Several cross-sectional studies report a negative correlation between organisation size and employee wellbeing, operationalised as job satisfaction. Three cross-sectional studies using data from the US Quality of Employment Survey report negative correlations between firm size and job satisfaction (Idson, 1990; Kwoka, 1980; Scherer, 1976). However, they also report that when controls for autonomy and temporal flexibility are introduced, the relationships are no longer significant, which suggests that the negative relationship between firm size and job satisfaction may be mediated through adverse psychosocial work conditions. Similar findings are reported by two studies using UK data. Analysis of the 2011 Workplace Employment Relations Study shows lower levels of job satisfaction in larger organisations (Tansel & Gazioglu, 2014), though unlike the above studies, the relationship is not mediated by autonomy and flexibility, rather a lack of involvement in decision-making. Also, analysis of British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) data revealed a negative relationship between organisation size and job satisfaction (Clark, 1996).
Finally, a survey of workers in Spain reported similar findings: organisation size was negatively correlated with job satisfaction (García-Serrano, 2011). However, when controls were introduced for level of autonomy and participation in decision-making, the relationships disappeared, suggesting they were driven by these adverse psychosocial working conditions. Overall, these studies suggest that organisation size may act as a proxy for work quality, i.e. the larger the organisation, the less autonomy, flexibility, and involvement in decision-making an employee has, which, in turn, could affect their wellbeing (operationalised as job satisfaction). However, the cross-sectional nature of these studies precludes causal inference.
Nevertheless, the suggestion that larger organisations may be less likely to provide ‘good’ work, relative to smaller ones, has implications for the study of social enterprises, which tend to be small in size. This observation is based on findings from a recent national social enterprise survey, which finds that over half (57%) of the organisations sampled are ‘micro’ businesses, employing between one and nine people; furthermore, less than 1% employ 250 people or more (Villeneuve-Smith & Chung, 2013). This would suggest, to the extent that organisation size is a proxy for work quality, social enterprises may provide ‘good’ work due, in part, to their small size.
2.8.1.2. Sector
There is evidence that employee wellbeing, operationalised as job satisfaction, may be related to the sector an organisation operates in. Two studies, using data from the BHPS comprising large samples of almost 200,000 observations, report that, compared to public and for-profit sector workers, non-profit sector workers report higher levels of job satisfaction (Benz, 2005; Donegani et al., 2012). There is some evidence that non-profit sector workers tend to have more autonomy and involvement in decision-making than counterparts employed in other sectors (Barnabé & Burns, 1994; Felstead et al., 2007). However, different working conditions did not account for non-profit sector workers’ job satisfaction premium in the two studies using BHPS data (Benz, 2005; Donegani et al., 2012). Donegani et al. (2012) hypothesised that the differential may be due to ‘warm glow’ theory, whereby individuals derive utility from the act of giving (Andreoni, 1990).
These findings have implications for the study of social enterprises insofar that they derive from, or are similar to, non-profit sector organisations. Certainly, it can be said that both organisations have social aims. Therefore, it is possible, on this basis, that social enterprise employees, relative to those working in the public and for-profit and sector, may also benefit from a job satisfaction premium, potentially due to the ‘warm glow’. The extent to which employees derive satisfaction from ‘intrinsic’ factors, such as the ‘act of giving’, depends, in part, on their motivations, i.e. an individual-level factor, which will be discussed in more detail in Section 2.8.2.4.
2.8.1.3. Wages
Employee wellbeing is also thought to vary according to pay, as indicated by the number of job satisfaction scales that include an item on pay satisfaction, e.g. the Warr Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Warr, 1990), the Occupational Stress Indicator (Cooper et al., 1988), the Job Descriptive Index (Kinicki & Mckee-Ryan, 2002). However, the empirical evidence seems to be inconclusive. Analysis of survey data from several developed European countries, including Demark (D’Addio et al., 2003), Spain (García-Serrano, 2011) and the UK (Gardner & Oswald, 2001), report significant positive correlations between pay and employee wellbeing, operationalised as job satisfaction. However, weak, insignificant relationships between the variables have also been reported (e.g. Adams & Beehr, 1998; Young et al., 2014; O’Donnell, 2015). A recent meta-analysis, comprising 86 studies, concluded that “level of pay bears a positive, but quite modest, relationship to job and pay satisfaction” (Judge et
al., 2010, p. 164). Thus, the evidence for a positive linear relationship between pay and job satisfaction is unclear. This may be due, in part, to the moderating influence of personality factors, e.g. an extrinsic orientation (Malka & Chatman, 2003), discussed further in Section 2.8.2.4.
Qualitative evidence from UK social enterprises suggests that, relative to other sectors, social enterprise work is characterised by modest pay (Amin, 2009; Bell & Haugh, 2008) and it is thought that they lack sufficient financial resources to pay the market rate to employees (Austin et al., 2006; Dees, 1998; Doherty et al., 2014). Similar findings are reported for Italian social co-operatives: quantitative evidence from a dataset comprising public bodies, for profit and non-profit organisations, social co-operatives – and over 2,000 employees – finds that, of these organisations, pay in social co-operatives is lowest (Borzaga & Tortia, 2006). Thus, one might expect UK social enterprises to pay lower wages, relative to other organisational types, but the available evidence is limited. Any effect this might have on job satisfaction could be moderated by social enterprise employees’ work orientation, discussed in Section 2.8.2.4.
2.8.1.4. Industry and occupation type
Evidence from the UK (Benz, 2005; Rose, 2007; van Wanrooy et al. 2013), Spain (García- Serrano, 2011) and the EU (Eurofound, 2012) suggests that employee health-related outcomes, including job satisfaction and wellbeing, vary according to the industry they work in and the type of occupation they have. Employees working in social, public and personal service industries, which includes health, social work and recreation, tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction (Benz, 2005) and wellbeing (Eurofound, 2012; van Wanrooy et al., 2013) than counterparts employed in other industries, e.g. energy, machinery, and other manufacturing industries. In addition, individuals working in non-manual, high-skilled occupations (managerial and professional) report significantly higher levels of job satisfaction (García-Serrano, 2011; Rose, 2007) and wellbeing (Eurofound, 2012; van Wanrooy et al., 2013) than those in manual, low-skilled occupations This may be due, in part, to the fact that organisations in the public and personal services industries and higher-skilled occupations tend to provide better working conditions, e.g. increased autonomy (Eurofound, 2012; García- Serrano, 2011; van Wanrooy et al., 2013).
These observations have implications for the study of social enterprise employees given that a substantial number of social enterprises operate in industries related to health, social work and recreation (where job satisfaction and wellbeing seems to be higher).
Evidence from a national social enterprise survey supports this, finding that many social enterprises’ principal trading activities revolve around public and personal services, including education, social care, and health care (Villeneuve-Smith & Temple, 2015). This implies social enterprise employees could benefit from increased job satisfaction and wellbeing.
However, regarding occupation type, Amin (2009, p. 34) suggests it is often assumed that work in the social economy is “less skilled” than comparable work in the public or private sector. Although he provides no supporting evidence, it is a reasonable assumption given: (i) 38% of all social enterprises work in the 20% most deprived communities in the UK, compared to 13% of standard businesses (Villeneuve-Smith & Chung, 2013) and they tend to employ local people (Reid & Griffith, 2006); and (ii) over half of UK social enterprises “actively employ people who are disadvantaged in the labour market” (Villeneuve-Smith & Chung, 2013, p. 37) – indeed, social firms/WISEs are committed to doing so. Thus, it is possible that social enterprises may, on the one hand, provide good working conditions because they tend to be active in industries where this is the norm, but, on the other hand, they may provide few high-skilled, satisfying jobs. However, the lack of empirical evidence makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
2.8.1.5. Contract type
Temporary, fixed-term employment, is hypothesised to have a negative influence on employee health and wellbeing, due, in part, to the insecurity and instability often associated with it, which may induce stress (Benach et al., 2000). As outlined earlier, job insecurity is associated with a number of negative health outcomes, including anxiety, depressive symptoms (De Witte et al., 2016) and coronary heart disease (Virtanen et al., 2013). To the extent that temporary, fixed-term employment implies a lack of job insecurity, it may negatively impact upon health via the biological, neuroendocrine and behavioural pathways outlined earlier. However, not all temporary work is characterised by instability and insecurity (Virtanen et al., 2003) and, in some cases, is seen as a useful stepping stone into permanent employment, and thus viewed favourably by the employee (Jahn & Rosholm, 2013; Nätti, 1993). Having said that, the most recent meta-analysis of the relationship between temporary employment and health, comprising 27 studies, reports that psychosocial morbidity is significantly higher among temporary workers relative to permanent employees, particularly when temporary work is characterised by instability (Virtanen et al., 2005). More recent longitudinal studies report similar findings (e.g. Pirani & Salvini, 2015; Quesnel-Vallée et al.,
2010; Virtanen et al., 2011). Thus, insofar that temporary work implies instability and insecurity, it is likely it will negatively impact upon employee health and wellbeing.
It has been suggested that temporary contracts are a distinctive feature of GM social enterprises (Mazzei, 2013). Qualified support for this comes from Davister et al. (2004) who found evidence, across Europe, of WISEs often employing workers on a temporary, fixed- term basis. However, longitudinal survey data from Italy show that, relative to public, for- profit and non-profit organisations operating in the social services sector, social co-operatives (i) do not use temporary contracts more than other sectors, and (ii) the percentage of temporary employees decreased from 28% in 1998 to 19% in 2007 (Borzaga & Depedri, 2009). Thus, the picture is unclear. Looking at data for UK voluntary and third sector organisations, it is apparent people employed in these organisations are less likely to be on permanent contracts than their counterparts in the private and public sectors (UK Voluntary Sector Workforce Almanac, 2013). To the extent that social enterprises do the same, which is possible given the similarities between them and voluntary sector organisations, they might employ more people on a temporary basis than organisations in the public and private sectors.
2.8.1.6. Summary of organisational-level factors
In sum, it is apparent that, in addition to the psychosocial factors thought to influence employee health and wellbeing discussed earlier, it may be determined, in part, by a number of organisational factors. The evidence suggests that employee health and wellbeing, often operationalised as job satisfaction, varies according to organisation size, sector, (to an extent) pay, industry type, occupation type and contract type. However, the effects of organisation size, industry and occupation are not independent of working conditions, i.e. the effect these variables have on employee outcomes seems to be mediated by the different quality work conditions found in different sized organisations, industries, and occupations. Conversely, sector, contract type and (to an extent) pay, seem to be related to employee outcomes independent of work quality.
It is important to be aware of the relationships between these variables in the context of studying social enterprise employees. To the extent that social enterprises are (i) small, (ii) similar to voluntary sector organisations, and (iii) more active in social, public and personal services, we may expect them to provide employees with increased autonomy, i.e. ‘good’ work, and for them to report relatively high levels of job satisfaction. However, insofar that they (i) pay relatively low wages, (ii) provide less-skilled jobs, and (iii) employ people on temporary, fixed-term contracts, we may expect social enterprises to provide adverse work
environments and for employees to report relatively low levels of job satisfaction. Of course, existing evidence is very limited and, as such, firm conclusions are not possible. Clearly, there is a need for more empirical research.