Aspectos Operativos y de Sistemas

The previous chapter included a discussion of some of the conceptual problems associated with the main theoretical hy- potheses around job polarisation and upgrading, in particular the problems of the RBTC argument, by far the most popular explanation. These conceptual problems are also associated with some important operational and measurement problems. Table 4 summarises the operationalisation of the RBTC argument in five key papers. It shows that there is often some degree of inconsistency between the underlying RBTC framework and its operationalisation through a set of indices to be used for statistical analysis. In nearly all cases, there are several attributes of tasks included that do not seem to be justified by the RBTC framework; this is particularly the case regarding indicators of managerial tasks in the ‘abstract’ or ‘cogni- tive’ category, and the inclusion of ‘social interaction’ tasks in the non-routine, non-cognitive category (sometimes called ‘manual’, sometimes called ‘service’). The performance of managerial tasks, although they certainly require cognitive effort (as do most non-routine tasks), is an aspect of the social organisation of work, not of its technical organisation. By introducing it into the measurement, the RBTC argument inadvertently mixes technical and socioeconomic developments in organisational change. The expansion of ‘abstract’ jobs could, for instance, be associated with an expansion of super- visory and control functions or simply an inflation of occupational titles.

The same can be said about the inclusion of indicators regarding social interaction and caring for others, in some cases used as the main indicator for identifying the jobs that occupy the bottom level of the polarised pattern. The RBTC argu- ment is supposed to focus on the extent of routine and cognitive demands for different tasks; however, although social interaction may be associated with the category of non-routine, non-cognitive tasks, it is a different concept, relating to different types of mechanisms behind structural shifts in employment (as discussed in the previous section).

Four of the papers use quality control tasks as indicators for routine, which also seems unjustified (see Box 4). Table 4 also shows some inconsistency between different applications of the same RBTC hypothesis. For instance, the category of non-routine manual tasks is measured as ‘hand–eye–foot coordination’ in the first two papers, as care and social inter- action in the fourth (as well as in other recent work by Autor and Dorn (2013)), and as ‘time spent doing physical tasks’ in the fifth. This is despite the fact that they all refer to the same category of the RBTC framework, which was originally described as ‘non-routine, non-cognitive tasks’.

Table 4: Operationalisation of RBTC in five key papers 1. Autor et al (2003)

Typologies Non-routine analytic, non-routine interactive, routine cognitive, routine manual, non-routine manual

Definitions Routine: ‘tasks that require the methodical repetition of an unwavering procedure’.

No definition of analytic or cognitive; only of non-routine cognitive tasks: ‘tasks demanding flexibility, creativity, generalized problem-solving and complex communications’.

Variables used Non-routine analytic: quantitative reasoning requirements

Non-routine interactive: direction, control and planning (managerial and interpersonal tasks)

Routine cognitive: adaptability to work requiring set limits, tolerances and standards Routine manual: finger dexterity

Notes In practice, five categories that do not match the two axes – routine and analytic/cognitive – of the conceptual framework.

The measures are not very consistent with the concepts. Non-routine interactive tasks are actually about managerial tasks, measuring the social position of the worker in the organi- sation, rather than the input in production from a technical point of view. The variables used for routine cognitive and routine manual are not directly measuring routine work, even if they are probably correlated.

2. Goos and Manning (2007) – follows Autor et al (2003) 3. Autor et al (2006)

Typologies Abstract, routine, manual

Definitions Abstract: ‘problem-solving and managerial tasks. These are not well structured and require non-routine cognitive skills’

Routine: ‘cognitive or physical tasks that follow closely prescribed sets of rules and proce- dures and are executed in a well-controlled environment’

Manual: ‘do not require abstract problem-solving or managerial skills but are nevertheless difficult to automate because they require some flexibility in a less than fully predictable environment’

Variables used Not specified

Notes Conceptually asymmetric. Abstract and manual tasks are operationalised as two separate indices, but they seem to be two extremes of the same dimension. Can tasks be simultane- ously abstract and manual?

4. Goos et al (2010)

Typologies Three categories: abstract, routine and service tasks

Definitions Routine: ‘those which computers can perform with relative ease, such as jobs that require the input of repetitive physical strength or motion, as well as jobs requiring repetitive and non-complex cognitive skills’

The non-routine dimension is split into abstract and service. No definition of abstract tasks, just examples: ‘complex problem-solving’ ([such as] … needed by engineers and medical doctors)’. Examples of service tasks are ‘caring for others ([such as] … needed by hair- dressers and medical doctors)’.

Variables used Routine: operation monitoring, equipment maintenance, quality control, manual and finger dexterity, arm–hand steadiness.

Abstract: managerial tasks, problem-solving, information-processing, technical and data analysis, interaction with computers.

Service: assisting and caring for others, social interaction, selling, active listening, working directly with the public.

Notes As with Autor et al (2003), this includes managerial tasks as part of the ‘abstract’ (cognitive) measure, which is not really justified by the conceptual framework.

The category ‘service’ is really about the social interaction with customers and clients (not co-workers), which is not justified by the RBTC framework. It is also inconsistent with other applications; the non-routine low-skilled category in Autor et al (2003), Goos and Manning (2007) and Autor et al (2006), for instance, is conceptualised as ‘manual’ and measured by hand–foot coordination.

5. Autor and Handel (2013)

Typologies Abstract, routine, manual

Definitions Abstract: ‘abstract problem-solving, and creative, organisational and managerial tasks’ Routine: ‘routine, codifiable cognitive and manual tasks that follow explicit procedures’ Manual: ‘non-routine manual job tasks that require physical adaptability’

Variables used Abstract: document-reading, mathematics, problem-solving of at least 30 minutes, supervi- sion of other workers

Routine: short repetitive tasks, absence of face-to-face interactions with customers Manual: time spent performing physical tasks

Notes Clearer definitions and operationalisations, but similar problem of differentiating abstract and manual as Autor et al (2006) (two contrasting concepts operationalised as different dimensions). Introduction of managerial tasks as part of abstract. Use of social interaction as a (negative) indicator of routine.