دانلود ترجمه مقاله شرایط کاری قابل انعطاف و میزان کاهش اعتماد – مجله امرالد

• فهرست مطالب:

 چکیده
انعطاف پذیری و استراتژی هائی برای انعطاف پذیری
اعتماد چیست؟
روش
نمونه ۱
نمونه ۲
نتایج
نتیجه گیری
نکات

• بخشی از ترجمه:

بر خلاف مطالعات قبلی  نتایج براساس تفاوت های اعتماد بین کارمندان مشروط و غیر مشروط استوار است (نگاه کنید به د گیلدر، ۲۰۰۳)، و شاید  شگفت انگیز نباشدکه  بررسی ها عمدتا بر اعتماد به کارفرما  و نه سطوح اعتماد عمومی نسبت به دیگر انسان ها تمرکز می کنند.همانطورکه مطالعه حاضر نشان می دهد، افراد با شرایط کاری منعطف نیز دارای یک سطح معنی دار پایین تر اعتماد عمومی نسبت به دیگر افراد، با  ثابت نگه داشتن سن، جنس و موقعیت اجتماعی و اقتصادی ثابت هستند این نتایج، که تا حدودی بر اساس نمونه نماینده  کل نیروی کار سوئد استوار است، نمونه های منحصربفردی از تحقیقات تجربی کمی پایان نامه ای است که انعطاف پذیری منجر به کاهش سطح اعتماد می شود. با در نظر گرفتن تاکید انجام شده بر نوآوری در سیاست های بازار کار اتحادیه اروپا (EC COM، ۲۰۱۰) و اهمیت اعتماد بین فردی در عملکرد شرکت ها(کرامر و تایلر، ۱۹۹۶) – به خصوص در نوآوری تجاری (Usoroو همکاران، ۲۰۰۷؛ Khazanchi و همکاران، ۲۰۰۷؛ Dovey، ۲۰۰۹٫ نیلسن و نیلسن، ۲۰۰۹) – یافته های پژوهش نشان داد که وقتی در جامعه پسا صنعتی به بازار کار می آید  حالتی از تناقض را نشان می دهد : افزایش تقاضای انعطاف پذیری،که  به طور رسمی به عنوان یک استراتژی  بقا برای جوامع پسا صنعتی ارائه می شود، ممکن است در واقع منجر به از دست رفتن اعتمادی شود که برای نوآوری بسیار ضروری است. 

• بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:

Various terms such as “post-industrial”, “post-Fordist”, “old” versus “new economies”, and “flexible capitalism” have all been used to describe the current labour market in ways that make it clear that the market today is fundamentally different to the period referred to as the modern industrial era (Sennett, 1998; Beck, 2000). Increased globalization, economic liberalization, and new technology have resulted in reduced staffing requirements and increasing demands for various forms of organizational flexibility (Brewster et al., 1997; Kalleberg, 2000; Garsten, 2008). At the same time this trend has created a workforce capable of taking on temporary jobs at short notice (Beck, 2000), and, indeed, enhanced labour market flexibility is the stated objective for much post-industrial, Western labour market policy (OECD, 2006; EC COM, 2007, p. 359). Flexibility and strategies for flexibility The word “flexibility”, of course, has a variety of different meanings according to the context, and is a phenomenon that can be studied on several different levels. In the present context, the term refers to organizational requirements for greater adaptability in the face of changing market conditions, as well as individual adaptation to increasing demands for flexibility. At an organizational level, Atkinson (1984) distinguishes between three types of flexibility where numerical flexibility is one. This refers to an organization’s ability to vary the number of its employees to the demands of the market. Numerical flexibility can be achieved using a number of different strategies. What all these strategies have in common, though, is that they are based on the use of some type or other of what Kalleberg (2000, p. 341) refers to as “nonstandard work arrangements”. Nonstandard working arrangements can in turn refer to a wide array of employment practices, such as short-term work, contingent or casual work, or temporary agency work. The common denominator for these different types of employment is that they differ from the traditional notion of lifetime employment with the same employer, and that they result from organizations’ responses to increasing demands for flexibility (Kalleberg, 2000). In this study, employees in different types of short-term employ or those employed by temporary work agencies are referred to as having a nonstandard employment arrangement[1]. As such, the object here is to study those who have adapted to increasing demands for flexibility by taking nonstandard positions, compared to those in positions with conditional tenure – or in other words, in a standard employment arrangement. Sennett (1998) describes how the increased demand for flexibility fosters a new kind of work ethic. Instead of traditional values such as commitment and self-discipline, flexible capitalism rewards individuals who take a short-term approach and quickly replace the object of their commitment (Sennett, 1998). Work in a flexible capitalist society obliges people to be willing – and able – to face constant break-ups. This entails a degree of risk-taking that makes the idea of a career somewhat different to what it used to be in the days of lifelong employment. Every fresh start does not necessarily mean progress. Career moves are as likely to be sideways as up, and most do not bring career progress of any kind, but instead are more in the nature of bets on the future (Sennett, 1998). As such, work in the new economy does not enable people to construct a stable sense of “self” on the basis of their career: The short-term, flexible time of the new capitalism seems to preclude making a sustained narrative out of one’s labor, and subsequently, a career. Yet to fail to wrest some sense of continuity and purpose out of these conditions would be literally to fail ourselves (Sennett, 1998, p. 122). In such a system, individuals’ ability to develop real commitment is undermined; something which in Sennett’s (1998) words leads to a state where the “character corrodes” (Sennett, 1998, p. 147), with a subsequent decrease in trust in other people. The aim of this study is therefore to compare levels of generalized trust between personnel groups with a traditional, non-flexible, standard employment and those working under flexible, nonstandard conditions. What is “trust”? The meaning of the word “trust” differs somewhat according to the discipline. However, at a very fundamental level there is a difference between trust in oneself and trust in others (Aronsson and Karlsson, 2001). At its simplest, trust in others can be defined as: “A trusts B to do X” (Cook et al., 2001, p. xiv). This implies that trust is about confidence in an uncertain interaction with someone or something else (Cook et al., 2001). Luhmann (1979) stresses the importance of trust as a means of reducing uncertainty: trust is only needed when we face uncertain situations, or, as Luhmann puts it, it is “the generalised expectation that the other will handle his freedom, his disturbing potential for diverse action” (Luhmann, 1979, p. 39). Since trust is about dealing with uncertainty, it is unnecessary on those occasions when we have full knowledge of the outcome of an encounter with a given other. If we know all the Flexible working conditions 127 different ways a situation could develop, we do not rely on trust, but confidence. Thus, trust in others is something needed in confronting an uncertain, future event (Luhmann, 1979; Seligman, 1997).

دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی

خرید ترجمه فارسی مقاله