (what’s good for one person
may not be for good another) are explored. For example, no one would contest that
more pay is better than less pay, but part-time work and irregular hours are far less
clear as they are likely to vary with one’s personal circumstances. The same part-
time job may be a poor deal for someone who is trying to feed a family or tie down
their first mortgage, yet ideal for a student who cannot commit full-time, or an older
worker who has paid off their mortgage and wants to wind down a little. To give a full
view of working life, the CIPD Good Work Index describes both universal and relative
aspects of job quality and relies on both objective and subjective measures.
Table 1: Dimensions of good work
Dimension
Areas included
1 Pay and benefits
Subjective feelings regarding pay, employer
pension contributions, and other employee
benefits
2 Contracts
Contract type, underemployment, and job
security
4
3 Work–life balance
Overwork, commuting time, how much work
encroaches on personal life and vice versa,
and HR provision for flexible working
4 Job design and the nature of
work
Workload or work intensity, autonomy or how
empowered people are in their jobs, how well
resourced they are to carry out their work, job
complexity and how well this matches the
person’s skills and qualifications, how
meaningful people find their work, and
development opportunities provided
5 Relationships at work
Social support and cohesion, the quality of
relationships at work, psychological safety,
and the quality of people management
6 Employee voice
Channels and opportunities for feeding views
to one’s employer and managers’ openness to
employee views
7 Health and wellbeing
Positive and negative impacts of work on
physical and mental health, often considered
as an outcome of job quality
In 2022, the UK Working Lives survey had more limited coverage of pay and
benefits. As a result, only the subjective pay index can be calculated for the 2022
CIPD Good Work Index. Subjective pay is a useful measure of pay that refers to our
feelings about the pay received for our work and its impact on our financial status
(Black et al 2017). To enable consistent reporting and comparison, the subjective
pay index has been calculated for 2022 and for previous years of the survey. As
such, the subjective pay index is referred to in this report rather than the full pay and
benefits index.
A set of seven indices are calculated from the survey data, each one representing
each of the seven good work dimensions. These indices in turn are derived from a
set of 18 sub-indices, which, in turn, are derived from many survey items (detailed in
Appendix 2 of 2021's Good Work Index report). The seven good work indices are
used in this report to explore patterns of change over time and to elaborate on
relationships identified.
UK Working Lives survey design
The 2022 UK Working Lives (UKWL) survey was conducted in January and February
2022 and provides a total sample of 6,262 (unweighted figure) workers. To make the
samples representative of the UK as a whole, quotas are used to target the sample,
and subsequent weights based on ONS figures are applied to the dataset. The
sample is representative of the UK workforce in: the intersection of gender by full- or
part-time work status; organisation size within sector; and industry.
A subsample of approximately 1,000 of the 2019 respondents have since been re-
surveyed in 2020, 2021 and 2022, allowing us to observe how the quality of work
evolves within jobs.
5
Focus and structure of the 2022 report
The report begins with analysis of the 2022 CIPD Good Work Index, including
comparison of 2022 job quality dimensions with previous years. More detailed
analysis is conducted on the work–life balance index and health and wellbeing index
based on the identified trends from the analysis.
The focus of the 2022 report then differs somewhat from previous years in that the
report sections focus on special themes of investigation. This year the report has
four themes, as follows:
• the great rethink /resignation
• hybrid working
• career progression and social mobility
• relationships and the quality of management.
The final section draws together conclusions and identifies areas for future research.
Analysis by occupation in the 2022 report
The analysis in the 2022 CIPD Good Work Index report combines the use of
Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) major groups alongside the National
Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) occupational class indicators that
have been used in previous years. Both measures are used as they offer differing
insights, with the prior providing more of a focus on the types and skill levels of jobs,
and the latter usefully incorporating employment status and size of organisation, thus
enabling us to separate small employers and own-accounts from large employers
and other managerial jobs.
Summary of Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) major groups
Managers, directors and
senior officials
Require high levels of skill and experience and
involve planning, directing and coordinating, in roles
such as chief executives, elected senior officials,
and financial managers.
Professional occupations
Require high levels of skill and knowledge and
include roles such as legal professionals, architects,
teaching professionals, therapists and nurses.
Associate professional and
technical occupations
Involve operational responsibility and provision of
technical support and include roles such as IT
technicians, paramedics and pharmaceutical
technicians.
Administrative and clerical
occupations
Comprise jobs with administrative, clerical and
secretarial duties and includes administrators in
government, finance and records.
Skilled trades
Involve complex physical duties and include
occupations in construction, electrical trades, and
skilled agricultural trades such as horticulturists.
6
Caring, leisure and other
occupations
Involve provision of services to customers, including
caring personal services, hairdressers, and cleaning
managers.
Sales and customer service
occupations
Include occupations involving sales of goods and
services, such as sales assistants, retail cashiers
and sales supervisors.
Process, plant and machine
operatives
Include roles involving operation of industrial
machinery, assembling products, and occupations
involving driving and transportation.
Elementary occupations
Comprise routine occupations such as labourers,
packers, cleaners and security.
National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC) occupational class
indicators
Higher managerial and
professional
Managerial occupations of a more strategic level,
often in large organisations, more traditional
professional occupations (including freelancers),
and large employers (>25 employees), for example,
business development managers, chartered
accountants, programmers and software
development professionals.
Lower managerial and
professional
Employees in managerial occupations at a less
strategic level, often in smaller organisations, newer
professional occupations (including freelancers and
smaller employers (<25 employees), such as sales
executives and finance and investment analysts
and advisers.
Intermediate occupations
Employees in routine clerical and office support
occupations, some higher-level supervisory
technical occupations, and some associate
professional occupations, including administrative
and clerical roles.
Small employers and own-
accounts
Small employers (<25 employees) in any kind of
occupation and sole traders with no employees
working in non-professional occupations.
Lower supervisory and
technical
Employees with supervisory status in routine and
manual occupations, but not managers involving
more strategic-level duties, as well as some
technical occupations, including sales and retail
supervisors, electricians and electrical fitters, and
metal workers.
Semi-routine occupations
Employees in routine and manual occupations with
more opportunities for prospective benefits and
advancement than those in routine occupations,
including sales and retail assistants and care
workers.
7
Routine occupations
Employees in routine and manual occupations with
limited opportunities for prospective benefits and
advancement, such as taxi drivers.
2 The CIPD Good Work Index 2022
In this section we consider the scores for the seven dimensions of the CIPD Good
Work Index, offering comparison with previous survey years and delving deeper to
explore differences across sub-groups of the survey sample.
The CIPD Good Work Index has been calculated for 2022 and is summarised in
Figure 1 alongside mean scores for the previous three years – 2019, 2020 and 2021
– with the subjective pay index replacing the pay and benefits index for all years, as
already noted. Exploring the mean scores, we find a continued level of stability
overall across the seven dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index when we
compare 2022 with previous years. That said, we do find differences in the overall
means of some of the job quality dimensions that require further investigation,
including the work–life balance index and health and wellbeing index. In both cases
there appears to be an increase in mean scores in 2021 and 2022 compared with
the earlier years of the survey.
Subjective
Pay Index
Contracts
Index
Job Design
Index
Work –life
Balance Index
Relationships
Index
Employee Voice
Index
Health and
Wellbeing
Index
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 1: Overall Good Work Index mean scores, 2019–22
201 9 mean 2021 mean 2022 mean2020 mean
0.52
0.53
0.55
0.53
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.59
0.59
0.61
0.60
0.54
0.53
0.71
0.57
0.56
0.71
0.72
0.71
0.29
0.33
0.33
0.31
0.56
0.49
0.57
0.57
8
Exploring the indexes
While many of the job quality dimensions appear relatively stable on aggregate year-
on-year, we do find differences in the overall means of the CIPD Good Work Index
2022 across different sub-groups of the survey sample. We find that males tend to
report higher levels of satisfaction with pay, reflected in higher mean scores (male =
0.54, female = 0.51) of the subjective pay index. Male workers also have higher
health and wellbeing index scores (0.59) compared with female workers (0.55);
however, the opposite is found for the relationships index (male = 0.71, female =
0.72).
Differences by age evidence the impact of the stage in the life course on our working
lives. Younger workers report lower scores in the contracts index (0.78), likely
impacted by their greater propensity to be engaged in more insecure flexible forms of
employment. Meanwhile, workers in the 34–45 age group report the lowest scores in
the work–life balance index (0.54), consistent with the impacts of the presence of
young children in limiting leisure time and adding complexity to management of work
and life (Hjálmsdóttir and Bjarnadóttir 2021). Workers in this age group are also
more likely to be mid-career in roles that may involve middle-level management and
similar responsibilities, shown in previous studies to face intense working routines
that negatively impact work–life balance (Wheatley and Gifford 2019). We also note
differences in the health and wellbeing index across age groups, as younger workers
have lower scores. The drivers of these differences are explored in more detail later
in this section.
Figure 2 summarises the mean scores for each of the seven job quality indexes
using Standard Occupational Classification (SOC20) major occupation groups. We
find that both the job design index and relationships index evidence a clear pattern of
higher mean scores in more highly skilled occupations, suggesting that these
elements of job quality, at least, are more common in managerial, professional and
associate professional occupations, and this is consistent with findings in existing
research (Wheatley 2021).
Scores for the contracts, work–life balance and health and wellbeing indexes do not
vary in the same way in line with occupational hierarchy. We do, though, find a
series of further key differences across occupations. We find that the subjective pay
index, contracts index, and work–life balance index scores are notably lower among
workers in caring, leisure and other service occupations. The scores in this case
could be indicative of difficult working conditions in this sector that have been
evidenced in prior research, and that have been exacerbated in recent years since
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Ravalier et al 2019; McFadden et al 2021).
9
Workers in skilled trades occupations tend to score lower on the employee voice
index, as do process, plant and machine operatives and those in elementary
occupations. The latter two occupation groups score low in most indexes,
emphasising the lower job quality encountered in these occupations.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Turning to occupational class provides us with further insights into differences in job
quality (see Figure 3). We find, in particular, that small employers and own-accounts
stand out from other occupational classes in their mean scores, with higher scores in
the subjective pay index, work–life balance index, job design index and health and
wellbeing index.
The score for subjective pay provides an interesting result, as analysis of the UKWL
in previous years using the full pay and benefits index incorporating objective pay
measures generated a lower overall mean score. This finding suggests that while
these workers may be paid less in absolute terms, they do self-report relatively
higher levels of satisfaction with pay than other occupational classes, perhaps
influenced by the intrinsic job qualities, work–life balance and wellbeing benefits that
appear to be present in these roles. Small employers and own-accounts score lower,
however, in the contracts index and in particular the employee voice index, as we
might expect, given the often less secure nature of these jobs and the lack of access
to voice channels when compared with individuals working for an employer.
Managers, directors and senior ocials Professi onal occ upati ons
Associ ate p rof essional occup ations Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades occupations Car ing, leisure and other serviceoc cup ations
Sales and customer servic e occup ations Process, p lant and m ac hineoperatives
Elem entary occ up at ions
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 2: CIPD Good Work Index, mean scores by SOC20 ma jor occupation g roup, 2022
Subjective
pay
Contracts Work–life
balance
Job design Relationships Em ployee
voice
Health and
Wellbeing
10
Aside from the self-employed we find a consistent pattern of job quality being higher
among higher-level occupations – higher managerial and professional and lower
managerial and professional – and being generally lower in lower-level occupations.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
In focus: work–life balance index
The work–life balance index incorporates measures of achieved work–life balance –
measures that take account of the impact of paid work on our lives and vice versa. It
also includes the presence of both formal and informal flexible working
arrangements, and levels of overwork.
We find an increase in mean scores for the work–life balance index in 2021 and to a
lesser extent in 2022 when compared with 2019 and 2020. Given the wider context
of the growth in remote and hybrid working patterns in response to the global
COVID-19 pandemic (ILO 2020; Milasi et al 2020), these differences are of particular
interest. However, while the overall mean scores year-on-year only show an
increase, it is worth noting that within this average we find more notable change, and
differential experiences, across groups of workers.
We find an interesting change when we consider the mean scores for the work–life
balance index by sex. Figure 4 shows that female workers scored higher on the
work–life balance index in both 2019 and 2020. However, in the 2021 survey round
this difference had diminished, and in 2022 they actually score marginally lower. This
Higher managerial and professional Lower managerial and professional
Interm ediate occ up at ions Small em p loyers and own ac counts
Lower supervisory and techni cal Sem i-routine occupations Routi ne occup ations
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 3: CIPD Good Work Index, mean scores by occupation a l cla ss, 2022
Subjective
pay
Contracts Work–life
balance
Job design Relationships Em ployee
voice
Health and
Wellbeing
11
could be a quirk of the UKWL sample; however, this finding is consistent with the
purported impacts of the pandemic in creating more a challenging household–work
interface, which has had particular impacts on the working lives of female workers
(Chung et al 2021; Fares et al 2021). We do not, though, find statistically significant
differences within the UKWL sample in the mean scores for the work–life balance
index when we compare those workers who report the presence of caring
responsibilities with those who do not.
Differences by occupation group are summarised in Figure 5. Across occupations we
observe that work–life balance increased substantially in 2021 among most, but
importantly not all, occupation groups. Increases in work–life balance were
particularly noteworthy in managerial, professional, associate professional, and
skilled trades occupations. In 2022 we then see a reduction in work–life balance
scores, with some remaining higher than pre-2021 levels, specifically in higher
skilled occupations, and others returning to pre-2021 levels, including skilled trades
occupations.
Also, key to draw out here is that work–life balance has seen an overall decrease
during this period in some occupations. Caring, leisure and other service
occupations, sales and customer service occupations, process, plant and machine
operatives, and elementary occupations have all seen reductions in work–life
balance scores, with the overall change particularly large among elementary
occupations.
When we disaggregate by NS-SEC occupational class, we observe a similar pattern:
with the highest mean scores for work–life balance in 2021, with a marginal overall
increase in mean scores during this period for the work–life balance index among
higher managerial and professional, lower managerial and professional, intermediate
0.51
0.53
0.52
0.55
0.54
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.54 0.54
0.55
0.58 0.58
0.56 0.56
2019 2021 20222020
Figu re 4: Work–life balance ind ex by sex, 2019 –2022
Fem al e
12
occupations, and small employers and own-accounts, but an overall reduction
among lower supervisory and technical, semi-routine occupations, and routine
occupations. We also recognise the high mean scores for the work–life balance
index among small employers and own-accounts, as already outlined in reference to
Figure 3. Overall, the findings are in line with those of the SOC20 major occupation
groups and highlight an occupational-level split in work–life balance, with higher-level
occupations enjoying more work–life balance and lower-level occupations
experiencing lesser work–life balance.
Aligning with these findings, key worker status is also relevant to realised levels of
work–life balance. Key workers are defined here according to the UK government
definition, which incorporates health and social care, education and childcare, key
public services, local and national government, food and other necessary goods,
public safety and national security, transport and utilities, communication, and
financial services. We find that respondents classed as a key worker have lower
mean scores in the work–life balance index of 0.53 compared with 0.59 for non-key
workers. While we find lower mean scores for key workers across all sub-indexes of
the work–life balance index, the greatest degree of difference is found in the HR
practices sub-index, where the mean score for key workers (0.48) is considerably
lower than that of non-key workers (0.62), evidencing lesser access and use of
formal and informal flexible working arrangements.
In focus: health and wellbeing index
The health and wellbeing index is constructed using measures of both physical and
mental health. It incorporates subjective measures of how work affects physical and
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 5: Work–life balance ind ex by SOC20 major occupation g roup, 2019–22
2019 2021 20222020
0.51
0.53
0.56
0.54
0.54
0.53
0.57
0.56
0.54
0.55
0.59
0.58
0.55
0.57
0.60
0.58
0.56
0.56
0.60
0.56
0.53
0.53
0.56
0.52
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.55
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.51
0.57
0.57
0.55
0.52
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o n s
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o n s
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o n s
Ca ri n g, leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o n s
Sales and
custo me r
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o n s
Pro ce s s, pla nt
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o n s
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o n s
13
mental health as well as measures of health conditions, levels of energy and
exhaustion, whether workers feel miserable, and work-related stress.
We identify considerable differences across sub-groups of the UK Working Lives
survey in the scores for the health and wellbeing index. Differences are identified by
sex, as already noted, with higher scores among male workers, and these
differences are found to be fairly consistent in both physical and mental health sub-
indexes. Broad evidence on wellbeing by sex is inconclusive, as existing studies
have found conflicting evidence, with some finding higher levels of wellbeing among
men and other studies finding that women report higher levels of wellbeing (Batz-
Barbarich et al 2018). As the UKWL sample is of working women, this may explain
the lower mean scores among women in the survey, as evidence has highlighted the
impact on wellbeing of challenges faced by working women in combining paid work
with unpaid household work, including caring (Wheatley et al 2018).
Differences by age are particularly noteworthy and are summarised in Figure 6.
Younger workers have lower scores in the health and wellbeing index overall. This is
driven, though, by quite stark differences in the scores for the mental health sub-
index. Workers aged 18–24 (0.53) and 25–34 (0.54), in particular, have lower scores
in respect of their mental health than those of workers in older age groups.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
When we look across the health and wellbeing index scores by occupation, we find
reductions in 2020 and 2021 from 2019 levels across most occupations, with some
recovery recorded in 2022, although differences are relatively marginal in most
cases (see Figure 7). We also note that differences between broad occupation
groups are relatively small for the most part, with sales and customer service and
Physical Health sub-ind ex Ment al Healt h sub-index Health and W el lbeing Ind ex
20
10
30
40
60
50
70
80
0.54 0.53 0.54 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.56 0.55 0.55
0.60 0.57 0.55
064
0.59 0.58
0.74
0.66
18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65+
0
Figu re 6: Health and Wellbeing I nd ex by age group, 2022
14
elementary occupations with lower mean scores in 2022, but with a degree of
volatility in the prior years of the survey. When we consider NS-SEC occupational
class, we similarly find no distinct changes in mean scores of the health and
wellbeing index over the period. We do observe differences across occupational
class, with the highest mean score among small employers and own-accounts (0.62)
and the lowest among semi-routine occupations (0.54).
Consistent with the findings from the 2021 CIPD Good Work Index, we also observe
lower mean scores among key workers (0.55) for the health and wellbeing index
compared with non-key workers (0.59). These mean scores are driven by lower
scores in both the physical health sub-index (0.52 for key workers, 0.56 for non-key
workers) and mental health sub-index (0.57 for key workers, 0.60 for non-key
workers).
3 The ‘great rethink’
Key findings
• The ‘great rethink’ is an alternative alias for the ‘great resignation’, which
describes the reported exit and/or migration of people in the labour market,
and the changing attitudes and expectations of workers. We find some
evidence to support the overall argued movement of workers from job to job.
However, we also find that, consistent with other sources, this change
appears to be more of a delayed movement of labour, and levels of job moves
in the 2022 survey are returning to pre-pandemic levels recorded in the 2019
survey.
• Around half of workers reporting a recent job change have done so into a
higher-paying job (53%).
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 7: Health and Wellbeing Ind ex by SOC20 Ma jor Occupation G roup, 2019–22
2019 2021 20222020
0.60
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.56
0.56
0.58
0.60
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.54
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.54
0.56
0.54
0.58
0.58
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.56
0.58
0.55
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o ns
Ca ri ng , leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Sales and
cus to mer
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Pro ce s s, plant
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o ns
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o ns
15
• Better pay is highly correlated with occupational level with recent job changes
delivering higher pay among managers, directors and senior officials (73%),
professional occupations (62%) and associate professional occupations
(60%) compared with around one in three workers in caring, leisure and other
service occupations, sales and customer service occupations, process, plant
and machine operatives, and elementary occupations.
• Most workers reporting a job move in the last 12 months report their new jobs
as offering greater levels of fulfilment, with this reported by around three in
five workers aged 18–54 (see figure 11).
• Around half of workers (48%) who have moved jobs in the last 12 months
report more work–life balance in their new role. Work–life balance
improvements are reported most among workers aged 65 and over (62%),
likely reflecting movements out of career employment and/or partial
retirement. At the other end of the age spectrum, only around one in five
(22%) workers aged 18–24 report work–life balance benefits.
• Age is a standout factor in intention to leave, but with peaks at either end of
the age spectrum. A substantial portion of workers in the 18–24 bracket (44%)
and those aged 65+ (32%) report it likely or very likely that they will voluntarily
quit their job in the next 12 months, with the latter likely reflecting plans
around retirement.
• The prospect of better pay and benefits elsewhere appears to be a primary
driver of intention to quit their job, selected by over a third (34%) of those who
reported that it is likely or very likely they will quit their job in the next 12
months. The pursuit of increased job satisfaction (26%) and better work–life
balance (23%) appear also to be highly relevant in driving intention to leave.
These findings are indicative of both a focus on remuneration, and of the
pursuit of different pathways to career success in the form of psychological
success and balance.
• Measures of meaningfulness of work have a statistically significant negative
correlation with likelihood of voluntarily quitting their job, evidencing that
meaningfulness has an important relationship with relative intention to leave.
• Workers in sales and customer service occupations (38%) and elementary
occupations (40%) feel they have few options should they quit their job,
further confirming the lower bargaining power they have present in their jobs.
• The mean scores for job quality are significantly lower across all of the seven
dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index among employees reporting that it
is either very likely or likely that they will quit their job in the next 12 months.
Importantly, when we consider employees that have moved jobs in the last 12
months, we do not find differences in job quality between those who have
moved and those who have not, suggesting that job moves may be used to
address experiences of lower job quality that had prompted intention to leave.
The great rethink: step-change or misnomer?
Following the rapid changes in employment witnessed in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, 2021 was witness to a suggested growth in employees leaving their jobs.
Captured in the moniker the ‘great resignation’ (Lufkin 2021) or, alternatively, the
‘great rethink’, much debate has been generated around this argued movement of
labour, including whether employees are rethinking their careers and broader
16
relationship with paid work. The causality for this potential relationship remains
unclear, and research has begun to investigate the degree to which employees are
actually leaving their jobs and whether this reflects an actual step-change in
employment, stated intentions to leave, or a lag effect of the pandemic delaying
latent labour movements.
Recent analysis conducted by the CIPD (Boys 2022), drawing on data from the
ONS, offers some initial insight. It identifies a record high rate of job-to-job moves in
the second quarter (April to June) of 2021, which stood at 3.2%. However, preceding
this was a significant drop throughout 2020, which reflected the impact of the
pandemic and has been suggested as having been caused by two mechanisms:
first, that employees would have delayed or avoided job moves during this time as
this would leave them ineligible for furlough and thus presented an increased risk at
this time; second, job vacancies dipped significantly in the early part of the pandemic
as business confidence and demand for many goods and services dropped, and as
the economy has emerged from the pandemic and confidence increased, so have
job vacancies and moves.
The UK Working Lives survey usefully includes several lines of questioning that
enable the further investigation of patterns and drivers of recent changes in
employment as well as stated intentions to leave.
Who has changed jobs?
Across the UKWL sample, around one in eight workers report having changed their
job to one with a new employer in the last 12 months. Recent job moves are much
more common among younger workers, with 46% of those aged 18–24 and one in
five (20%) of those aged 25–34 reporting having been with their current organisation
for less than 12 months. This compares with only 8% of those aged 55–64 and 4%
aged 65 and over. These patterns are likely to reflect the career stage of young
workers, and for those in the youngest age category, this will also be capturing
recent moves into the labour market from education. Females (14%) are marginally
more likely to have changed employer in the last 12 months compared with males
(11%).
With respect to occupation, we find that recent job changes are more common
among workers in associate professional occupations (15%), administrative and
secretarial occupations (14%), caring, leisure and other service occupations (14%),
and especially elementary occupations (18%). Findings are consistent when
disaggregated by NS-SEC occupational class, with job changes in the last year most
common in routine occupations (17%), intermediate occupations (15%) and semi-
routine occupations (13%), and least common among small employers and own-
accounts (8%).
17
Recent job changes vary considerably by contract type. We find only around one in
ten permanent employees (12%) report having moved jobs in the last 12 months, but
figures are much higher in less secure forms of employment.
Within the UKWL we find some evidence to support the overall argued movement of
workers from job to job. Figure 8 summarises job moves for the UKWL for the last
four years, 2019 to 2022. In comparison with the 12 months prior to the January
2021 survey, recent job moves appear to have increased in the 12 months prior to
the January 2022 survey, with 7% of workers reporting a move in the last six months,
and a further 5% a move between six months and one year prior to the survey.
However, we also find that, consistent with other sources, this change appears to be
more of a delayed movement of labour and levels of job moves in the 2022 survey
are simply returning to pre-pandemic levels recorded in the 2019 survey.
Base: all workers.
Comparing new and previous jobs
The characteristics of new jobs differ across groups of workers, including by age and
occupation type. Differences by gender are relatively small and statistically
insignificant. Changes in pay are a common factor: around half of workers reporting
a recent job change have done so into a higher-paying job (53%), with the remainder
split between similar pay (22%) and less pay (25%). Figure 9 summarises pay
comparisons by age groups. Large portions of younger workers – over three-
Figu re 8: Percentage reporting job m ove in la st two years, 2019 –22 (%)
12.02.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.00.0
6.9
5.4
7.8
5.9
4.2
9.1
5.7
5.4
9.3
6.3
6.9
10.0
6 months or le ss More than 6 mont hs up to a year
More than a year up to 2 years
2022
2021
2020
2019
18
quarters of 18–24-year-olds – report better pay as an outcome of recent job moves,
whereas this is only present among around one in three workers aged 45 and over.
Better pay is highly correlated with occupational level, with recent job changes
delivering higher pay among managers, directors and senior officials (73%),
professional occupations (62%), and associate professional occupations (60%),
compared with around one in three workers in caring, leisure and other
service occupations, sales and customer service occupations, process, plant and
machine operatives, and elementary occupations.1
Base: workers reporting change in job in the last 12 months (n=605).
Approximately a third of workers (34%) who have changed jobs in the last 12 months
report responsibility levels at their current job as having increased (see Figure 10),
while around one in four report it having decreased (25%). Responsibility levels are
relatively evenly distributed across age groups. Differences are found at either end of
the labour market, as 59% of managers, directors and senior officials report
increases in responsibility from their recent job move, but this is only reported by
11% of workers in elementary occupations.
1 Pearson’s R correlation tests results compared responses with the question comparing pay in current job
with last job and SOC20 major occupations groups (Pearson’s R = 0.265, p-value 0.000).
Figu re 9: Comparison of p ay in current job to la st job, 2022 (%)
20040 60 80 100
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
11.1 11.1
Age
77.8
19.9 63.616.5
17.3 26.6 56.1
32.2 28.8 39.0
45.2
41.7 33.325.0
23.3 31.5
Lower paid Better paidSimilarly paid
19
Base: workers reporting change in job in the last 12 months (n=605).
Most workers reporting recent job moves report their new jobs as offering greater
levels of fulfilment, with this reported by 58% of workers who have moved jobs in the
last 12 months compared with 54% of those who have been with their organisation
longer than one year. Interestingly, within the group of workers who have been with
their current organisation for more than one year, we actually find that three in five
(61%) workers who have been with their organisation between one and two years
report greater levels of fulfilment, suggesting that benefits may extend over a
lengthier period, but that those with tenures of more than two years report lower
levels of fulfilment, with the lowest proportion of workers reporting greater fulfilment
(52%) reporting tenures of 10–15 years.
Younger workers are more likely to report greater fulfilment, with this reported by
around three in five workers aged 18–54 (see Figure 11). The exception is workers
aged 55–64 (48%) and, in particular, those aged 65 and over, where we find only
one in four (25%) report their new job as being more fulfilling. Movement into higher-
skilled occupations generally appears to provide greater levels of fulfilment,
especially for managers, directors and senior officials (72%) and associate
professionals (68%). This compares with less than half of workers in caring, leisure
and other service occupations (46%) and elementary occupations (46%). When we
consider NS-SEC occupational class, we find an overall consistent pattern by
occupation level, but with additional insight into self-employment, as we find that
among small employers and own-accounts, almost three in four (73%) report that
their current job offers more fulfilment that their last.
Figu re 10: Comparison of l evels of respon sibili ty in current job to la st jo b, 2022 (%)
20
040 60 80 100
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
35.7 28.6
Age
35.7
25.5 40.034.5
22.3 41.0 36.7
19.5 50.0 30.5
32.9
36.4 27.336.4
52.1 15.1
Less r esponsib ili t y More responsibilityAbout the same responsibility
20
Base: workers reporting change in job in the last 12 months (n=605).
Around half of workers (48%) who have moved jobs in the last 12 months report
more work–life balance in their new role, with only 17% reporting less work–life
balance. Figure 12 summarises comparison of work–life balance in old and new jobs
by age group. Work–life balance improvements from recent job changes are
reported most among workers aged 65 and over (62%), likely reflecting movements
out of career employment and/or partial retirement (Lawton and Wheatley 2018). In
comparison, at the other end of the age spectrum, around one in five (22%) workers
aged 18–24 report work–life balance benefits from recent job changes. Occupational
differences are found. Almost two-thirds of workers (64%) in sales and customer
service occupations report more work–life balance, while almost half (47%) of
process, plant and machine operatives report less work–life balance in their new job.
Notably, managers, directors and senior officials report relatively lesser work–life
balance benefits from their job moves, with only around a third (36%) reporting more
work–life balance in their new job. Similar patterns are found across NS-SEC
occupational class categories, but with small employers and own-accounts again an
outlier, with much higher proportions (77%) reporting more work–life balance in their
current job compared with their last.
Figu re 11: Comparison of levels of fulfilm e nt in current job to last jo b, 2022 (%)
20
040 60 80 100
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
29.6 11.1
Age
59.3
11.0 61 .927.1
12.2 33.1 54.7
12.7 27.1 60.2
13.7
16.7 25.058.3
38.4 47.9
Less fulfilling More fulfillingAbout as fulfilling
21
Base: workers reporting change in job in the last 12 months (n=605).
Intention to leave and perceptions of future employment
The UKWL captures a series of measures that offer an indication of perceptions
around future employment, including, ‘How difficult or easy do you think it would be
for you to find another job at least as good as your current one?’, ‘How likely do you
think it is that you could lose your job in the next 12 months?’, and ‘How likely do you
think it is that you will voluntarily quit your job in the next 12 months?’.
A key demographic factor is age. Younger workers are much more likely to report
that they feel it will be easier to find a job as least as good as their current job, with
almost half (47%) of workers aged 18–24, and 44.7% of those aged 25–34 feeling it
would be easy or fairly easy to find another comparable job. In part, this is likely to
reflect the career stage of these workers. In addition, younger workers have a much
greater perception that they are likely to lose their job, with over one in five workers
aged 18–24 (21%) stating it is likely or very likely, compared with only around one in
eleven (9%) workers aged 45 and over.
Age is also a standout factor in intention to leave, but with peaks at either end of the
age spectrum. A substantial portion of workers in the 18–24 bracket (44%) and those
aged 65+ (32%) report it likely or very likely that they will voluntarily quit their job in
the next 12 months, with the latter likely reflecting plans around retirement.
Differences by gender are found; however, they are small and not statistically
reliable.
Occupational differences are found in intention to leave, with workers in relatively
lower-skilled occupations more likely to report an intention to voluntarily quit their job
in the next 12 months. Workers in elementary occupations, for example customer
service roles, are those most likely to report an intention to leave their job, with this
reported by one in four (25%) individuals in this broad occupation group compared
with 18% of managers, directors and senior officials, 19% of professionals and 18%
Figu re 12: Com parison of work–life balance in current job to la st job, 2022 (%)
20040 60 80 100
18–24
25–34
35–44
45–54
55–64
65+
44.4 33.3
Age
22.2
11.4 53.035.6
18.0 31 .7 50 .4
18.8 40.2 41.0
20.8
23.1 61 .515.4
30.6 48.6
Less w ork–life balance Mor e w ork–life balanceAbout the sa m e w ork–life balance
22
of associate professionals. While patterns by broad occupation group suggest lesser
intention to leave among higher-skilled workers, it should be acknowledged that
within certain sectors increases in employees leaving their jobs or stating intention to
do so have been recorded, such as in information technology and in specific roles
where skills are in high demand and low supply (Gartner 2022). We also note when
disaggregating by NS-SEC occupational class that only around one in nine (11%)
small employers and own-accounts state an intention to leave this form of
employment in the next 12 months.
Reasons driving intention to leave
The 2022 survey included additional lines of questioning enabling more detailed
analysis of the drivers of intention to quit a job. Figure 13 summarises responses
regarding the main reasons that workers are likely to leave their job. The prospect of
better pay and benefits elsewhere appears to be a primary driver of intention to quit,
selected by over a third (34%) of those who reported that it is likely or very likely they
will quit their job in the next 12 months. The pursuit of increased job satisfaction
(26%) and better work–life balance (23%) appear also to be highly relevant in driving
intention to leave. These findings are indicative of both a focus on remuneration, and
on the pursuit of different pathways to career success in the form of psychological
success and balance (Hall et al 2012).
Movements for a different type of work are strongly correlated with age, as we find
that more than two in five (45%) workers aged 18–24 report this as a main reason
they are likely to leave their current job, whereas this is only reported by around one
in four middle-aged workers, and only a marginal portion of those aged 65 and over
(4%). Access to better training and development opportunities is also strongly
correlated with age, with this being much more of a driver for younger workers,
accounting for one in six aged 18–24 (17%), whereas only 4% of those aged 55–64
and none of those aged 65 and over reported this as a main reason for a future job
change. Better training and development is also reported as a main reason of
potential job moves by 12% of females, compared with only 6% of males. Better pay
and benefits is particularly important to younger workers aged 18–24 (46%) and 25–
34 (51%). Similarly, opportunities for promotion are more central to earlier and mid-
career workers, reflecting their career stage, peaking at almost one in five among
those aged 25–34 (18%) and 35–44 (18%).
Increases in job satisfaction is a particular driver for those aged 25–34 (34%) and
45–54 (35%), although around three in ten of all workers under 55 identify this as a
main reason. Middle-aged workers between 45 and 54 are those most likely (31%) to
identify being unhappy with the leadership of senior management as a reason they
intend to leave their job.
More flexibility over working hours is a more prominent driver among females (13%)
than males (7%). Flexibility over working hours is also important to workers aged 25–
34 (13%) and 35–44 (15%). Together these patterns are likely to reflect the impact of
23
dependent children and associated caring responsibilities, which research continues
to show more often fall on mothers (Hjálmsdóttir and Bjarnadóttir 2021). Other
aspects of flexibility can act as a driver for potential future job moves, as we find
almost one in ten workers in middle-aged brackets report access to remote working
as a main reason. Better work–life balance is most prominent (32%) among those
aged 45–54, while it is a much lesser driver among those aged 65 and over (4%).
Among the middle-aged this again is likely to reflect the impact of dependent children
and associated difficulties encountered in balancing work and life.
Turning to differences by occupation, we find that leaving to do a different type of
work is most commonly reported as a driver of intention to leave among employees
in skilled trades (31%), sales and customer service occupations (32%) and
especially elementary occupations (38%). The pursuit of increased job satisfaction is
reported most prominently by associate professional occupations, which accounts for
more than a third of these workers (36%), with almost three in ten sales and
customer service occupations (29%) also reporting this as a particular driver of
intention to leave. Better pay and benefits is a prominent driver reported among
sales and customer service occupations (43%) and elementary occupations (39%),
but to a lesser degree in administrative and secretarial occupations (28%) and
process, plant and machine operatives (16%). Finally, better work–life balance is
most common as a driver at either end of the labour market, with this reported by
managers, directors and senior officials (27%), process, plant and
machine operatives (30%) and elementary occupations (29%).
24
Base: workers reporting it likely or very likely they will voluntarily quit their job in next
12 months (n=1,175).
Respondents choose up to three main reasons.
Meaningfulness and measures of commitment
Measures of meaningfulness of work have a statistically significant negative
correlation with likelihood of voluntarily quitting a job, evidencing that meaningfulness
has an important relationship with relative intention to leave. Correlations are
particularly strong for feelings of doing useful work for the organisation, being highly
motivated by the organisation’s core purpose, whether the work serves a satisfying
purpose, and whether workers feel inspired at work.2
2 Pearson’s R correlation test results compared responses to the question, ‘How likely do you think it is that
you will voluntarily quit your job in the next 12 months?’ with measures of meaningfulness in work, including,
‘I have the feeling of doing useful work for my organisation’ (Pearson’s R = −0.275, p-value 0.000), ‘I am highly
motivated by my organisation’s core purpose’ (Pearson’s R = −0.299, p-value 0.000), ‘The work I do serves a
satisfying purpose’ (Pearson’s R = −0.273, p-value 0.000), ‘I feel inspired at work’ (Pearson’s R = −0.286, p-value
0.000).
Figu re 13: Main reasons you are li kely to le ave your role, 2022 (%)
10 252015530 35
22
9
8
0
0
26
19
34
12
5
0
10
5
7
23
5
4
25
0
To d o a di er ent t yp e of w ork
To get better training and d evelopm ent
Because I dislike my imm ediate
manager/colleag ues
Reduce str ess
To learn new thing s
Inc rease j ob sat isfac tion
Unhap p y wi th lea dership of senior manag ement
Better pay/benefits elsewhere
Op por tuni ties f or pr omotion
I want to work for a more ethical/
greener emp loyer
Easi er /shorte r journey t o work
Mor e fle xi ble wor king hours
Incr eased job securi ty in another organisati on
Opportunity for greater remote working
Better work-life balance
COVID-1 9 pandemic prompted change
in career path
Discr iminat ion or har assment
at current workplace
Other reason
25
Interestingly we find that in 2021 there was a short-term boost to levels of reported
meaningfulness in work, perhaps spurred on by the extraordinary circumstances
presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Figure 14 summarises measures of
meaningfulness for 2020, 2021 and 2022 for employees who have moved jobs in the
past twelve months. We find that in 2021 four in five employees either agreed or
strongly agreed that they were doing useful work for their organisation (80%), and
three in five felt they were doing useful work for society (61%) and were highly
motivated by their organisation’s core purpose (60%). In comparison, in both 2020
and 2022 around three-quarters reported feeling they do useful work for their
organisation, and around half felt they were doing useful work for society and were
highly motivated by their organisation’s core purpose.
Base: all employees who have moved jobs recently.
Intention to leave is also closely related to reported levels of job satisfaction. Just
under half (47%) of those reporting that they are highly likely to quit their job in the
next 12 months report being dissatisfied with their job (either dissatisfied or very
dissatisfied). In comparison, dissatisfaction with one’s job is only reported by around
one in ten (10%) and one in twenty (6%) workers, respectively, who report being
unlikely or very unlikely to quit their job. Differences in life satisfaction follow similar
patterns, although with lesser differences.
Figu re 14: Measures of meaningfulness of work , 2020–2022 (%)
0
20
10
40
30
60
50
Stro ngl y
a gre e Ag re e Neither
a gre e n o r
disagree
Disa gre e Strongl y
disagree Stro ngl y
a gre e A g re e Neither
a gre e n o r
disagree
Disa gre e Strongl y
disagree Stro ngl y
a gre e A g re e Neither
a gre e n o r
disagree
Disa gre e Strongl y
disagree
I am hig hly motivated b y my
org anisat i on’s c or e p urp ose
2020 20222021
26
Base: all employees (n=5,297).
Measures of commitment offer further insight into the position of different groups of
workers with respect to potential labour market mobility. Figure 15 summarises three
measures of commitment by occupation group. It reveals that relative bargaining
power differs considerably by broad occupation group, with workers in lower-skilled
occupations, including sales and customer service occupations (12%), reporting
much lower levels of bargaining power compared with higher-skilled groups,
especially managers, directors and senior officials (36%). Workers in sales and
customer service occupations (38%) and elementary occupations (40%) feel they
have few options should they quit their job, further confirming the lower bargaining
power they have present in their jobs. Interestingly, managers, directors and senior
officials (44%) and elementary occupations (42%) are most likely to report that it
would be difficult to leave their current organisations even if they wished to, in the
Managers, directors and senior ocials
Prof essiona l occup at ions
Associ ate p rof essiona l occup at ions
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades occupations
Car ing, leisure and other serviceoc cup ations
Sales and cust omer servic e occup ations
Proc ess, plant and machineoperatives
Elem entary occ up at ions
10 3020 5040 60
0
36.2
25.3
43.6
25.5
27.7
36.9
22.0
30.8
39.0
19.9
32.8
39.1
28.2
26.1
38.0
13.4
26.4
40.2
11.7
37.8
38.2
14.4
31.1
30.8
13.7
40.3
42.4
Figu re 15: Measures of commitment, 2022 (%)
I have strong bargaining power as an emp loyee
It would be di cult for m e t o leave the org anisat ion right now, even if I wanted to
I'd like to quit my job, b ut I feel t hat I ha ve too f ew op t ions t o consid er leaving t he org anisa t ion
27
prior case perhaps reflecting difficulties finding comparable roles and in the latter a
lack of alternative labour market opportunities.
Intention to leave and job quality
It is useful to consider levels of job quality relative to stated intentions to leave. To
this end, Figure 16 summarises mean scores for the CIPD Good Work Index by self-
reported likelihood that an employee will leave their job in the next 12 months. The
mean scores for job quality are significantly lower across all of the seven dimensions
of the CIPD Good Work Index among employees reporting that it is either very likely
or likely that they will quit their job in the next 12 months. These relationships hold for
all but the employee voice index, where we observe smaller variation in the mean
index score in Figure 16, when we control for demographics including age, gender
and ethnicity and SOC20 major occupation group using an ordinal probit regression
model.3
Importantly, when we consider employees that have actually moved jobs in the last
12 months, we do not find significant differences in the mean scores for the
dimensions of job quality between those who have moved and those who have not
moved jobs. This finding may be indicative of job moves being used to address
experiences of lower job quality that had prompted a prior intention to leave.
Base: all employees (n=5,297).
3 Ordinal probit regression (−2 Log Likelihood = 15080.95, Chi-square = 978.56, p-value = 0.000). Full results in
Appendix.
Figu re 16: Good Work I ndex by likelih ood of le aving job in n ext 12 months, 2022
Subject i ve
Pay
Contracts Work–life
balance
Job design Relationships E m p l oyee
Voice
Health a nd
Wellbeing
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Very likely Neither likely nor unlikely Unlikely Very unlikelyLikely
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.00
28
Summary
There has been much debate in the last year regarding a suggested increase in
workers leaving their jobs, captured in the moniker ‘great resignation’, or alternatively
the ‘great rethink’, and the causality involved in this movement of labour, including
whether employees are rethinking their careers and broader relationship with paid
work.
While we find some evidence of an increase in job-to-job moves in the last 12
months, we find little evidence for any substantial shift in employment trends as
suggested by the great resignation or great rethink. Job moves may well reflect
delayed moves caused by the pandemic, as overall levels of job moves appear more
in line with earlier years of the UKWL survey. However, we do find several important
differences in the experiences of employees that may act to drive both intention to
leave and actual job moves.
It should be noted that increases in employees leaving their jobs or stating intention
to do so have been shown in certain sectors, such as information technology and in
specific roles where skills are in high demand and low supply (Gartner 2022), and as
such the great resignation/rethink may be manifest in these cases, but it is
somewhat more context-specific than the broader narrative around this phenomenon
would suggest.
Combined, our evidence shows that workers in lower-skilled roles face a situation in
which they are more likely to feel they will lose their job and more likely to want to
leave their job but have low bargaining power and a lack of alternative employment
options, leaving them somewhat ‘trapped’ in their current occupations.
Differences in job quality, as measured by the job quality index, further emphasise
the impact of lower-quality work in driving employee intentions to leave their current
job. The lack of significant differences in mean scores for job quality among workers
who have recently changed jobs when compared with those who have not suggests
that job moves may lead to improvements in experienced job quality.
4 Flexible and hybrid working
Key findings
• The changes to work location since the onset of the pandemic continue to be
reflected in how time is split between workplace locations. In total across the
2022 UKWL sample, two-fifths of work time (43%) was spent working at home.
• However, employer/business premises remain the primary work location for the
majority of workers. A third of the UKWL sample (34%) reported working at their
employer/business premises all of the time in the last 12 months. In comparison,
only one in seven (15%) workers reported working at home all of the time.
29
• Workers in professional and associate professional occupations have spent a
much greater proportion of their work time, on average, at home, amounting to
63% and 57% respectively in these occupations.
• Workers engaged in sales and customer service occupations (82%) and
elementary occupations (90%) are those who spend the most time, on average,
at employer/business premises.
• Key workers also report much lower incidence of working from home, consistent
with their front-line roles.
• There remain evident gaps in availability and awareness of formal flexible
working arrangements, with occupation a key factor, although there are notable
increases in the use of flexitime and working from home.
• Informal flexibility is unevenly distributed across occupations with managerial
(34%), professional (33%), associate professional (32%) and skilled trades
occupations (35%) benefiting from substantially greater flexibility than is present
among caring, leisure and other service (12%) and elementary (10%)
occupations.
• Workers that make use of the flexibility to work from home also report higher
levels of control in various aspects of their jobs, although this may primarily
reflect occupational differences in flexibility.
• The adoption of hybrid routines is associated with higher levels of job quality
compared with workers who report no time spent working from home. More time
spent at home aligns with higher mean scores in several job quality dimensions.
• However, hybrid workers appear to face the biggest difficulties in balancing work
and life, including work–life spillover and longer working hours than would be
preferred.
• Workers reporting the home as their only location of work experience lower job
quality in some dimensions compared with hybrid workers, including subjective
pay, contracts, job design and employee voice. However, they equally have
higher means scores in both the work–life balance index and the health and
wellbeing index, reflecting many of the documented trade-offs associated with
working from home.
Recent changes in workplace
The concept of good work is of more relevance than ever to our working lives given
the impacts of the global pandemic. There has been a rapid expansion of remote
working, but one that reflects necessity rather than flexibility in working patterns, as
around two-fifths of the workforce moved to homeworking 100% of the time at peak
in mid-2020 (Sostero et al 2020). That said, a majority of the workforce have
continued to work at employer/business premises or client sites, resulting in quite
mixed experiences in work routines throughout the last two years.
A measure of the proportion of work time spent at different work locations was
included in the 2022 survey rather than a measure of main place of work. Main place
of work has become problematic as a measure since the onset of the pandemic, as
many workers who would consider their main place of work to be an
employer/business premises have actually been working from home for the majority,
and in some cases all, of their work time. This change has strengthened debates that
30
were already calling for alternative measures which take account of the relative split
between different workplace locations, which can be aggregated to provide a
probability space, that is, an estimate of the probability of work being performed in a
specific location (Shearmur 2021). As such, collecting data on the proportion of
actual work time spent in different workplace location offers a more accurate
representation of current locations of work.
The effects of the pandemic were still being felt at the time of the January 2022
survey data collection, and this is shown in how time is split between workplace
locations. In aggregate across the UKWL sample, we find that two-fifths of work time
(42%) was spent working at home, with the remainder at either employer/business
premises or client sites (see Figure 17). The majority of responses to the ‘other
location’ category report working at ‘various’ locations, ‘on the move’ or ‘anywhere’,
and this captures driving/travelling jobs and forms of mobile working. Substantive
differences are not found in the preferences relating to where individuals would like
to work compared with their current working location split. Note that these figures are
averages across the UKWL sample and that individual workers will have differing
routines of work that may involve splits between locations that are not directly
referred to here.
Exploring in more detail we can observe that a third of the UKWL sample (34%)
reported working at their employer/business premises all of the time in the last 12
months. In comparison, only one in seven (15%) workers reported working at home
all of the time. More common is the adoption of a hybrid working pattern involving a
combination of working at employer/business premises and at home, although the
time spent at each location varies across workers. More than two in five workers
(43%) reported spending at least three-quarters of their work time at an
employer/business premises, while around a third of workers (37%) reported
spending at least three-quarters of their work time at home.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Figu re 17: Proportion of work time spent at di erent work loc ations, 2 022 (%)
60.010.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.00.0
50.2
49.5
5.7
6.3
41.9
41.6
2.2
2.7
From whic h l oc at ion
did you wor k?
From whic h l oc at ion
woul d you like to wor k?
Emp loyer/b usi ness p rem ises
Ot her l ocat ion
At home
Client, supplier or partner
premises/sit e
31
Who is working where in 2022?
Working at home is least common among younger workers, with only 31% of work
time, on average, being spent working at home among those aged 18–24.
Interestingly, we do not find a notable gender split in levels of hybrid and
homeworking. We do, though, find that male workers are likely to spend a greater
portion of their time at client sites (male = 7%, female = 4%) or in other locations,
including working on the move (male = 3%, female = 1%). This finding is a product of
the gendered patterns of employment that continue to exist in certain skilled trades,
logistics and other occupations.
When we consider work location by occupation in Figure 18, we find quite stark
differences that are driven by the nature of work. In the last year, workers in
professional and associate professional occupations have spent a much greater
proportion of their work time, on average, at home, amounting to 63% and 57%
respectively in these occupations. A fifth of these workers (20% of professionals and
22% of associate professionals) reported working from home all of the time. In many
cases these occupations were switched to homeworking in 2020 in response to
government guidance to ‘work from home where possible’ during the pandemic, and
these patterns of work have continued into 2022.
Skilled trades and caring, leisure and other service occupations are those that
involve the most client site working, accounting for around a quarter of work time in
skilled trades (24%) and a sixth of work time (16%) in caring, leisure and other
service occupations. As well as large portions of time being spent at
employer/business premises (65%), process, plant and machine operatives have the
highest proportion of time spent, on average, in ‘other’ locations (17%), as this broad
occupation group captures those working in occupations involving driving and
travelling around.
Workers engaged in sales and customer service occupations (82%) and elementary
occupations (90%) are those who spend the most time, on average, at
employer/business premises. Indeed, 74% of workers in sales and customer service
occupations and 85% in elementary occupations reported working at an
employer/business premises all of the time.
32
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Further occupational differences in work location can be identified by exploring
whether an individual is classed as a key worker. Figure 19 summarises proportions
of work time at different work locations by whether the respondent is a key worker.
We find a much larger proportion of work time (66%) spent at employer/business
premises among key workers, consistent with the front-line nature of these roles.
Indeed, over half of key workers report (56%) spending all of their work time at
employer/business premises.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
It is additionally worth acknowledging differences in work location by employment
status, that is, whether someone is an employee or self-employed. It is well
F ig u re 18: Proportion of wo rk t i me at di erent work locat ion s by SOC20 m ajor occ up at ion g roup, 2022 (%)
Managers, directors and senior ocials
Prof essiona l occupat i ons
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ati ons
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades occupations
Car ing, leisure, and other servic e occup ations
Sales and cust omer servi ce occ up at ions
Proc ess, plant and machi ne op er at ives
Elem entary occ upat ions
4.3 1 .251.143.4
32.0 4.1 1.162.8
4.836.2 1.857.1
1.155.6 0.642.7
55.5 23.6 3.517.4
16.470.3 5.57.8
81.9 1.0 1.116.0
65.0 12.6 17.25.2
2.190.2 5.2 2.5
Emp loyer/b usiness p rem i ses
Ot her l ocat ion
Client, supplier or partner premises/site
At home
Figu re 19: Proportion of work time at di erent work loc ations by key worker status, 2022 (%)
Emp loyer/busi ness prem i ses Client, supplier or partner premises/site
At home Ot her l ocat ion
Yes
No
23.6 3.066.0 7.4
53.8 1.64.540.1
33
documented that the self-employed have a higher propensity to work in locations
outside of business premises, including the home (Wheatley 2021). Across the
UKWL we find evidence consistent with this assertion, as the self-employed, on
average, report spending around 57% of their working time at home, compared with
40% among employees. The self-employed also spend more time, on average, at
client, supplier or partner premises/sites (18%) compared with employees (5%), and
much less of their working time at business premises (18%) compared with
employees who spend, on average, around half of their working time (53%) at an
employer premises.
Flexible working arrangements
Formal flexible arrangements have increased in both availability and use in the last
two decades since the Flexible Working Regulations were first introduced into the
UK in 2003. Although only applicable to certain groups of employees with caring
responsibilities at inception, the Regulations have since been expanded in their
coverage to cover all workers following 26 weeks of service.
Past evidence has shown significant gaps in awareness and use of different flexible
working arrangements (Wheatley 2017). The data from the UKWL summarised in
Figure 20 is consistent with this finding, although some notable change is present in
the 2021 and 2022 surveys in the use of flexitime and working from home. We find
that flexitime has increased in use and reported availability in the last two years, with
just under two in five workers (26%) reporting using this flexible working
arrangement in 2022. Use of working from home has increased substantially since
the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and this change is observed in the UKWL
sample. Over half of workers reported making use of working from home in both
2021 (54%) and 2022 (50%). Other arrangements remain lesser in their availability,
including job-sharing, compressed hours and term-time working. It is also worthy of
note that more than one in ten workers report not knowing whether certain
arrangements are available to them, evidencing a continued lack of awareness of
some forms of flexible working arrangements.
Use of flexitime is most common in managerial (46%) and professional (49%)
occupations, whereas it is only used by around one in ten process, plant and
machine operatives (10%). As already noted in regards to work location, working
from home is much more common in highly skilled occupations, with managers,
directors and senior officials (64%), professionals (76%) and associate professionals
(70%) all reporting high use of working from home arrangements.
In addition to these more formal arrangements, the availability of informal flexibility is
often highly valued by workers (Hall and Atkinson 2006). Within the UKWL sample,
just under two-thirds (65%) of workers report it as being easy or very easy to take a
few hours off work should they need to for caring or other household responsibilities.
This proportion has remained relatively static over the period 2019–22. Informal
flexibility is unevenly distributed across occupations, with managerial (34%),
34
professional (33%), associate professional (32%) and skilled trades occupations
(35%) benefiting from substantially greater flexibility than is present among caring,
leisure and other service (12%) and elementary (10%) occupations.
Base: all workers except those running own business (n=5418).
Autonomy in work and workplace
The UKWL includes a series of measures of autonomy at work. These can be
divided into two forms: measures that capture job control, that is, control over
aspects of the job itself, and those that capture schedule control, that is, autonomy
over the timing of work (Glavin and Schieman 2012). Job control is measured
through control over the tasks completed, the pace of work and the manner of
completing tasks, and schedule control is captured using a measure of control over
the start and end of the working day.
We find that workers that make use of the flexibility to work from home also report
higher levels of control in various aspects of their jobs (see Figure 21). Importantly
we also find that availability is linked to levels of autonomy, as those who report the
flexibility to work from home but do not use this arrangement report substantially
higher levels of both job and schedule control compared with workers who report this
option is not available to them. This is especially pronounced with respect to how
work is done, where over half of workers (53%) making use of homeworking report ‘a
lot’ of control over the manner in which they complete tasks. Control over the pace of
work and over the timing over the working day are also greater among workers
reporting use of work from home. Interestingly, we find that workers reporting use of
homeworking actually report marginally lesser control (27% report ‘a lot’) over the
tasks they complete in their jobs than those who have this arrangement available to
Figu re 20: Ava ilabili ty and use of flexible work ing ar rangements, 2019–22 (%)
0
20
10
80
70
60
50
40
30
100
90
Flexi time Job shar ing Reduced working
hours
Com p r essed
hours
Work ing
from home
Term time
wor king
I have used this ar rang em ent
2019
2020
2021
2022
2019
2020
2021
2022
2019
2020
2021
2022
2019
2020
2021
2022
2019
2020
2021
2022
2019
2020
2021
2022
Available to me but I do not use it
Not available to me Don’t know
35
them but do not use it (29% report ‘a lot’). These patterns are likely to be heavily
driven by occupation and relative differences in availability of flexible working
arrangements, noted earlier in this section.
Base: all workers except those running own business (n=5,499).
Balancing work and life
The UKWL includes three measures that offer insight into the management of
boundaries between work and personal life. These comprise a measure that
captures work–life spillover, that is, the degree to which a job makes it difficult to fulfil
commitments outside of work, one that captures life–work spillover, that is, the
degree to which commitments outside of work make it difficult to do the job properly,
and a measure of how work impacts relaxation. Responses for the period 2019–22
are summarised in Figures 22–24.
We find that in the years prior to 2022, there was a reduction in the proportions of
workers stating that they felt their job affects their personal commitments, suggesting
some improvement in work–life balance between 2019 and 2021. In 2022, however,
a quarter of workers (25%) stated some difficulties in managing their personal life
due to their job, returning levels to be more consistent to those of 2019. Meanwhile,
we find that a much smaller portion of workers consider that their personal
commitments affect their job, totalling only 6–7% across the period 2019 to 2022.
Responses to the measure of work impacts on relaxation also suggest some
increase in difficulties in managing work–life balance, although increases are
relatively marginal (see Figure 24).
F i gu re 21: Autonomy m easures and use of work from home, 2022 (%)
Pac e of work How you d o your wor k Tim e start and finish the
working day
Task s d one in j ob
A lot A little NoneSome
41.0
27.0
9.7
22.4
42.0
29.4
10.3
18.3
28.1
16.5
28.8
26.6 38.1
40.7
5.6
15.5
41.1
38.8
3.4
16.7
29.2
25.3
23.4
22.2 33.4
52.6
3.0
11.0
37.8
46.2
2.7
13.4
31.9
29.9
14.8
23.4
33.7
38.0
12.4
16.0
40.1
30.5
13.7
15.6
16.6
10.4
52.8
20.2
Used
a rrang e me n t
Used
a rrang e me n t
Used
a rrang e me n t
Used
a rrang e me n t
36
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
5.0
21.5
4.5
19.3
4.4
16.8
5.4
19.8
2019 2020 2021 2022
Figu re 22: Job a ects pe rsonal commitments (agree or strongly a gree), 2019–22 (%)
Strongly agree
1.0
5.6
1.1
6.3
1.2
5.9
1.1
6.2
2019 2020 2021 2022
Figu re 23: Personal commitments a ect job (agree or strongly a gree), 2019–22 (%)
Strongly agree
4.6
19.8
4.6
19.6
5.6
20.2
5.7
20.5
2019 2020 2021 2022
Figu re 24: Hard to relax due to work (agree or strongly agree), 2019–22 (%)
Strongly agree
37
Figure 25 considers differences in balance relative to workplace location using a
measure of the relative levels of hybrid and remote working from home, which
ranges from no work from home, that is, 0%, through to all work time spent at home,
that is, 100%. We find that workers adopting a hybrid routine combining time spent at
home with that at employer/business premises and/or other locations report higher
levels of difficulty in balancing work with the rest of their lives. In particular, jobs are
reported as making it difficult to fulfil commitments outside of work and making it
difficult to relax in personal time. These findings could be indicative of the impact of
work–life spillover in blurring boundaries and leaving workers finding it difficult to
switch off from work as their job follows them from location to location (Green and
Riley 2021).
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Job quality and work location
To consider in more detail the impacts of levels of hybrid and remote working from
home, we construct a measure of the relative use of homeworking in the last 12
months. This comprises individuals who do not work from home, that is, zero work
time at home, those engaging in different hybrid routines that are more or less
homeworking dominant, and finally those who report having worked from home all of
the time, that is, 100% of work time at home.
Figure 26 summarises the differences in experienced job quality by levels of working
from home. Here we find that, consistent with existing recent evidence (Wheatley
2022), the adoption of hybrid routines is associated with higher levels of job quality
F i gu re 25: Work–life balance m easures by levels of hybrid and remote workin g f rom home, 2022 (%)
Finding it dicult to do job properly
bec ause of comm itment s outside of work
Finding it dicult to fulfill commitments
outsid e of wor k b ec ause of job
Strongly agree Agree
No work
from
home
(ze ro)
Hybrid
non-home
diminant
(1–49)
Hybrid
home
ma j o ri ty
(50–74)
Hybrid
home
dominant
(75–99)
Home
(100)
No work
from
home
(ze ro)
Hybrid
non-home
diminant
(1–49)
Hybrid
home
ma j o ri ty
(50–74)
Hybrid
home
dominant
(75–99)
Home
(100)
No work
from
home
(ze ro)
Hybrid
non-home
diminant
(1–49)
Hybrid
home
ma j o ri ty
(50–74)
Hybrid
home
dominant
(75–99)
Home
(100)
38
when compared with workers who report no time spent working from home. We also
note a trend of more time spent at home aligning with higher mean scores in several
of our job quality dimensions, with this most pronounced for the work–life balance
index. It should be noted that some of the differences will be driven by levels of
availability to work from home, which we have already observed varies significantly
by occupation and employment status, with managerial, professional and associate
professional occupations and the self-employed more spending more of their work
time, on average, at home.
We also find that workers reporting the home as their sole location of work actually
experience lower job quality in several dimensions compared with hybrid workers,
including subjective pay, contracts, job design, and employee voice. However, they
equally have higher mean scores in both the work–life balance index and the health
and wellbeing index. These findings are consistent with homeworking offering
benefits in the management of work alongside family and other responsibilities, and
in offering associated wellbeing benefits (Wheatley 2017). The lower mean scores in
other areas may capture a trade-off of sorts, as existing evidence has highlighted
various impacts of working from home, including potentially slowing career
progression and being less visible within the organisation, which could be manifest in
lower scores in employee voice (Bentley et al 2016; Green and Riley 2021; Virick et
al 2010).
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
We also note that employee voice appears marginally lower in Figure 26 among
those working from home all of the time (0.27) compared with those who never work
from home (0.28). However, the differences recorded with respect to employee voice
No wor k from hom e (zero)Hybrid non-home d im inant (1 -49)
Hyb rid home maj ority (50-74 )Hybrid home domi nant (75-99)Hom e (100)
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 26: The Good Work I ndex by levels of hybrid and remote working f rom home, 2022 (%)
Subjective
Pay Ind ex
Contracts
Index
Job design
Index
Work –life
Balance
Index
Relationships
Index
Em ployee
Voice
Index
Health and
Wellbeing
Index
39
here are actually driven by the combined effect of the previously noted lower
employee voice scores among the self-employed (see Figure 2) and the higher
proportions of the self-employed who work from home all of the time noted earlier in
the report. If we separate employees from the self-employed, we actually find that
among employees mean scores for the employee voice index are higher among
those homeworking all of the time (0.35) compared with those who never work from
home (0.29). When considering employees only, mean scores remain lower than
among those reporting hybrid routines, though, as per the overall patterns observed
in Figure 26.
To add further robustness to the observed relationships, we conduct a series of
linear regression models that control for demographics including age, gender,
ethnicity, SOC20 major occupation group, and employment status. We also run
separate regression models for employees only to confirm identified relationships in
our analysis, including around employee voice.4 We find a positive relationship
between routines of hybrid working and working from home all of the time when
compared with never working from home for the subjective pay index, work–life
balance index, job design index and relationships index confirming the overall
patterns observed in Figure 26. More mixed results are found for the contracts index,
with only a statistically significant positive result found between mean scores for the
index and home-dominant hybrid working compared with never working from home.
Confirming our earlier analysis, when we control for employment status we find a
positive relationship between the mean scores of the employee voice index and
working from home all of the time in comparison with never working from home.
Finally, for the health and wellbeing index we find a positive relationship between
mean scores for the index and hybrid routines that are workplace-dominant
compared with never working from home. Differences are not statistically significant,
however, for other hybrid routines and solely homeworking individuals compared
with those who never work from home.
While we find an overall positive correlation between the mean scores of the work–
life balance index and levels of work from home we do also note the earlier identified
work–life spillover difficulties that, in particular, non-home-dominant hybrid workers,
that is, those working at home for less than half of their work time, face that impact
on work–life balance. As such Figure 27 breaks down the work–life balance index
into its constituent sub-indexes to provide a more detailed insight into the
relationship between levels of hybrid and remote working from home and sub-
dimensions of work–life balance.
The balance sub-index confirms our earlier analysis, suggesting that work–life
spillover impacts on hybrid workers and that this is most pronounced among non-
home-dominant hybrid workers. The HR practice sub-index, which accounts for the
presence of formal flexible working arrangements and informal flexibility over
working hours, is strongly correlated with higher proportions of time spent working
from home, as we might expect given this captures the relative flexibility present in
4 Linear regression model results available in Appendix.
40
jobs. Finally, the hours sub-index again shows some of the trade-offs that can be
encountered when working flexibly, with hybrid workers scoring much lower,
indicating that these workers are experiencing longer working hours than would be
preferred. Interestingly, we find that those working from home all of the time score
particularly highly, likely evidencing the control that is afforded to these workers to
mould their work time.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
We are also interested in exploring in more detail the constituent sub-indexes of the
relationships index to provide further insight into how relationships at work are
affected by differing levels of remote and hybrid working, given that existing evidence
has highlighted the potential challenges that can be faced when working remotely
and in different flexible arrangements (Bentley et al 2016; Green and Riley 2021).
Figure 28 summarises mean scores for the sub-indexes of the relationships index.
We find that relationship quality is higher for workers engaged in some level of
remote or hybrid working. That said, as the reported proportion of work time tends
more toward the home, we find lower mean scores in the relationship sub-index,
potentially reflecting the impact of more time spent at home in reducing the ability to
build and maintain good-quality relationships at work (Green and Riley 2021;
Wheatley 2022).
Mean scores for the psychological safety and line management sub-indexes are
higher for hybrid workers than for those not spending any time at home, and scores
increase as hybrid working involves more time spent at home. Importantly, though,
we also observe that scores are lower among those working from home all of the
time, potentially reflecting the lack of visibility in the organisation that can result from
No wor k from hom e (zero)Hybrid non-home dim inant (1-49)
Hyb rid home maj orit y (50-74 )Hybri d home d ominant (75-99)Hom e (100)
20
10
30
40
60
50
70
80
0.67
0.62 0.63 0.64 0.67
0.35
0.55
0.63
0.68
0.72
0.53
0.42 0.43
0.48
0.63
0.52 0.53 0.56
0.60
0.67
Work –life Balance IndexHours sub -indexHR Practice sub-i nd exBalance sub-i nd ex
0
Figu re 27: Work–life Balance Index by levels of hybrid and remote working f rom home, 2022
41
solely homeworking routines (Bentley et al 2016, Virick et al 2010). Combining the
sub-indexes into the relationship index has an overall levelling effect among hybrid
and homeworkers that masks some of the differences we have observed through
exploring the sub-indexes.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Summary
High levels of working from home and home-dominant hybrid working, that is,
spending most work time at home, is reported among the 2022 UKWL survey
sample. These levels are higher than those prior to the pandemic, albeit the majority
of workers continue to work primarily at employer/business premises. The self-
employed offer a distinct case, as we find patterns of work location consistent with
prior evidence, with a greater proportion of time, on average, spent working from
home and at client, supplier or partner premises/sites.
Location of work varies significantly across different occupations. Workers in
managerial, and especially professional and associate professional occupations,
report large proportions of work time spent at home, while workers in sales and
customer service occupations and elementary occupations are those who spend the
most time, on average, at employer/business premises. Skilled trades, caring and
other leisure occupations and process, plant and machine operatives report the
highest levels of working at other locations, including client sites and on the move.
Key workers also report much lower incidence of working from home, consistent with
their front-line roles.
No wor k from home (zero)Hybrid non-home dim inant (1-49)
Hyb rid home maj orit y (50-74 )Hybri d home domi nant (75-99)Hom e (100)
0.2000
0.1000
0.8000
0.7000
0.3000
0.4000
0.6000
0.5000
0.9000
Relationships indexLine manag em ent
sub-ind ex
Psychological safety
sub-ind ex
Relationship s sub-index
0.000
Figu re 28: Relationships Index by levels of hybrid and remote working f rom home, 2022
42
The adoption of hybrid routines is associated with higher levels job quality compared
with workers who report no time spent working from home. More time spent at home
aligns with higher mean scores in several job quality dimensions. However, hybrid
workers appear to face the biggest difficulties in balancing work and life, including
work–life spillover and longer working hours than would be preferred. Workers
reporting the home as their only location of work experience lower job quality in
some dimensions compared with hybrid workers (but not those who never work from
home), including subjective pay, contracts, job design and employee voice.
However, they equally have higher mean scores in both the work–life balance index
and the health and wellbeing index, reflecting many of the documented trade-offs
associated with working from home.
5 Career progression and social mobility
Key findings
• We find that workers whose parents were employed as managers, directors and
senior officials, professionals and associate professionals are all distinctly more
likely to also be engaged in these same types of occupations.
• Almost two in five (38%) workers currently employed in professional occupations
had parents or guardians who also worked in professional occupations.
• Workers whose parents were employed as process, plant and machine
operatives and in elementary occupations are those least likely to themselves be
working in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations. That
said, we nevertheless find that more than two in five workers (43%) whose
parents were employed as process, plant and machine operatives are
themselves engaged in highly skilled managerial and professional occupations.
• Workers whose parents were employed in a skilled trade are those most likely to
also be in a skilled trade occupation, consistent with existing research of parents
passing on a trade to their children and/or viewing this type of occupation as a
positive aspiration for their children.
• A greater proportion of workers whose parents were in managerial (49%) and
professional occupations (48%) report that their own career has met their
expectations. Just under a third (32%) of workers whose parents were engaged
in caring, leisure and other occupations report their own career having met their
expectations.
• A range of factors are identified as influencing career progression, including
access to training and development programmes, quality of line management,
opportunities to develop skills, defined organisational or professional career
pathways, and relationships and networks.
• The relational component of work has a particular relevance when we consider
the role of parental occupation to realised career progression. A higher proportion
of workers whose parents were engaged in professional (33%) and associate
professional occupations (39%) report that relationships and networks have
helped their career progression to date, compared with less than a quarter of
those whose parents were in caring, leisure and other service occupations (23%)
and elementary occupations (24%).
43
• Lack of access to coaching and mentoring is identified as a barrier to career
progression among workers whose parents were employed in associate
professional occupations (30%), process, plant and machine operatives (26%)
and elementary occupations (35%).
• Workers whose parents were employed in caring, leisure and other service
occupations are those least likely to value work as an activity above its function in
generating income.
• We find that reported job quality differs across dimensions, including subjective
pay, job design, relationships, and employee voice relative to parents’
occupation, with this primarily reflecting the differences in the current occupations
reported by our worker sample. Statistically significant differences are not found
in the contracts index, work–life balance index and health and wellbeing index.
• Findings suggest that the occupation of parents/guardians may act as an
influence on an individual’s career and attitudes towards work; however, we do
not find evidence to suggest that social mobility is limited significantly by parents’
occupation.
Evidence of social mobility
Social mobility refers to the movement between class positions in society (Präg et al
2022). It is important to understand social mobility as social theory has long argued
that downward social mobility has a detrimental impact on individual wellbeing, and
similarly that upward social mobility is positively related to higher levels of wellbeing.
Policy in the UK in recent years has had a focus on achieving upward social mobility
through targeted interventions with, and for, vulnerable families and breaking barriers
faced by disadvantaged children and young adults (Irwin and Elley 2013).
The 2022 UK Working Lives survey includes an expanded series of questions that
aim to provide insight into social mobility, including through capturing the
employment status and occupation of parents when survey respondents were aged
14. To gather initial understanding of household dynamics, we consider who
respondents reported as the main earner in their household at age 14. Across the
UKWL sample we find that more than seven in ten workers (73%) reported their
father or male guardian as the main earner in the household when they were aged
14 (see Figure 29). Around one in seven (16%) report their mother or female
guardian as the main earner, while one in eleven (9%) state that they had joint main
earners in their household.
44
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
To offer an indication of social mobility we compare the occupation of respondents in
the 2022 UKWL survey with the stated occupation of their parents at age 14, and this
is summarised in Figure 30. We find that workers whose parents were employed as
managers, directors and senior officials, professionals and associate professionals
are all distinctly more likely to also be engaged in these types of occupations.
Indeed, almost two in five (38%) workers currently employed in professional
occupations had parents or guardians who also worked in professional occupations.
Workers whose parents were employed as process, plant and machine operatives
and in elementary occupations are those least likely to themselves be working in
managerial, professional or associate professional occupations. That said, we
nevertheless find that more than two in five workers (43%) whose parents were
employed as process, plant and machine operatives are themselves engaged in
highly skilled managerial and professional occupations.
Workers whose parents were employed in a skilled trade are those most likely to
also be in a skilled trade occupation; we find that one in eleven (9%) workers whose
parents were in a skilled trade themselves report this type of occupation. This offers
some evidence, consistent with that found in existing research, of parents passing on
a trade to their children and/or viewing this type of occupation as a positive
aspiration for their children (Irwin and Elley 2013, p118).
Figu re 29: Work–life balance index by occupation (ind ex scores), 2022 (%)
10 20 30 40404040 50
16
1
9
2
73
0
Mot her /female guard ian
Fat her /male guardian
Other f amily mem ber
Joint m ain earners
No-one was earni ng
45
Base: all workers reporting working parents at age 14 (n=6,112).
We explore the role of occupation further by considering key worker status relative to
parents’ occupation at age 14. Here we find that propensity to be a key worker is
higher among those whose parents were employed in process, plant and machine
operative (44%) and elementary occupations (47%), and to a lesser degree,
administrative and secretarial occupations (42%).
Overall, the findings suggest that the occupation of parents/guardians may act as an
influence on an individual’s career; however, we do not find evidence of rigid barriers
to social mobility, at least not in relation to parents’ occupation. Our data does not
enable understanding of the effect of parental unemployment, however, which past
evidence has shown to have a more direct impact on realised socio-economic status
(Major and Machin 2018).
Figu re 30: Respondent’s SOC20 major occupation g roup by parents o ccup ation at age 14, 2 022 (%)
Managers, directors and senior ocials Prof essional s
Administrative and secretarial occupations Skilled trades
Sales and cust omer service occ up at ions P r oc ess, plant and m achine operati ves
18.1 19.2 3.7 4.6 5.9 3. 4 4.011.130.0
11.4 19. 8 4.5 3.7 6.4 1.74.710.137.8
11.1 19. 5 6. 6 4.8 11.8 3. 03.012.527.4
10.7 16. 4 2. 6 4.1 13 .3 4.1 3.917. 227.5
9.5 14. 8 8. 7 6.1 12. 4 4.0 5 .815. 223.5
8.5 18 .4 4. 3 9. 2 14.9 5 .7 5 .012. 122.0
9.0 20.7 5. 6 4.6 14.9 3 .1 5 .313. 023.8
9.7 13 .5 7.5 3. 9 15. 3 7.5 7 .715.319.7
6.8 13 .9 5.5 3.9 12.8 5.7 16.015. 120.3
Elem entary occ up at ions
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations
Car ing, leisure, and ot her servic e occup ations
Managers, directors and
senior ocials
Prof essional s
Associ ate p r of essi onal
occ up ations
Administrative and secretarial
occ up ations
Skilled trades
Car ing, leisure, and ot her
service occupations
Sales and customer service
occ up ations
Proc ess, plant and
machine operatives
Elem entary occ up at ions
46
Base: all workers reporting working parents at age 14 (n=6,112).
Career development and progression
Reflecting on the link between careers and social mobility, we find that a greater
proportion of workers whose parents were in managerial (49%) and professional
occupations (48%) report that their own career has met their expectations. Just
under a third (32%) of workers whose parents were engaged in caring, leisure and
other occupations report their own career having met their expectations.
Individuals whose parents were in lower-skilled occupation groups, including caring,
leisure and other occupations (35%), process, plant and machine operatives (31%),
and elementary occupations (28%) are much more likely to state that they do not
have any career expectations.
Perceptions regarding enablers and barriers to career progression also offer useful
insight into experiences of work. Figures 32 and 33 provide an overview of these
enablers and barriers. Enabling factors are summarised in Figure 32 for workers who
report that their careers have met or exceeded expectations, while barriers are
summarised in Figure 33 for workers who feel that their careers have not met
expectations.
We find a number of common factors that act as enablers (when present) or barriers
(when absent), including access to training and development programmes, quality of
line management, opportunities to develop skills, defined organisational or
professional career pathways, and relationships and networks.
0.0
20.0
5.0
15.0
10.0
35.0
25.0
30.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
36.4
31.6
38.4
42.1 40.7 39.3
35.4
44.3
46.7
Figu re 31: Key worker status by parents occupation at age 14, 2 022 (%)
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o ns
Ca ri n g, leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Sales and
custo me r
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Pro ce s s, pla nt
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o ns
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o ns
47
Base: workers whose careers have met or exceeded expectations (n=2,943).
Base: workers whose careers have not met expectations (n=1,299).
The presence of relationships and networks as an enabler of career progression is a
particular differentiator. A higher proportion of workers whose parents were engaged
in professional (33%) and associate professional occupations (39%) report that
relationships and networks have helped their career progression to date, compared
Figu re 32: Workp la ce factors th at have helped career progression to date, 2022 (%)
40.035.05.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.00.0
30
21
36
31
15
28
15
36
Figu re 33: Workpla ce factors th at have acted as a barrier to ca reer progression to date, 2022 (%)
50.045.040.05.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
Lack of traini ng and devel opment
programmes
Lack of coachi ng and mentoring
Poor-q ualit y l ine manag ement
Lac k of c lear objectives i n my work
Lack of flexible working
opp ortunitie s
Experienced discrimination
Lac k of op por t uni t ies t o d evelop
new skills
Lack of clear career pathways
Ot her
No barriers to my career
progressi on t o d ate
18
10
14
45
34
5
11
32
23
37
0.0
48
with less than a quarter of those whose parents were in caring, leisure and other
service occupations (23%) and elementary occupations (24%).
Consistent with the relational component of work having relevance to career
progression, lack of access to coaching and mentoring is identified as a barrier
among workers whose parents were employed in associate professional occupations
(30%), process, plant and machine operatives (26%) and elementary occupations
(35%).
Attitudes towards work
To round out our investigation of the links between parental occupations and social
mobility, we explore reported attitudes to work using measures of work centrality. To
capture the relative importance that is given to work, the UKWL includes two
measures of centrality: whether the respondent considers a job to be just a way of
earning money and whether the respondent would enjoy having a paid job even if
they did not need money. Exploring responses to the measure of whether ‘a job is a
way of earning money, nothing more’, in Figure 34 we find that work appears to be a
much less central component of life among workers whose parents were employed
in caring, leisure and other service occupations and elementary occupations, with
54% and 49% agreeing or strongly agreeing that work only serves a function as a
way of earning money.
Base: all workers reporting working parents at age 14 (n=6,112).
Figu re 34: A job is a way of earning money, nothing mo re by parents occupation at age 14, 2 022 (%)
17.2
25.8
12.6
41.3
11.9
31.5
12.3
27.3
11.6
24.8
10.5
26.4
9.6
28.2
14.0
28.9
15.3
33.6
Agree Strongly agree
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o ns
Ca ri ng , leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Sales and
custo me r
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Pro ce s s, pla nt
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o ns
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o ns
49
Our second measure, summarised in Figure 35, is consistent in showing that
workers whose parents were employed in caring, leisure and other service
occupations are those least likely to value work as an activity above its function in
generating income. In contrast, around three in five workers whose parents were
employed in managerial, professional or associate professional occupations consider
work to hold an intrinsic value.
Base: all workers reporting working parents at age 14 (n=6,112).
Parents’ occupation and job quality
Comparing the dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index relative to parents’
occupation reported at age 14 in Figure 36, we find that reported job quality differs
across dimensions, including the subjective pay index, job design index,
relationships index and employee voice index. This is likely to primarily reflect the
differences in the current occupations reported by our worker sample. Statistically
significant differences are not found in the contracts index, work–life balance index
and health and wellbeing index.
F i gu re 35: I would enjoy having a paid job even if I did not need money by parents occupati on at a ge 14, 2022 (%)
11.3
42.1
8.3
37.5
10.8
46.3
11.8
48.1
11.4
45.9
13.8
46.3
9.6
44.4
11.1
41.6
10.3
44.3
Agree Strongly agree
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o ns
Ca ri n g, leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Sales and
custo me r
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Pro ce s s, pla nt
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o ns
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o ns
50
Base: all workers reporting working parents at age 14 (n=6,112).
Summary
Social mobility is important to understand given its impact on wellbeing inside and
outside of work. The 2022 UKWL survey included an expanded set of measures to
enable insight of social mobility through capturing the employment status and
occupation of parents when survey respondents were aged 14.
From our analysis we find that workers whose parents were employed as managers,
directors and senior officials, professionals and associate professionals are all
distinctly more likely to also be engaged in these types of occupations. Workers
whose parents were employed as process, plant and machine operatives and in
elementary occupations are those least likely to themselves be working in
managerial, professional or associate professional occupations. That said, we
nevertheless find that more than two in five workers (43%) whose parents were
employed as process, plant and machine operatives are themselves engaged in
highly skilled managerial and professional occupations. Workers whose parents
were employed in a skilled trade are those most likely to also be in a skilled trade
occupation, consistent with existing research of parents passing on a trade to their
children and/or viewing this type of occupation as a positive aspiration for their
children.
A greater proportion of workers whose parents were in managerial (48.9%) and
professional occupations (48%) report that their own career has met their
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 36: Good Work Index by parents’ o ccupation at age 14, 2 022
Managers, directors and senior ocials Prof essiona l occupat ions
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades occupations Car ing, leisure and other serviceoccup ati ons
Sales and cust omer service occ up at ions Proc ess, plant and machi neoperatives
Elem entary occ up at ions
Subjective
Pay Index
Contracts
Index
Job Design
Index
Work –life
Balance Index
Relationships
Index
Employee Voice
Index
Health and
Wellbeing
Index
51
expectations. Just under a third (32%) of workers whose parents were engaged in
caring, leisure and other occupations report their own career having met their
expectations. A range of factors are identified as influencing career progression,
including access to training and development programmes, quality of line
management, opportunities to develop skills, defined organisational or professional
career pathways, and relationships and networks. Relational components of work,
including networks and access to mentoring, may have particular relevance when we
consider the role of parental occupation to realised career progression.
Overall, the findings suggest that the occupation of parents/guardians may act as an
influence on an individual’s career and attitudes towards work; however, we do not
find evidence to suggest that social mobility is limited significantly by parents’
occupation. The UKWL survey data does not enable understanding of the effect of
parental unemployment, however, which past evidence has shown to have a more
direct impact on realised socio-economic status (Major and Machin 2018).
6 Relationships at work and the quality of management
Key findings
• Relationships with colleagues in the same team are predominantly reported as
being good or very good (88%).
• Overall, just under four in five workers (79%) report good or very good
relationships with their line manager or supervisor. Interestingly, we find that
those who have management responsibilities are even more likely to report good-
quality relationships with their subordinates, as nine in ten (89%) report good or
very good relationships with the staff that they manage.
• On average, less than one in five employees (18%) agree or strongly agree that a
mistake they make would be held against them by their manager or supervisor.
• While on average similar proportions of employees, around one in five (20%),
indicate that they witness people being rejected for being different within their
organisation, it does appear more common in certain occupations, with higher
levels of discrimination at lower occupational levels.
• Lack of trust, reflected in perceptions that others would deliberately act in a way
that undermines efforts, is less commonly cited, with only 17% of employees
overall indicating that this may occur in their organisation.
• Incidence of conflict at work is more often reported by female workers (9%)
compared with their male counterparts (6%).
• Younger workers are similarly more likely to report having encountered conflict,
with more than one in ten 18–24-year-olds (11%) and 25–34-year-olds (10%)
reporting conflict compared with around one in twenty of those aged 55–64 (6%)
and 65 and over (4%).
• We find a much larger incidence of conflict in elementary occupations, standing
at around one in seven workers (13%), compared with around half of this amount
reported by most other occupation groups.
• Differences in the incidence of conflict are also found across other protected
characteristics. Around one in five workers reporting a disability (17%) have
52
encountered conflict compared with nearer one in twenty (6%) of those reporting
no disability. More than double the proportion of gay, lesbian or bisexual workers
report incidence of conflict (15%) compared with heterosexual workers (7%), and
one in eight (12%) non-white workers report incidence of conflict compared with
only 7% of white workers.
• Overall, around one in seven cases (14%) are reported as being fully resolved
within 12 months and a further 26% partially resolved.
• The proportion of cases that are fully resolved is broadly the same by gender.
However, female workers are more likely to report a case as being partly
resolved (30%) than their male counterparts (21%), possibly reflecting more
complex cases requiring greater time to resolve.
• Resolution of cases is lower among those reporting other protected
characteristics, including disability and sexuality.
• Patterns of conflict are indicative of greater incidence of conflict being
experienced by workers who report a protected characteristic, and lesser
resolution to this conflict.
• We find that employees generally agree or strongly agree that their line manager,
supervisor or boss gives them respect (77%), recognises them when they do a
good job (70%), will provide support should they encounter a problem (74%) and
treats them fairly (77%).
• Employees are generally less positive about the career and developmental
support that they receive from leaders (useful feedback on work (55%), supports
learning and development (57%) and longer-term career progression (48%)), with
levels higher in higher-level occupations and lower in process, plant and machine
operative and elementary occupations.
• Levels of trust in leaders also vary by occupational level.
• The reported quality of management varies by occupational level. Higher mean
scores are found among higher-level occupations for the line manager sub-index,
which is constructed from the lines of questioning around the quality of
management.
• After controlling for occupation and demographics, we find a positive relationship
between the quality of management, relationship quality and the psychological
safety climate, and both the work–life balance index and the health and wellbeing
index.
Relationships at work
Good-quality relationships are a significant source of satisfaction and fulfilment at
work (Robertson and Cooper 2011). They can act to offset the impact of work
stressors, engender positive work attitudes among workers and increase levels of
commitment (Chiaburu and Harrison 2008). Colleagues that have closer
relationships can also provide support to each other when difficulties are
encountered at work. The quality of various relationships at work, including with
colleagues and line managers/supervisors, is summarised by occupation in Figure
37.
53
Base: all workers (those with no line manager do not answer questions about line
manager relationships).
Relationships with colleagues in the same team are predominantly reported as being
good or very good, with the lowest incidence of good or very good relationships
among process, plant and machine operatives (82%). Fewer workers overall report
good or very good relationships with other colleagues, but this still accounts for just
over four-fifths of workers in total (81%), and occupational differences are only
marginal.
Turning to relationships between employees and their leaders, we find that, overall,
just under four in five workers (79%) report good or very good relationships with their
line manager or supervisor. A consistent proportion, around four in five workers, in
managerial (82%), professional (81%), associate professional (81%) and
administrative and secretarial occupations (81%) report good or very good
relationships with their line manager or supervisor. In comparison, only around two-
thirds (67%) of workers in elementary occupations report good or very good
relationships with their line manager or supervisor.
Fewer workers report that the quality of relationships with other managers at their
workplace are good or very good (74%). The exception to this pattern is workers in
managerial occupations, where we find a higher proportion (85%) report good or
very good relationships, perhaps simply reflecting that these workers interact with
other managers at their workplace more often and in turn build relationships with
them. The quality of the relationships with other managers at the workplace is lowest
among process, plant and machine operatives (59%).
Interestingly, we find that those who have management responsibilities are even
more likely to report good-quality relationship with their subordinates, as nine in ten
(89%) report good or very good relationships with the staff that they manage.
Figu re 37: Quality of relationships at work, 2022 (%)
Line manager or supervisors
Other managers at workplace
Colleagues in team
Other colleag ues
Sta managed
Cust om ers, clients or service users
Suppliers
38.0 13.7 4.4 2.6
41.4
21.0 53.1 18.6 5.2 2.1
39.7 9.548.5 1.7 0.5
24.1 15.859.6 2.4 0.7
52.137.1 9.1 1.3 0. 4
31.4 14.951.7 1.5 0.5
0.852.6 20.5 1 .824.3
Ver y good Poor Ver y poorGood Nei ther good nor p oor
54
Customer, client and service user and supplier relationships are reported as being
good or very good by around four in five workers overall (83% and 77%
respectively).
Psychological safety climate
Psychological safety refers to perceptions of the potential outcome of taking
interpersonal risks at work (Edmondson and Lei 2014). An environment that offers
psychological safety enables workers to present themselves in the workplace, that is,
communicating their own perspectives, without fear of negative repercussions (Kahn
1990). The psychological safety climate within an organisation affects the willingness
of employees to share ideas and knowledge, raise concerns and suggestions for
change, and use initiative. It is influenced by perceived levels of support, trust in
colleagues and leaders, and incidence of conflict at work. The UKWL includes three
measures of psychological safety focusing on: (1) the presence of blame cultures,
through a measure capturing whether mistakes are held against employees by
managers/supervisors; (2) discrimination, through a measure of whether team
members reject others for being different; and (3) trust, captured through a measure
of whether team members would deliberately act to undermine each other. Figures
38–40 summarise responses to these measures by occupation.
We find that, on average, less than one in five employees (18%) agree or strongly
agree that a mistake they make would be held against them by their manager or
supervisor (see Figure 38). Across occupations there are differences, with one in
seven workers in professional (14%) and in caring, leisure or other occupations
(14%) agreeing or strongly agreeing that a mistake they make would be held against
them by their manager or supervisor, compared with around one in four of those in
sales and customer service (23%), process, plant and machine operatives (24%)
and elementary occupations (26%).
55
Base: all workers except those running own business or working as a
freelancer/contractor for multiple clients (n=5,184).
While on average similar proportions of employees, around one in five (20%),
indicate that they witness people rejected for being different within their organisation,
it does appear more common in certain occupations. Again, the pattern follows that
of overall occupational level, with employees in sales and customer service (27%),
process, plant and machine operatives (26%) and in particular elementary
occupations (33%) more likely to report that they agree or strongly agree that team
members sometimes reject others for being different (see Figure 39).
F ig u re 38: Mistakes held against employee by manager or supervisor by SOC20 m ajor occup at ion g roup, 2022 (%)
Managers, directors and senior ocials
Prof essional s
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades
Car ing, leisure, and ot her servic e occup ations
Sales and cust omer service occup at ions
Proc ess, plant and machine op er at ives
Elem entary occ up at ions
4.3 17.6 23.340.614.1
3.2 11.1 17.9 25.042.8
4.1 15.611.6 25.043.6
3.9 17.912.6 27.738.0
12.87.3 22.8 21.036.1
4.4 25.49.3 26.834.1
16.1 16.1 20.140.67.0
16.8 21 .1 20.034 .67.6
13.321.9 27.5 33.04.3
Strongly agree Disa g r ee Strongly disagreeAgree Neither ag ree nor disagree
56
Base: all workers except those running own business or working as a
freelancer/contractor for multiple clients (n=5,184).
Lack of trust, reflected in perceptions that others would deliberately act in a way that
undermines efforts, is less commonly cited, with only 17% of employees overall
indicating that this may occur in their organisation. Differences are again found
across occupations and are summarised in Figure 40, with those employed in
managerial occupations (14%) least likely to cite this type of behaviour and those
employed in sales and customer service (21%) and elementary occupations (26%)
most likely to indicate the presence of this type of negative behaviour.
F ig u re 39: People in tea m sometim e s reject others for being di erent by SOC20 m ajor occ up at ion g roup, 2022 ( %)
Managers, directors and senior ocials
Prof essional s
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades
Car ing, leisure, and ot her servic e occup ations
Sales and cust omer service occ up at ions
Proc ess, plant and machi ne op er at ives
Elem entary occ up at ions
4.5 13.8 36.132.213.4
2.9 11.9 13.1 37.834.4
2.7 15.414.2 34.832.9
1.8 15.215.2 35.732.0
18.35.2 22.6 23.530.4
3.9 21.817.5 30.626.6
22.2 14.5 25.433.44.5
20.7 20.1 26.127.75.4
22.025.4 17.7 27.27.8
Strongly agree Disa g r ee Strongly disagreeAgree Neither ag ree nor disagree
57
Base: all workers except those running own business or working as a
freelancer/contractor for multiple clients (n=5,184).
Conflict at work
Conflict at work can take many forms and it is important to note that not all conflict is
inherently negative. Conflict over task can have a positive effect in progressing tasks
and problem-solving. However, both relationship and non-task organisational
conflict, and any conflict involving discriminatory behaviours, can generally be
considered as problematic and have several negative outcomes, including work-
related stress and burnout, which increase intention to leave and reduce worker
wellbeing (Meier et al 2014). Measures of conflict involving discriminatory behaviour
on the basis of a protected characteristic and whether conflict experienced has been
resolved are collected in the UKWL and provide further insight, building on the
psychological safety measure of discrimination explored in the last section.
Incidence of conflict involving discriminatory behaviour is more often reported by
female workers (9%) compared with their male counterparts (6%). Younger workers
are similarly more likely to report having encountered conflict, with more than one in
ten aged 18–24 (11%) and 25–34 (10%) reporting conflict compared with around one
in twenty of those aged 55–64 (6%) and 65 and over (4%). Part of the reported
differences by age will be explained by occupation (see Figure 41), given the greater
propensity of younger workers to be engaged in elementary occupations, where we
find a much larger incidence of conflict, standing at around one in seven workers
(13%), compared with around half of this amount reported by most other occupation
groups.
Figu re 40: No one in team would delibe rately act in a way that undermines eorts by SOC20 major
occupation g roup, 2022 (%)
Managers, directors and senior ocials
Prof essional s
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations
Administrative and secretarial occupations
Skilled trades
Car ing, leisure, and ot her servic e occup ations
Sales and cust omer service occup ations
Proc ess, plant and machine op er at ives
Elem entary occ up at ions
25.8 13.0 4.59.047.7
26.6 45.1 14.5 3.810.5
27.3 16.941.8 3.910.1
24.5 16.443.9 4.310.8
43.218.8 23.1 4.710.3
23.3 17.342.1 2.514.9
45.9 15.0 6.314.818.0
38.9 21.6 6.812.620.0
6.839.8 19.9 19.114.4
Strongly agree Di sag ree Strongly disagreeAgree Neither ag ree nor disagree
58
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Differences in the incidence of conflict involving discriminatory behaviour are also
found across other protected characteristics, with incidence higher among those who
report the presence of a protected characteristic, including disability, sexuality and
ethnicity. Around one in five workers reporting a disability (17%) have encountered
conflict in the last 12 months compared with nearer one in twenty (6%) of those
reporting no disability. More than double the proportion of gay, lesbian or bisexual
workers report incidence of conflict (15%) compared with heterosexual workers (7%).
Meanwhile, one in eight (12%) non-white workers report incidence of conflict
compared with only 7% of white workers.
Resolution of conflict is a further important indicator of the quality of relationships at
work. Overall, around one in seven cases (14%) are reported as being fully resolved
within 12 months and a further 26% partially resolved. When we consider
occupational differences in conflict resolution, we find that skilled trades (26%) and
sales and customer service occupations (27%) are those that report the lowest levels
of conflict resolution (either resolved or partially resolved). In comparison, workers in
managerial (45%), professional (44%), caring, leisure and other occupations (56%)
and process, plant and machine operatives (47%) all report substantially higher
proportions of conflicts having been resolved or partially resolved.
The proportion of cases that are fully resolved is broadly the same by gender.
However, we find that female workers are more likely to report a case as being partly
resolved (30%) than their male counterparts (21%), which could reflect more
complex cases that require greater time to resolve. Interestingly, while we already
noted the greater incidence of conflict involving discriminatory behaviour among
0.0
6.0
2.0
4.0
10.0
8.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
7.7
6.6
7.5 7.1 7.5 6.8 6.8
8.1
13.4
Figu re 41: I nciden ce of conflict involving discrim in atory be haviour by SOC20 m a jor occupation
group, 2022 (%)
Managers,
di rectors a nd
senior ocials
Professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Associate
professiona l
occu pa ti o ns
Administrative
and secretarial
occu pa ti o ns
Ca ri ng , leisure
and other
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Sales and
custo me r
se rv i ce
occu pa ti o ns
Pro ce s s, pla nt
and machine
operatives
Elementary
occu pa ti o ns
Skilled
tra de s
occu pa ti o ns
59
younger workers, we also find that a greater proportion of this conflict, three in five
cases (60%), are resolved or partially resolved within 12 months. Comparatively,
around two in five cases are reported as having been resolved or partially resolved
within 12 months among other age groups. This perhaps indicates that a greater
portion of the conflict encountered by younger workers may be of a more
straightforward nature and, as such, is more likely to be addressed rapidly.
More workers reporting a disability (67%) report conflict experienced as having not
been resolved compared with those who do not report a disability (57%). We also
find that a marginally higher proportion of gay, lesbian or bisexual workers (66%)
report their conflict as having not been resolved compared with heterosexual workers
(60%). Differences by ethnicity are more marginal and statistically insignificant.
Together these patterns by protected characteristics are indicative of greater
incidence of conflict being experienced by workers who report a protected
characteristic, and lesser resolution to this conflict.
Quality of management
The quality of management has a significant impact on experiences of work. Good
line management and positive employee–leader relationships can create a positive
and empowering work environment, which can counteract some of the negative
impacts employees encounter from high job demands (Bakker and Demerouti 2007).
Good relationships between employees and their leaders have been found to be
associated with greater reported control and autonomy, environmental clarity,
opportunities for development and progression, and occupational self-efficacy or
feelings of competence (Schermuly and Meyer 2016; Syrek et al 2013).
The 2022 UKWL included a series of 11 measures exploring perceptions of various
aspects of line management, summarised in Figure 42. Overall, we find that the
large majority of employees generally agree or strongly agree that their line
manager, supervisor or boss gives them respect (77%) and recognises them when
they do a good job (70%). Similarly, employees are largely positive that their leaders
will provide support should they encounter a problem (74%) and treats them fairly
(77%). More than three in five workers also feel that their line manager, supervisor or
boss is open and approachable on issues like mental health (62%), although far
fewer workers in process, plant and machine operative (48%) and elementary
occupations (47%) agree or strongly agree with this statement.
60
Base: all workers with a line manager (n=5,303).
Employees are generally less positive about the career and developmental support
that they receive from leaders. A little over half of employees agree or strongly agree
that their line manager, supervisor or boss provides useful feedback on work (55%)
and supports learning and development (57%), and just under half feel that their line
manager, supervisor or boss supports their longer-term career progression (48%).
The fewest workers in agreement that their line manager, supervisor or boss
provides useful feedback on work are employed in process, plant and machine
operative (40%) and elementary occupations (43%). Only a third of workers
employed as process, plant and machine operatives (33%) agree that their line
manager, supervisor or boss supports their learning and development. Around three
in ten process, plant and machine operatives (28%) and elementary occupations
(30%) agree or strongly agree that their line manager, supervisor or boss supports
their longer-term career development.
Approximately three in five workers (60%) report trust in their leaders. Levels of trust
are correlated with occupational level, as we find that over three in five workers in
managerial (64%), professional (66%), associate professional (62%) and
administrative and secretarial occupations (63%) report that their line manager,
supervisor or boss can be relied upon to keep their promise, compared with only
around half of workers in sales and customer service (50%), process, plant and
machine operatives (51%) and elementary occupations (49%).
30.9 46.4
24.0 45.8
16.1 41.8
16.8 41.4
14.7 40.4
17.8 39.4
19.3 40.9
27.5 46.2
29.1 47.6
16.6 31 .5
23.1 39.2
Respec ts me as a p erson
Rec ognises when I have d one
a g ood job
Is suc cessf ul in get t ing p eople
to w ork t oget her
Helps me in my job
Provides useful feed b ack
on my work
Supp orts m y l earning
and developm ent
Can b e reli ed upon to
keep t heir p romise
Is supportive if I have a problem
Treats me f airly
Supports my longer term
career development
Is open and approachable
on issues like mental health
Figu re 42: Q uality of line m a nagement, 2022 (%)
Strongly agree Agree
61
Difference in the reported quality of management by gender are marginal and, in
some cases, statistically insignificant. We do find some differences in perceptions of
the quality of management by age. Younger workers are more likely to agree or
strongly agree that they receive help in their job (70%) compared with other age
groups, with more experienced workers aged 55–64 (51%) reporting receiving the
least help in their jobs. Further emphasising the supportive and developmental role
of management for younger workers, we find that seven in ten workers aged 18–24
(71%) and around two-thirds (66%) of workers aged 25–34 agree or strongly agree
that their line manager supports their learning and development, while three in five
aged 18–24 (62%) feel that their line manager, supervisor or boss supports their
longer-term career development. Comparatively, only 38% of workers aged 55–64
and 40% of workers aged 65 and over agree or strongly agree with this statement.
These responses could simply reflect the career stages of these older workers,
especially among the 65 and over category. However, the responses could also
indicate a perception of a lack of support among some of these workers, potentially
reflecting management assumptions about their career stage rather than a lack of
desire to further develop.
Relationship quality and the CIPD Good Work Index
Overall relationship quality is summarised using the relationships index and its
constituent sub-indexes by occupation in Figure 43. We observe an overall pattern of
mean scores following occupational level for all sub-indexes pertaining to
relationship quality, with higher-level managerial, professional and associate
professional occupations recording higher scores.
Caring, leisure and other occupations stand out as having high mean scores for the
relationship sub-index. This sub-index is constructed from the questions around
relationship quality explored in the first part of this section of the report, comprising
relationships with colleagues, line managers, clients and suppliers. Caring, leisure
and other occupations also score relatively highly in the other sub-indexes,
generating an overall relationship index that is relatively comparable with managerial
and professional occupations. This finding has relevance given that these
occupations exhibit a number of lower quality characteristics that are manifest in
lower scores in the subjective pay index, contracts index and work–life balance index
compared with most other occupation groups.
The line manager sub-index, which is constructed from the lines of questioning
around the quality of management explored in the previous section, generates higher
mean scores among higher-level occupations, and in particular professional and
associate professional occupations. The lowest scores are recorded in process,
plant and machine operative and elementary occupations, as per the more detailed
analysis in the previous section.
We also observe notably lower mean scores for skilled trade occupations in both the
psychological safety and line manager sub-indexes compared with all but the sales
62
and customer service, process, plant and machine operative and elementary
occupations.
Base: all workers (n=6,291).
Given that management quality has been shown to have several potential impacts
on the working lives and wellbeing of workers (Bakker and Demerouti 2007;
Schermuly and Meyer 2016; Syrek et al 2013), we gather further insight by
comparing mean scores for both the work–life balance index and the health and
wellbeing index relative to reported management quality in each of our 11 measures.
Here we find a consistent relationship with a strong and statistically significant
positive correlation between the reported quality of management and scores of the
work–life balance index and health and wellbeing index.5 It should also be noted that
we find similar patterns across the other dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index,
with higher reported quality of management correlating positively with higher mean
index scores.
After controlling for occupation and demographics, including age and gender, using
linear regression models, we find a positive relationship between the quality of
management, relationship quality and the psychological safety climate, and both the
work–life balance index and the health and wellbeing index.
5 Pearson’s R correlation tests confirm a positive relationship between scores of the work–life balance index
and health and wellbeing index (results available in the Appendix).
Managers, directors and senior ocials Pr of essional s
Administrative and secretarial occupations Skilled trades
Sales and cust omer servi ce occ up at ions P r ocess, p lant and m ac hine operati ves
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Figu re 43: Relationships Ind ex and sub-indexes by SOC20 m ajor occupation g roup, 2022
Relationships
sub-index
Psychological
safety sub-index
Line manager
sub-index
Relationships
Inde x
Elem entary occ upat ions
Associ ate p rof essi onal oc cup ations
Car ing, leisure, and ot her servic e occup ations
63
Summary
Relationships at work, including those with line managers, supervisors and other
leaders, can have a significant impact on experiences of work. Relationships
comprise several dimensions that all have relevance to job quality, including
relationships with colleagues and others we interact with at work, the psychological
safety climate, experiences of conflict at work, and the quality of management.
We find evidence that relationships with colleagues, clients and line
managers/supervisors are predominantly positive. Interestingly, we find that those
who have management responsibilities are even more likely to report good-quality
relationships with their subordinates. Employees generally also report the presence
of psychological safety in their jobs, with less than one in five agreeing or strongly
agreeing that a mistake they make would be held against them by their manager or
supervisor, that they witness discrimination within their organisation, and that others
would deliberately act in a way that undermines efforts.
Patterns of conflict at work are indicative of greater incidence of conflict being
experienced by workers who report a protected characteristic, and lesser resolution
to this conflict. Conflict is more often reported among female workers, younger
workers, those reporting a disability, gay, lesbian or bisexual workers, and non-white
workers. We also find a much larger incidence of conflict in elementary occupations,
standing at around one in seven workers, compared with around half of this amount
reported by most other occupation groups. Overall, around one in seven cases are
reported as being fully resolved within 12 months and a further quarter partially
resolved. The proportion of cases that are fully resolved is broadly the same by
gender. However, female workers are more likely to report a case as being partly
resolved than their male counterparts, possibly reflecting more complex cases
requiring greater time to resolve. Resolution of cases is lower among those reporting
other protected characteristics, including disability and sexuality.
The quality of management is likely to have considerable impact on experiences of
work, and good relationships between employees and managers have been shown
to have several positive impacts on dimensions of job quality. We find that
employees generally agree or strongly agree that their line manager, supervisor or
boss gives them respect, recognises them when they do a good job, will provide
support should they encounter a problem, and treats them fairly. Employees are
generally less positive about the career and developmental support that they receive
from leaders, including provision of useful feedback on work, support for learning
and development, and longer-term career progression, with levels higher in higher-
level occupations and lower in process, plant and machine operative and elementary
occupations. Levels of trust in leaders also vary by occupational level.
64
We find that the reported quality of management varies by occupational level. Higher
mean scores are found among higher-level occupations for the line manager sub-
index, which is constructed from the lines of questioning around the quality of
management. After controlling for occupation and demographics, we find a positive
relationship between the quality of management, broader relationship quality and the
psychological safety climate, and both the work–life balance index and the health
and wellbeing index.
7 Conclusions
The 2022 CIPD Good Work Index report has provided analysis of the fifth year of the
UK Working Lives survey conducted in January and February 2022. As well as
analysis of the seven dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index, and comparison
with previous years, in the 2022 report we had four special themes of investigation
which formed the primary focus, comprising (1) the great rethink/resignation, (2)
flexible and hybrid working, (3) career progression and social mobility, and (4)
relationships at work and the quality of management.
The CIPD Good Work Index 2022
Across the seven dimensions of the CIPD Good Work Index we find relative overall
stability in mean scores when we compare 2022 with previous years. That said, we
do find differences in the overall means of some of the job quality dimensions,
including the work–life balance index and health and wellbeing index.
We observe a switch in mean scores for the work–life balance index by gender, with
scores higher among women prior to the pandemic and lower in the 2022 survey,
although it should be noted that differences are marginal. Across occupations we
observe that work–life balance increased substantially in 2021 among most, but
importantly not all, occupation groups. Increases in work–life balance were
particularly noteworthy in managerial, professional, associate professional, and
skilled trades occupations. In 2022 we then see a reduction in work–life balance
scores, with some remaining higher than pre-2021 levels, specifically in higher-
skilled occupations, and others returning to pre-2021 levels, including skilled trades
occupations. Caring, leisure and other service occupations, sales and customer
service occupations, process, plant and machine operatives and elementary
occupations have all seen reductions in work–life balance scores, with the overall
change particularly large among elementary occupations. When we disaggregate by
NS-SEC occupational class we observe a similar pattern, with the addition of
identifying the high mean scores for the work–life balance index among small
employers and own-accounts. Together these findings highlight an occupational-
level split in work–life balance, with higher-level occupations enjoying more work–life
balance and lower-level occupations experiencing lesser work–life balance.
65
With respect to the health and wellbeing index we find noteworthy differences by
age, with younger workers recording lower scores, driven by quite stark differences
in the scores for the mental health sub-index. When we look across the health and
wellbeing index scores by occupation, we find reductions in 2020 and 2021 from
2019 levels across most occupations, with some recovery recorded in 2022,
although differences are relatively marginal in most cases. We also note that
differences between broad occupation groups are relatively small for the most part,
with sales and customer service and elementary occupations with lower mean
scores in 2022, but with a degree of volatility in the prior years of the survey. When
we consider NS-SEC occupational class, we similarly find no distinct changes in
mean scores of the health and wellbeing index over the period. We do observe
differences across occupational class, with the highest mean scores among the self-
employed and the lowest among semi-routine occupations.
The great rethink
Following the rapid changes in employment witnessed in response to the COVID-19
pandemic, 2021 was witness to a suggested growth in employees leaving their jobs.
Captured in the moniker the ‘great resignation’ (Lufkin 2021) or, alternatively, the
‘great rethink’, much debate has been generated around this argued movement of
labour, including whether employees are rethinking their careers and broader
relationship with paid work.
We investigated this phenomenon using both patterns of actual job-to-job moves and
reported intention to quit a job. While we find some evidence of an increase in job-to-
job moves in the last 12 months, we find little evidence for any substantial shift in
employment trends as suggested by the great resignation or great rethink. Job
moves may well reflect delayed moves caused by the pandemic, as overall levels of
job moves appear more in line with earlier years of the UKWL survey. However, we
do find several important differences in the experiences of employees that may act to
drive both intention to leave and actual job moves.
While we do not find direct evidence to support large-scale shifts in employment, it is
important to acknowledge that increases in employees leaving their jobs or stating
intention to do so have been recorded in certain sectors, such as information
technology, and in specific roles where skills are in high demand and low supply
(Gartner 2022), and as such the great resignation/rethink may be manifest in these
cases, but is somewhat more context-specific than what the broader narrative
around this phenomenon suggests.
Combined, the evidence shows that workers in lower-skilled roles face a situation in
which they are more likely to feel they will lose their job and more likely to want to
leave their job, but have low bargaining power and a lack of alternative employment
options, leaving them somewhat ‘trapped’ in their current occupations.
66
Differences in job quality, as measured by the job quality index, further emphasise
the impact of lower-quality work in driving employee intentions to leave their current
job. The lack of significant differences in mean scores for job quality among workers
who have recently changed jobs, when compared with those who have not, suggests
that job moves may lead to improvements in experienced job quality.
Flexible and hybrid working
High levels of working from home and home-dominant hybrid working, that is,
spending most work time at home, are reported among the 2022 UKWL survey
sample. These levels are higher than those prior to the pandemic, albeit the majority
of workers continue to work primarily at employer/business premises. The self-
employed offer a distinct case, as we find patterns of work location consistent with
prior evidence, with a greater proportion of time, on average, spent working from
home and at client, supplier or partner premises/sites.
Location of work varies significantly across different occupations. Workers in
managerial, and especially professional and associate professional, occupations
report large proportions of work time spent at home, while workers in sales and
customer service occupations and elementary occupations are those who spend the
most time, on average, at employer/business premises. Skilled trades, caring and
other leisure occupations and process, plant and machine operatives report the
highest levels of working at other locations, including client sites and on the move.
Key workers also report much lower incidence of working from home, consistent with
their front-line roles.
The adoption of hybrid routines is associated with higher levels of job quality
compared with workers who report no time spent working from home. More time
spent at home aligns with higher mean scores in several job quality dimensions.
However, hybrid workers appear to face the biggest difficulties in balancing work and
life, including work–life spillover and longer working hours than would be preferred.
Workers reporting the home as their only location of work experience lower job
quality in some dimensions compared with hybrid workers (but not those who never
work from home), including subjective pay, contracts, job design and employee
voice. However, homeworkers equally have higher mean scores in both the work–life
balance index and the health and wellbeing index, reflecting many of the
documented trade-offs associated with working from home.
Career progression and social mobility
Social mobility is important to understand given its impact on wellbeing inside and
outside of work. The 2022 UKWL survey included an expanded set of measures to
enable insight of social mobility through capturing the employment status and
occupation of parents when survey respondents were aged 14.
67
From our analysis we find that workers whose parents were employed as managers,
directors and senior officials, professionals and associate professionals are all
distinctly more likely to also be engaged in these types of occupations. Workers
whose parents were employed as process, plant and machine operatives and in
elementary occupations are those least likely to themselves be working in
managerial, professional or associate professional occupations. That said, we
nevertheless find that more than two in five workers whose parents were employed
as process, plant and machine operatives are themselves engaged in highly skilled
managerial and professional occupations. Workers whose parents were employed in
a skilled trade are those most likely to also be in a skilled trade occupation,
consistent with existing research of parents passing on a trade to their children
and/or viewing this type of occupation as a positive aspiration for their children.
A greater proportion of workers whose parents were in managerial and professional
occupations, approximately half, report that their own career has met their
expectations. Just under a third of workers whose parents were engaged in caring,
leisure and other occupations report their own career having met their expectations.
A range of factors are identified as influencing career progression, including access
to training and development programmes, quality of line management, opportunities
to develop skills, defined organisational or professional career pathways, and
relationships and networks. Relational components of work, including networks and
access to mentoring, may have particular relevance when we consider the role of
parental occupation in realised career progression.
Overall, the findings suggest that the occupation of parents/guardians may act as an
influence on an individual’s career and attitudes towards work; however, we do not
find evidence to suggest that social mobility is limited significantly by parents’
occupation. The UKWL survey data does not enable understanding of the effect of
parental unemployment, however, which past evidence has shown to have a more
direct impact on realised socio-economic status.
Relationships at work and the quality of management
Good-quality relationships, including those with colleagues and leaders, are a
significant source of satisfaction and fulfilment at work that can act to offset the
impact of work stressors, engender positive work attitudes among workers and
increase levels of commitment.
We find that workers generally report good-quality relationships at work, including
those with colleagues, clients and line managers/supervisors. Most workers also
report working environments that provide psychological safety. That said, conflict is
reported by an important minority of workers, and conflict is both more common and
less often resolved among those with protected characteristics.
The quality of management is likely to have considerable impact on experiences of
work, and good relationships between employees and managers have been shown
68
to have several positive impacts on dimensions of job quality. Workers generally
report experiencing good-quality management in several respects, with a large
majority agreeing or strongly agreeing that their line manager/supervisor gives them
respect, recognises them when they do a good job, will provide support should they
encounter a problem, and treats them fairly. Employees are generally less positive
about the career and developmental support that they receive from leaders, including
provision of useful feedback on work, support for learning and development, and
longer-term career progression. Moreover, career and developmental support is
closely tied to occupational level, with lower-level occupations reporting low levels of
support.
Overall, we find that the reported quality of management varies by occupational
level. Higher mean scores are found among higher-level occupations for the line
manager sub-index, which is constructed from the lines of questioning around the
quality of management. After controlling for occupation and demographics, we find a
positive relationship between the quality of management, broader relationship quality
and the psychological safety climate, and both the work–life balance index and the
health and wellbeing index.
Implications for people management
The four special themes of investigation in the 2022 CIPD Good Work Index report
provide several implications with relevance to people management.
While we do not find strong evidence of job-to-job movements in our investigation of
the ‘great rethink’, we do find patterns in intention to quit jobs that are indicative of
lower-quality work acting to drive employee intentions to leave their current job. Our
evidence also suggests that job-to-job moves may well be used by workers to
address issues of job quality, further emphasising the importance of employers
adopting a holistic approach to people management that considers all dimensions of
job quality. It is also vital that organisations address the predicament faced by
workers in lower-skilled roles who face a situation in which they are more likely to
feel they will lose their job and more likely to want to leave their job, but have low
bargaining power and a lack of alternative employment options, leaving them
somewhat ‘trapped’ in their current occupations.
The location of work continues to reflect the impact of the changes prompted by the
global pandemic, with high proportions of workers, especially in managerial,
professional and associate professional occupations, reporting remote working from
home and hybrid working. It is nevertheless central to recognise that the majority of
workers continue to work outside of the home, at employer or business premises,
client sites and other locations. It is also important to recognise that the self-
employed have long had a more complex relationship with the location of work and
display more varied routines, including time spent working at home, client sites,
business premises and on the move, and as such we may be able to learn from their
experiences to inform future routines of work.
69
We find that the adoption of hybrid working routines is associated with higher levels
of job quality compared with workers who report no time spent working from home.
However, hybrid workers face the biggest difficulties in balancing work and life,
including work–life spillover and longer working hours than would be preferred.
Meanwhile, workers reporting the home as their only location of work experience
lower job quality in some dimensions compared with hybrid workers, but higher
work–life balance and health and wellbeing, reflecting many of the documented
trade-offs associated with working from home. Our findings are consistent with the
benefits of employers continuing to provide workers with the flexibility to work in
hybrid ways to maximise the benefits of both remote and face-to-face working. They
also highlight potential risk areas that organisations should address, including the
potential for work–life spillover, overwork and difficulties in building and maintaining
relationships, leading to isolation.
The socio-economic background of a worker, including parents’ occupation, has an
influence on realised career trajectory and outcomes, although we do not find
evidence that suggests a significant limiting effect of parental occupation alone. A
range of factors are identified as influencing career progression that highlight the role
of good people management in career success, including access to training and
development programmes, opportunities to develop skills, defined organisational or
professional career pathways, relationships and networks, and the quality of line
management.
Relationships at work have impacts across job quality, including influencing career
progression and development as noted above, and it is important to acknowledge
that most workers report generally positive relationships at work. We do, though,
continue to find incidence of conflict and slower resolution among workers who
report the presence of a protected characteristic, suggesting that current
organisational processes may not be adequately addressing conflict for some groups
of workers.
The quality of management clearly has impacts on experiences of work, closely tied
to relationship quality, but also with implications for work–life balance and health and
wellbeing. Good-quality management is positively related to better work–life balance
and wellbeing, emphasising the benefits of good people management. Greater effort
needs to be made, however, in the provision of good-quality career and
developmental support, as the majority of workers cite this as an area where
management is less effective.
Implications for policy stakeholders
The findings from the report this year present a number of implications for policy and
practice. First, we do not find evidence that supports a substantial labour movement,
as suggested by the ‘great resignation’ or ‘great rethink’. We do, though, find that
many workers indicate an intention to quit their job where they encounter lower job
70
quality, and that actual job-to-job moves may successfully help to address job
quality. However, those encountering some of the lowest job quality may to some
extent be ‘trapped’ in their occupations due to low bargaining power and lack of
alternative job opportunities, raising real concerns about the experiences of work
among some workers in UK society.
Stakeholders and employers should also continue to pay attention to the potential
benefits that can be realised for workers, organisations and society from the
application of flexible remote and hybrid working, while also recognising that not all
workers can or will want to work at home, and that good-quality work is not a product
of location but rather that any location of work can be good or otherwise, depending
on a range of dimensions of job quality.
The findings also emphasise the importance of good people management in both
creating good-quality relationships at work and in influencing work–life balance and
health and wellbeing at work. The role of relational components of work in career
outcomes that we explored in our investigation of career progression and social
mobility also has an important people management dimension, and one where we
find a discrepancy between the expectations of workers and what is currently being
delivered by managers and their organisations.
8 References
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007) The job demands-resources model: state of
the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol 22. pp309–28.
Batz-Barbarich, C., Tay, L., Kuykendall, L. and Cheung, H.K. (2018) A meta-analysis
of gender differences in subjective well-being: estimating effect sizes and
associations with gender inequality. Psychological Science. Vol 29, No 9. pp1491–
1503.
Bentley, T.A., Teo, S.T.T., McLeod, L., Tan, F., Bosua, R. and Gloet, M. (2016) The
role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: a sociotechnical systems
approach. Applied Ergonomics. Vol 52. pp207–15.
Black, P., Burton, S., Hunter, J., Lawton, C., Pickford, R. and Wheatley, D. (2017)
Out of the ordinary: exploring the lives of ordinary working families. Nottingham:
Nottingham Civic Exchange, Nottingham Trent University. Available at:
www.ntu.ac.uk/media/documents/about-ntu/Out-of-the-Ordinary-final-report-
reduced.pdf.
Boys, J. (2022) The great resignation – fact or fiction? CIPD Voice. No 33, 21
February. Available at: www.cipd.co.uk/news-views/cipd-voice/Issue-33/great-
resignation-fact-fiction.
71
Chung, H., Birkett, H., Forbes, S. and Seo, H. (2021) Covid-19, flexible working, and
implications for gender equality in the United Kingdom. Gender & Society. Vol 35, No
2. pp218–32.
Edmondson, A.C. and Lei, Z. (2014) Psychological safety: the history, renaissance,
and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organisational
Psychology and Organisational Behavior. Vol 1. pp23–43.
Fares, L.S., de Oliveira, A.L.M. and Rolim, L.N. (2021) Working, caring, surviving:
the gender dynamics of remote working in Brazil in the COVID-19 pandemic. In:
Wheatley, D., Hardill, I. and Buglass, S. (eds), Handbook of research on remote
work and worker wellbeing in the post-COVID-19 era. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Gartner (2022). Gartner Survey Finds Only 29% of IT Workers Have High Intent to
Stay with Current Employer. 9th March. Available at: www.gartner.com/en/
newsroom/press-releases/2022-03-09-gartner-survey-finds-only-29-percent-of-tech-
workers-have-high-intent-to-stay-with-current-employer.
Glavin, P. and Schieman, S. (2012) Work–family role blurring and work–family
conflict: the moderating influence of job resources and job demands. Work and
Occupations. Vol 39, No 1. pp71–98.
Green, A. and Riley, R. (2021) Implications for places of remote working. In:
Wheatley, D., Hardill, I. and Buglass, S. (eds), Handbook of research on remote
work and worker wellbeing in the post-COVID-19 era (pp161–80). Hershey, PA: IGI
Global.
Hall, D., Lee, M.D., Kossek, E.E. and Heras, M.L. (2012) Pursuing career success
while sustaining personal and family wellbeing: a study of reduced-load
professionals over time. Journal of Social Issues. Vol 68, No 4. pp742–66.
Hall, L. and Atkinson, C. (2006) Improving working lives: flexible working and the role
of employee control. Employee Relations. Vol 28, No 4. pp374–86.
Hjálmsdóttir, A. and Bjarnadóttir, V.S. (2021) ‘I have turned into a foreman here at
home’: families and work–life balance in times of COVID-19 in a gender equality
paradise. Gender, Work and Organisation. Vol 28, No 1. pp268–83.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2020) Working from home: estimating the
worldwide potential. Geneva: ILO. Available at: www.ilo.org/global/topics/non-
standard-employment/publications/WCMS_743447/lang--en/index.htm.
72
Irwin, S. and Elley, S. (2013) Parents’ hopes and expectations for their children’s
future occupations. Sociological Review. Vol 61, No 1. pp111–30.
Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal. Vol 33, No 4. pp692–
724.
Lawton, C. and Wheatley, D. (2018) The quality of work among older workers. In:
Caven, V. and Nachmias, S. (eds), Hidden inequalities in the workplace (pp91–126).
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lufkin, B. (2021) What we’re getting wrong about the ‘great resignation’. BBC
Worklife. 29 October. Available at: www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20211028-what-
were-getting-wrong-about-the-great-resignation.
Major, L.E. and Machin, S. (2018) Social mobility and its enemies. London: Penguin.
McFadden, P., Ross, J., Moriarty, J., Mallett, J., Schroder, H., Ravalier, J.,
Manthorpe, J., Currie, D., Harron, J. and Gillen, P. (2021) The role of coping in the
wellbeing and work-related quality of life of UK health and social care workers during
COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. Vol
18, No 2. p815.
Meier, L.L., Semmer, N.K. and Gross, S. (2014) The effect of conflict at work on
wellbeing: depressive symptoms as a vulnerability factor. Work & Stress. Vol 28, No
1. pp31–48.
Milasi, S., González-Vázquez, I. and Fernández-Macías, E. (2020) Telework in the
EU before and after the COVID-19: where we were, where we head to. Brussels:
European Commission, Science for Policy Briefs. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/files/jrc120945_policy_brief_-
_covid_and_telework_final.pdf.
Präg, P., Fritsch, M.-S. and Richards, L. (2022) Intragenerational social mobility and
wellbeing in Great Britain: a biomarker approach. Social Forces.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soab153.
Ravalier, J., Morton, R., Russell, L. and Fidalgo, A.R. (2019) Zero-hour contracts and
stress in UK domiciliary care workers. Health & Social Care in the Community. Vol
27, No 2. pp348–55.
Schermuly, C. and Meyer, B. (2016) Good relationships at work: the effects of
leader-member exchange and team-member exchange on psychological
empowerment, emotional exhaustion, and depression. Journal of Organisational
Behavior. Vol 37, No 5. pp673–91.
73
Shearmur, R. (2021) Conceptualizing and measuring the location of work: work
location as a probability space. Urban Studies. Vol 58, No 11. pp2188–2206.
Sostero, M., Milasi, S., Hurley, J., Fernandez-Macías, E. and Bisello, M. (2020).
Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide? European
Commission: JRC Working Papers Series on Labour, Education and Technology,
2020/05. Available at: https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/publications/
teleworkability-and-covid-19-crisis-new-digital-divide_en.
Syrek, C.J., Apostel, E. and Antoni, C.H. (2013) Stress in highly demanding IT jobs:
transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion
and work–life balance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Vol 18, No 3.
pp252–61.
Virick, M., DaSilva, N. and Arrington, K. (2010) Moderators of the curvilinear relation
between extent of telecommuting and life satisfaction: the role of performance
outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations. Vol 63, No 1. pp137–54.
Wheatley, D. (2017) Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working
arrangements. Work, Employment and Society. Vol 31, No 4. pp567–85.
Wheatley, D. (2021) Workplace location and the quality of work: the case of urban-
based workers in the UK. Urban Studies. Vol 58, No 11. pp2233–57.
Wheatley, D. (2022) Work time, place and space in the ‘new normal’. In: Holland, P.,
Bartram, T., Grant, K. and Garavan, T. (eds), The Emerald handbook of work,
workplaces and disruptive issues in HRM. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.
Wheatley, D. and Gifford, J. (2019). UK Working Lives Survey Report 2019. London:
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD).
Wheatley, D., Hardill, I. and Buglass, S. (2021) Preface: the rapid expansion of
remote working. In: Wheatley, D., Hardill, I. and Buglass, S. (eds), Handbook of
research on remote work and worker wellbeing in the post-COVID-19 era. Hershey,
PA, IGI Global.
Wheatley, D. Hardill, I. and Lawton, C. (2018) Gender differences in paid and unpaid
work. In: Caven, V. and Nachmias, S. (eds), Hidden inequalities in the workplace
(pp181–214). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201
E cipd@cipd.co.uk W cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797)
and Scotland (SC045154)
Issued: June 2022 Reference: 8252 © CIPD 2022
