the changing ¥ace of work in the united states...

F E A TURK

The Changing ¥ace of Work in the UnitedStates: Implications for Individual,Institutional, and Societal Survival

DERALD WING SUECalifornia School of Professional Psychology—Alamedaand California State University, Hayward

THOMAS A. PARHAMUniversity of California, Irvine

GLORIA BONILLA SANTIAGORutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Changes in the world of work are posing major challenges to workers, institutions, andsociety. Not only has the nature of work been affected by the changing work environ-ment, increased global competition, and technological revolutions, but the characteristicsof the workforce can only be described as revolutionary. Societal forces have resulted inwhat the authors call the "changing complexion of the workforce," the "feminization ofthe workforce," and the "graying of the workforce. " Traditional theories of work motiva-tion, employer-employee relations, and the role of psychology must also evolve to accom-modate this challenge. The collision of these structural and demographic forces has re-sulted in major upheaval in society and the world of work. The authors discussimplications of these changes and urge psychologists to use their accumulated knowledgeand wisdom to positively impact social policy for the greater good of people, institutions,and society.

• Derald Wing Sue, Department of Psychology, California School of ProfessionalPsychology—Alameda, and Department of Educational Psychology, California State University,Hayward; Thomas A. Parham, Counseling and Health Services, University of California, Irvine;Gloria Bonilla Santiago, Center for Strategic Urban Community Leadership, Rutgers, The StateUniversity of New Jersey.

Reprint requests should be directed to Derald Wing Sue, Department of Psychology, CaliforniaSchool of Professional Psychology, 1005 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, California 94501.

Cultural Diversity and Mental Health Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing FoundationVol. 4, No. 3, 153-164 1077-341 X/98/$3.00

154 S U E , P A R H A M , A N D S A N T I A G O

The changing face of work in the UnitedStates is fast becoming unrecognizable fromthat of the past. The image of the youthfulWhite male worker is increasingly giving wayto social reality where the worker is morelikely to be a person of color, a woman, or asenior citizen. The realization that the work-force is becoming increasingly diversified interms of race, gender, and older workers hasseriously challenged traditional concepts ofworker motivation, employer-employee re-lations, work role stress, organizational psy-chology, and the interplay of work to thelarger society (Hudson Institute, 1987; Mor-rison, 1992).

The nature of work has also changedradically. Manufacturing no longer domi-nates the economy as the United States in-creasingly becomes a service-oriented nation(U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bu-reau, 1992); rapid developments in technol-ogy and information technology place de-mands on individuals and organizations tomaster not only new knowledge and skills,but challenge the ability to deal with con-tinual change (Cascio, 1995); and, finally,global competition from abroad and emerg^ing new markets in Asia, Europe, LatinAmerica, and other countries have resultedin acquisitions, mergers, downsizing, andthe exporting of jobs outside of the country(Samuleson, 1996; Seppa, 1996).

These rapid changes have all converged,resulting in major challenges to society andparticularly to megacities (Hudson Institute,1987; Morrison, 1992). The rapid changesin the world of work can be seen on an in-dividual level where workers are increasinglybeing asked to adapt and change, some-times at the cost of workplace stress and dec-rements in the standard of living (Keita &Hurrell, 1994; Long, 1998; Osipaw & Fitzger-ald, 1993). Data from 1994 suggest that oc-cupational injuries alone cost $121 billion inlost wages and productivity, administrativeexpenses, health care, and other costs. In-terestingly, these figures do not include oc-cupational illnesses and those resultingfrom psychosocial stress at work. Disorderswith suspected links to job stress in theUnited States seem to be on the rise (North-

western National Life, 1991; St. Paul Fire &Marine, 1992), and claims for emotional dis-ability from work have increased to such apoint where "neurotic reactions to stress" isnow the fourth most disabling condition(Samuelson, 1996). Even in light of the cur-rent economic prosperity, a recent study bythe Center on Budget and Policy Prioritiesrevealed that poor and middle-class familieshave seen their incomes decline sharply,while the richest households (top fifth) haveseen their incomes soar 30% (McLeod,1997). Two conclusions drawn from thisstudy are (a) not all families are sharingequally in the prosperity of the late 1990s(especially persons of color) and (b) ifpeople start losing their belief that workinghard and playing by the rules does not getthem anywhere, a formula for disaster is be-ing set.

Likewise, business and industry at an or-ganizational level are having to restructureand reengineer their functions and pro-cesses to survive in a highly competitive en-vironment (Seppa, 1996). For example,longer hours and shorter workweeks, out-sourcing, increasing part-time employment,and temporary employment are slowly be-coming the norm; decisions regardingdownsizing and possible mergers are beingcontemplated or implemented by compa-nies. Unfortunately, not enough organiza-tions realize what such changes mean toworkers and their families. If the 1980s wereconsidered an age of prosperity, then theearly 1990s were certainly considered an ageof cutbacks, belt tightening, downsizing,mergers, acquisitions, hostile takeovers, andgeneral workplace uncertainty. What ismore distressing, however, is how employersand employees are now responding to eachother in the context of these workplacetransformations. Major implications existfor the profession of psychology as well. Asmentioned, traditional concepts of indus-trial and organizational psychology, man-agement, work motivation, career develop-ment and vocational planning have beendirected at a labor pool of primarily youngerWhite males from a Euro-American context(Sue, 1994). The diversification of the

T H E C H A N G I N G F A C E O F W O R K I N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S 155

United States requires addressing the needsof workers who differ from one another interms of race, culture, gender, and age.

The changing complexion of the work-force is also impacting the societal level,where cities must wrestle with poverty, un-employment, homelessness, immigration,economic downturns, a declining revenuebase, and many other such large-scale devel-opments (Basic Behavioral Science TaskForce, 1996). Although the prosperity of thecurrent times is heartening to many, the im-provement is uneven (Oliver & Shapiro,1995). It is often said that when Americagenerally finds itself sneezing, portions ofurban America have already caught a viciouscold. Many have experienced an exodus ofindustrial and manufacturing jobs tocheaper labor markets here and abroad;housing patterns have been redisbursed insuch a fashion as to create "people of color"inner cities and White suburbs; federal pro-grams that provided meaningful family sup-ports have been cut; available jobs for tradi-tional urban residents and the growingnumber of immigrants in the plant andmanufacturing areas are decreasing; and theworkplace climate that tolerated their pres-ence under the guise of affirmative action,equal rights, and social progress has nowturned hostile in light of the availability ofeconomic resources.

To frame our discussion around theseimportant developments, we would like tobriefly oudine some of the dramatic changesin the world of work occurring in Americansociety. Coupled with this analysis is a pre-sentation of how such changes might impactAmericans on individual, institutional, andsocietal levels. Last, we pose some questionsregarding the role of psychology in helpingeffect public policy in dealing with theseforces.

Changing Characteristics in theLabor Force

Major demographic changes are occurringin American society and are reflected in the

labor force as well. The most striking relatesto the fact that only 15% of the net new work-force will be native White men through theyear 2000 (Hudson Institute, 1987). The en-tering labor force will be composed of nativeWhite women (42%), native non-Whitewomen (13%), native non-White men (7%),immigrant men (13%), and immigrantwomen (9%; Morrison, 1992). Additionally,the aging of the 75-million-strong babyboomers will not only result in the "grayingof workers," but it will have major futureimplications for health and social services,social security, and pension funds. Let uslook at some of these figures more carefully.

The Changing Complexion of the Workforce

The rapid increase in racial-ethnic minori-ties in the United States has been referred toas "the diversification of America" or, liter-ally, "the changing complexion of society."The population will jump 50% from 255 mil-lion to 383 million in the year 2050 (U.S.Bureau of the Census, 1992). By the year2000, over one third of the population inthe United States will be visible racial-ethnicminorities with 45% in the public schools.Depending on the surveys used, WhiteAmericans will become a numerical minor-ity somewhere between the years 2030 and2050. These radical demographic changesare fueled by two major forces: (a) the con-tinuing immigration rates (documented im-migrants, undocumented immigrants, andrefugees), which are the largest in U.S. his-tory, and (b) differential birthrates, whereWhite Americans have continued to declinein comparison to other racial-ethnic minor-ity groups (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis,1992).

This has resulted in dramatic increasesof visible racial-ethnic minorities in theUnited States. In the 1980s alone, the AsianAmerican population increased by 108%,and Latino (a) American population by53%, the Native American Indian popula-tion by 38%, and the African Americanpopulation by 13%. The White populationincreased by only 6% during this period oftime. The changing demographics are un-


even and have differential impact on differ-ent sectors of the country. It is most stronglyfelt in urban centers. For example, in 1988racial-ethnic minorities went over 50% inthe California public schools and now theycomprise a numerical majority in the state;30% of New York City residents are interna-tional born; 70% of Washington, DC, is Af-rican American; two thirds of Miami is His-panic-Latino (a) American; one third of SanFrancisco is Asian American; and nearly twothirds of Detroit is African American.

IMPLICATIONS.1. Persons of color will constitute an in-

creasing labor pool from which cur-rent and future workers will be drawn.Yet, these potential employees havehistorically been subjected to preju-dice and discrimination that deniesthem the benefits of equal access andopportunities. As a result, they arelikely to be undereducated, under-skilled, underemployed, and unem-ployed. The nature of work now de-mands new knowledge and skills thatemployers may believe are absent inthe urban labor pool (primarily per-sons of color). Employers are increas-ingly leaving the cities or seeking em-ployees who reside elsewhere (manytimes outside of the country). Be-cause minorities are most likely to re-side in major metropolitan areas, theywill continue to bear the brunt of adisparity between the "haves andhave nots" and the declining stan-dard of living often associated withlarge cities.

2. Yet, avoiding the hiring of nontradi-tional employees and seeking themelsewhere may only be a short-termfix. Inevitably, business and industrymust recognize that the labor pool islimited and that the challenge of di-versity must be faced. Already, 75% ofthose now entering the labor forceare minorities and women. If theycontinue to occupy the lower rungs in

society, it bodes poorly in two areas.First, companies will find that theycannot compete globally with an un-skilled labor force and their eco-nomic survival will be at risk. Second,the social-economic system may bejeopardized by lowering the nationalstandard of living and by threateningthe economic viability of the social se-curity and pension plans. By the timethe baby boomers retire, for example,the majority of people contributing tothese retirement systems will be ra-cial-ethnic minorities.

3. The current U.S. minority market-place now equals the gross domesticproduct of Canada, and projectionsare that it will become immense as theshift in demographics continues. Con-sumers of goods and services will in-creasingly be persons of color, andcorporations and small businessesneed to appeal to this consumer baseif they are to maintain their competi-tiveness and viability. Economic analy-sis indicates that the combined spend-ing power of African Americans,Asian Americans, and Hispanics in1990 was estimated at $424 billionand that by the year 2000 the figurewill reach $650 billion (Sue, 1994).

Corporations and smaller businesses arenot isolated and immune from the misun-derstandings and conflicts associated withmatters of race. Systemic barriers may oftenexist in an organization that mirrors the na-ture of race relations in the United States.For example, high-status positions are usu-ally White dominated, whereas low-status po-sitions are occupied by minority groups. Thecorporate culture may create culture con-flicts for minority workers leading to alien-ation. Formal institutional policies and prac-tices may maintain exclusion of minorities,and powerful informal liaisons (such as "theold boys' network") may be equally discrimi-natory (Sue, 1994). Unless diversity is man-aged well in the world of work, productivity


may decline, costs will be increased and mar-ket share will be lost.

The Feminization of the Workforce

Between 1990 and 2005, women will accountfor 62% of the net increase in the civilianlabor force and the upward trend is re-flected in their growth for the past threedecades: 38% in 1970, 42% in 1980, and45% in 1990 (U.S. Department of Labor,Women's Bureau, 1992). These changes ap-ply not just to single women, but to marriedwomen as well. For example, marriedwomen constituted less than one quarter ofthe labor force in 1950, only 12% of womenwith preschool children worked, and only28% with school-age children worked; butnow, married women comprise some 58% ofworkers, 60% with preschoolers work, and75% with school-age children work.

Although women's presence in the work-force is significant, they continue to occupythe lower rungs of the occupational ladder,fill positions with litde authority and lowpay, and often encounter a "glass ceiling"for management positions (Morrison, 1992;Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). For ex-ample, Morrison reported that a Korn/Ferrysurvey found that in a sample of 1,362 seniorexecutives, only 29 (2%) were women andthat this disparity also exists in governmentand educational institutions, where they rep-resent only 9% of the senior executive ser-vice levels and comprise only 1.1 seniorwomen (dean and above) per institution,respectively.

IMPLICATIONS.1. On an individual level, common sense

might indicate that women may besubjected to greater numbers ofstressors than their male counterpartsbecause of issues related to family lifeand role strain. Although much iswritten about this topic in both thepopular press and the profession, em-pirical studies on this subject are lim-ited and mixed (Long, 1998; Martoc-

chio & O'Leary, 1989; Trocki &Orioli, 1994). Most studies on occu-pational health have been limited tomen and the lack of studies onwomen might reflect bias. Neverthe-less, there is no doubt that workingwomen continue to carry the greaterdomestic and child-care workloads athome than their male partners(Crosby, 1988; Pleck, 1985), are morelikely to be single parents, are moreresponsible for social and interper-sonal activities outside of work, en-counter a greater number of hostileand unfriendly work environments,and not uncommonly experience sex-ual harassment (Fitzgerald, Hulin, &Drasgow, 1994; Piltch, Walsh, Mangi-one, & Jennings, 1994).

2. On an institutional level, many of theimplications discussed regarding thechanging complexion of the work-force also apply to the increasingpresence of women as workers. Re-cruiting, retaining, and promotingwomen in the workforce will becomeprofoundly important. Changing or-ganizations to encompass equal ac-cess and opportunities, making thework environment accepting of gen-der differences, and recognizing thatmany benefits accrue to organiza-gions that value women as workersand consumers (gaining marketshares, cost savings, better manage-ment, and moral fairness) must be-come a priority (Long, 1998).

3. On a larger societal level, the increas-ing number of women in the work-force cannot be seen in isolation fromthe wider social, political, and eco-nomic context. This intersection ismost clearly seen in the family, whichis now undergoing long-term andsometimes radical shifts. For women,balancing the multiple roles of work,caregiving for children, and marriageor the decision to marry are cause andeffect of social conditions (Long,


1998). The movement from the tradi-tional single-earner, two-parent familyto the two-earner family speaks tosuch factors (Marshall & Barnett,1994). Some of the societal realitieswere outlined by Mirkin (1990): (a)One quarter of the nation's familiesare poor; (b) one sixth have no healthinsurance; (c) one in six small chil-dren live in a family where neitherparent has a job; (d) 15% of childrenare born into families where one par-ent works for wages below the povertylevel; (e) 25% of children born will beon welfare at some point beforereaching adulthood; (f) between 1973and 1979, one in five new jobs paidless than $7,000 (adjusted to equiva-lent years) per year but over half ofthe new jobs created between 1979and 1984 paid less than that amount;and (g) women continue to be paidwages approximately 75% of theirmale counterparts. We believe thatsystems and institutions of work atonce reflect and are shaped by socio-political systems and ideological be-liefs of the wider society. Some ofthese systems and forces may be det-rimental to individuals, institutions,and society. Thus, meaningful impactand change must occur in larger so-cial systems, which requires thatmeaningful public policies and prac-tices must be enacted.

The Graying of the Workforce

As the baby boomers head into old age, theelderly population (65+ years) will surge bythe year 2020 to 53.3 million, an increase of63% over the current population of 33 mil-lion ("Study: 2020 Begins," 1996). In 1950,the percentage of elderly people in thepopulation was 8%, by the year 2000 it willbe 13%, and by 2050 it will be 20%. It willgrow from one in eight Americans now toone in six by 2020 and one in five by 2050.The dramatic increase of the elderly popu-lation is due to three major trends: the aging

of the baby-boom generation (those bornbetween 1946 and 1961), declining fertility,and increased longevity primarily due to life-style changes and improved medical care(Huuhtanen, 1994; Keita & Hurrell, 1994).The graying of America is also being re-flected in the workforce: The median age ofpeople in the labor force will rise from 36.6years in 1990 to 40.6 in 2005; by the year2005, 70% of workers will be in the 25-54age work group; and workers 55 years andover will increase from 12% in 1990 to 15%in 2005 (Keita & Hurrell, 1994).

IMPLICATIONS.1. Older workers are underrepresented

in studies of occupational health,quality of work life, job stress, and jobsatisfaction (Staats, Partlo, Arm-strong-Stassen, & Lovinia Plimpton,1994). In American society, elderlyworkers suffer from many of the socialbeliefs and attitudes of the society—that they are less important, dimin-ished in status, represent a drain onthe economic system, have decliningmental and physical capacities, havegrown rigid and inflexible, are inca-pable of learning new skills, cannotchange, are crotchety and irritable,and should retire and make room foryounger workers. In addition to deal-ing with these negative and invalidat-ing messages, changes in company at-titudes toward layoffs and retirementbrought on by downsizing, mergers,and acquisitions place older workersin peril. Fears that their jobs will beeliminated and/or that they will belaid off before qualifying for retire-ment benefits are a reality. A recentSupreme Court ruling in 1997 hasgreatly added fuel to these fears whenit legitimized the laying off of olderworkers for younger ones when issuesof economics become involved. Thequestion before us is how psychologycan contribute to the betterment ofthe elderly workforce by promoting


health, work ability, and job/retire-ment security?

2. On an institutional level, companiesneed to realize that with the futuresupply of workers dwindling and withthe workforce aging, the productivityof older people in jobs may increas-ingly become dependent on laborpolicy or firms. At the present time,older workers seem at the mercy ofsuch policies where the concern is pri-marily cost cutting: (a) reducing ben-efits and protection for workers andpensioners, (b) attempting to lowermonthly retirement payments, (c)raising retirement ages and the yearsthat must be worked to quality forbenefits, and (d) laying off unneces-sary workers or forcing early retire-ment. Although the economic sur-vival of a company is important, suchactions are not simply business deci-sions but "people" decisions as well.They raise profound moral and ethi-cal questions. How can companiescreate a balance between business de-cisions and humanitarian ones? Whatresponsibilities do businesses have to-ward their workers and the urbancommunity? Are profits more impor-tant than people and the larger com-munity? Indeed, does good businesspolicy and practice need to conflictwith the social good?

3. Older workers appear especiallyprone to social and environmentalforces such as global competition andbusiness recessions. Although personsof color are usually the "last hiredand first fired," older workers are alsoincreasingly singled out for cost cut-ting. Increasing numbers will also re-tire and will become dependent ondisability income, pension/retire-ment plans, Social Security, and Med-icare. Although Florida continues tohave the largest proportion of elderlypeople (19%), it is estimated that bythe year 2020 eight other states will

reach those proportions: Arkansas(19%), West Virginia (18.5%), Maine(18%), Pennsylvania (18%), NorthCarolina, (18%), Iowa (18%), RhodeIsland, (18%), and Tennessee (18%).Although states with huge elderlypopulations are scrambling to offerhealth and social services, it is notclear who will pay for them. Babyboomers have saved little personallyand have fewer children, resulting inlower family support, and the numberof workers to support the aging popu-lation will be far lower than in thepast. Social Security and other entitle-ment programs in their current formwill become unaffordable in the fu-ture for a nation with a $5 trillion ac-cumulated debt. What public policyshould there be in order to ensure adecent standard of living for elderlypeople without burdening futureworkers?

The Changing Work Environment

Although not as prevalent as in the late1980s and early 1990s, the terms mergers, ac-quisitions, and downsizing have becomefeared household words. Righdy or wrongly,they are often associated with corporategreed, profits at any cost, loss of jobs, cal-lousness, reduced wages and benefits, pow-erlessness, and job insecurity. These imagesare more difficult to dispel in light of recentstatistics revealing dial the income gap be-tween rich and poor has increased and thatthe percentage rise in income levels of CEOs(often in the multimillion dollar ranges)have far outpaced the average worker (Sam-uleson, 1996). Such reported disparitiescoupled with structural changes in the workenvironment have led to negative percep-tions of corporate America and strong con-tempt for business leaders and corporate ex-ecutives. Representatives of the businessworld have countered these allegations bypointing out that the business climate andenvironment have changed radically from


that of the past. Their actions, they contend,stem more from the need of businesses tosurvive than from greed or insensitivity tothe social good. They point to such forces asglobal competition, technological impact,deregulation, and five recessions since the1960s as the culprits. Let us briefly exploretwo of these.

Global Competition

Where U.S. companies were once the soleplayers on the world economic playing field,they now have many competitors from Eu-ropean, Latin American, and Asian coun-tries. In the 1960s, only 7% of U.S. industrieswere challenged by international compe-tition; in 1980 the figure jumped to 70%(Gwynne, 1992). Furthermore, defendersare quick to point out that a well-trainedworkforce is also crucial to economic sur-vival and that the United States may belosing ground in this regard. It currentlyranks sixth behind Singapore, Denmark,Germany, Japan, and Norway (Cascio,1995). A competent and literate labor poolmay not be as readily available in communi-ties whose poverty is high, so businessesmust leave those areas and/or seek moreskilled workers elsewhere. Ironically, evenwhen lower skilled work is involved, manycompanies are tempted to export jobs over-seas because lower wages can be paid andprofits increased. Businesses must also copewith international situations that developabroad, such as the integration of the Euro-pean community, setting up of enterprisezones in China, the reversion of Hong Kongto Chinese control in 1997, passage of freetrade agreements like the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement, and other govern-mental policies that have a monumental im-pact on the business climate.

Technological Revolutions

Big and small businesses also point out thatthey too are victims of a technological revo-lution that oftentimes demands instanta-neous adaptation or change. Cascio (1995)

indicated that 50 million workers use com-puters every day, along with faxes, modems,cellular phones, and electronic mail. Newtechnologies have created (a) labor-savingrobotics and mechanics that have perma-nently eliminated many traditional jobs, (b)new jobs that require technological compe-tence, and (c) a potential two-class divisionof workers (i.e., computer literates on top ofthe food chain and the unlucky, unskilled,and technologically challenged on the bot-tom). The business sector argues that thejob destruction^job creation evolution, al-though painful, is the normal process ofmarket capitalism. Just as businesses mustchange to survive, workers must also adaptto survive.IMPLICATIONS.

1. To become more globally competitiveand profitable, many industries haveresorted to consolidation, downsiz-ing, and mergers. In some businesssectors, this is occurring at a furiouspace. Banking, for example, has seenthe number of banks drop by 4,000,from around 14,000 (prerecession1980s) to 10,000 (present). Projec-tions are that only 5,000 will be left bythe turn of the century ("Staff Buy-outs," 1995). Acquisitions and merg-ers of radio and televison broadcaststations like Disney's takeover ofCapital Cities-ABC rank second.Merger mania in 1994 resulted insome 4,625 U.S. companies engagingin acquisitions or leveraged buyouts.This rate increased some 38% in1995. The overall net effect of theseactions is loss of jobs and some 7million permanent layoffs (Cascio,1993, 1995). The industries most af-fected are banking, health care, andtelecommunications.

Corporate executives also believethat business survival dictates theability to change and to changequickly when required. Apparently,many are practicing what they preach.For example, over the past 3 years,


AT&T, Boeing, IBM, Sears, and Xe-rox have together laid off some250,000 people as a result of downsiz-ing. Recently, these companies haveannounced their intention to hireback some 46,000 employees becauseof a change in the business climate("Downsizing Firms," 1996). Al-though heartening to those who arereemployed, these actions are diffi-cult to comprehend and send confus-ing mixed signals resulting in greaterjob insecurity. How can a company layoff thousands of people one year andthen hire thousands back the nextyear?

Mergers have been shown to im-prove the profit margins of mostcompanies, but they do so only if theyrestructure the design of their organi-zations and change the nature oftheir work. Some of these includemoving to smaller and leaner compa-nies, use of new technology to im-prove efficiency, providing servicesrather than a product, becoming in-creasingly flexible to match client de-mands/business climate changes, andmoving to a horizontal rather thanthe traditional vertical hierarchy. No-where are these changes more evi-dent than in what some call the con-tingent, disposable, or peripheralworkforce. Barker (1995) used theterm contingent workforce to describeindividuals or groups who do notwork full time-full year for a com-pany; they package various jobs to-gether to make a living and includeindependent contractors, home work-ers, migrant and seasonal workers,and temporary hires. Although suchworkers have always been a part of theemployment picture, their numbershave risen dramatically and appeartied to the changing nature of work inthe United States. In 1987, less than50% of all workers were employed fulltime and full year (Spalter-Roth &Hartmann, 1992); currently, they

number 25-30% of the workforce,and nearly half of all jobs created inthe 1980s were part-time/temporaryjobs (Tilly, 1990). Employers are at-tracted to contingent work because(a) they can focus on core competen-cies and outsource everything else(Cascio, 1995), (b) such workers earnless, (c) firms enjoy the flexibility of a"disposable" workforce, (d) firmsneed invest only minimally in trainingand career advancement issues, and(e) unionization may be avoided oreliminated (Barker, 1095).

2. There is little wonder that workerssubjected to such an environment ofjob instability perceive the actions oforganizations as irresponsible. A re-cent poll by the Preamble Center forPublic Policy in Washington foundthat Americans gave corporationshigh marks for producing good prod-ucts and making profits ("DownsizingFirms," 1996). When it comes togrades on good wages and loyalty,however, 42% gave companies a D orF and only 26% offered a B or A.When asked to choose between"wasteful and inefficient govern-ment" or "corporate greed" as theleast liked, greed won 46% to 28%.

On an individual and familial level, anxi-eties over job security and the experience ofunemployment creates great occupationalstress that affects almost all facets of humanfunctioning (Grant & Barling, 1994; Osipow& Fitzgerald, 1993; Sutherland & Cooper,1995). Being laid off can have a devastatingimpact on status, identity, and mental health(Osipow & Fitzgerald, 1993). Oftentimes, re-cently laid-off workers have to go through amourning process because the sense of loss(identity with a company or one's careertrack) is similar to that described in deathand dying. Downsizing affects nearly all lev-els of the employment ladder. It is no longerjust unskilled or blue-collar workers who arelaid off—the early 1990s have seen white-collar professionals increasingly affected; be-


tween 1988 and 1995, middle managers lost19% of all job cuts (Seppa, 1996).

Interestingly, the effects of downsizingare not just limited to those who lose theirjobs. Workers who remain have been foundto experience increased job stress and symp-toms of burnout. Survivors of downsizing arenever certain when the next layoff an-nouncement will come and their loyality tothe company suffers. This lowered morale,lowered trust in management, concern withself-survival, and diminished loyalty oftenlead to lowered productivity and increasedemployee stress disability.

Companies must realize that business de-cisions are people decisions. Good corpo-rate citizenship dictates recognizing the hu-man face of work. Companies often attemptto insulate themselves from the "pain" theycause others through their cost-cutting ef-forts. Thus, they behave in an impersonalmanner, close lines of communication, andact in an autocratic manner. They convincethemselves that their reasons are legitimateand workers will be unreasonable. As a re-sult, workers are seldom consulted aboutcost-cutting decisions. They fail to realizethat such actions only increase the pain andsuffering, eventually creating an unfavor-able image of the company among not onlythose who are laid off, but among those for-tunate enough to remain.

Regardless of whatever the reasons arefor laying off workers, companies must real-ize that is represents a serious blow toworker self-esteem. Reactions of anger, de-pression, and frustration and feelings of be-ing treated unfairly are natural psychologi-cal consequences. Worker pain can beminimized by attempts to (a) acknowledgethe fears of workers regarding their percep-tions of being treated unfairly, (b) educatethe workforce as to the true business reasonsfor the downsizing actions, (c) allow oppor-tunities for workers (employee groups) tovent their fears and be part of the decision-making process, (d) have human resourcedepartments develop fair severance andretirement packages as viable options, (e)offer career counseling/outplacement ser-

vices, and (f) make empathic senior man-agement visible.

Conclusions

It is clear that the challenges associated withthe changing face of work can no longer behandled from a remedial and individual ba-sis. Psychology as a profession must have themoral courage, fortitude, and political savvyto impact the broader social, political, andeconomic levels of the macro system withinwhich individuals, groups, and institutionsfunction. In truth, psychology has played aminimal role in the formation of publicpolicy because psychologists have failed tounderstand how systemic forces affectpeople and because psychologists have beenaverse to becoming active in the social andpolitical arenas. Psychologists can no longerbe concerned only with individual change,but must also use their knowledge and skillsto improve conditions in the world of work.Unless they do so, persons of color, women,and senior citizens will continue to bear thebrunt of the negative impact from thechanging face of work in the United States.We believe that if psychologists are to effectmajor improvements in the psychologicalwell-being of people, they must be able toinfluence political decisions and policies re-garding institutions and society. Separatingprofessional roles from social and politicalconcerns is to refuse responsibility for soci-ety's future. In the changing face of work inAmerica, psychologists must use their accu-mulated knowledge and wisdom to makechanges in policies and practices that willpositively impact people, institutions, andsociety.

References

Barker, K. (1995). Contingent work: Research is-sues and the lens of moral exclusion. In L. E.Tetrick &J. Barling (Eds.), Changing employ-ment relations (pp. 31-60). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.


Basic Behavioral Science Task Force. (1996). Ba-sic behavioral science research for mentalhealth. American Psychologist, 51, 722-731.

Cascio, W. F. (1993, February), Downsizing: Whatdo we know? What have we learned? Academyof Management Executive, 7,95-104.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and or-ganizationl psychology in a changing world ofwork? American Psychologist, 50, 928-939.

Crosby, F. (1988). Spouse, parent, worker: On genderand multiple roles. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press.

Downsizing firms break out "help wanted" signs.(1996, May 29). Oakland Tribune, p. C2.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F.(1994). The antecedents and consequencesof sexual harassment in organizations: An in-tegrated model. In G. P. Keita &J. J. Hurrell,Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce (pp.55-73). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Grant, S., & Barling, J. (1994). Linking unem-ployment experiences, depressive symptoms,and mental functioning: A mediationalmodel. In G. P. Keita & J.J. Hurrell, Jr.(Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce: Inves-tigating gender, diversity, and family issues (pp.311-327). Washington, DC: American Psy-chological Association.

Gwynne, S. C. (1992, September 28). The longhaul. Time, pp. 34-38.

Hudson Institute. (1987). Workforce 2000: Workand workers for the twenty-first century. India-napolis, IN: Author.

Huuhtanen, P. (1994). Improving the workingconditions of older people: An analysis of at-titudes toward early retirement. In G. P. Keita&J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a chang-ing workforce (pp. 197-206). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Keita, G. P., & Hurrell, J.J. (1994). Job stress in achanging workforce. Washington, DC: Ameri-can Psychological Association.

Long, B. C. (1998). Coping with workplace stress:A multiple-group comparison of female man-agers and clerical workers. Journal of Counsel-ing Psychology, 45, 65-78.

Marshall, N. L., & Barnett, R. C. (1994). Family-friendly workplaces, work-family interface,and worker health. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hur-rell, Jr. (Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce(pp. 253-264). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Martocchio, J.J., & O'Leary, A. M. (1989). Sexdifferences in occupational stress: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 495-501.

McLeod, R. G. (1997, December 16). Income gapwidens in state. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A3.

Mirkin, M. P. (1990). The social and political con-texts of family therapy. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. (1990).Women and minorities in management.American Psychologist, 45, 200-208.

Northwestern Natural Life. (1991). Employee bum-out: America's newest epidemic. Minneapolis,MN: Author.

Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth/white wealth. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Osipow, S. H., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Unem-ployment and mental health: A neglected re-lationship. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2,59-63.

Piltch, C. A., Walsh, D. C., Mangione, T. W., &Jennings, S. E. (1994). Gender, work, andmental distress in an industrial labor force:An expansion of Karasek's job strain model.In G. P. Keita &J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Jobstress in a changing workforce (pp. 39-54).Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Pleck, J. (1985). Working wives/working husbands.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Samuleson, R.J. (1996). The good life and its dis-contents: The American dream in the age of entitle-ment 1945-1995. New York: Times Books.

Seppa, N. (1996). Downsizing: A new form ofabandoment. APA Monitor, 26, pp. 1, 38.

Spalter-Roth, R., & Harmann, H. (1992). Explor-ing the characteristics of self-employment and part-time work among women. Washington, DC: In-stitute for Women's Policy Research.

St. Paul Fire and Marine. (1992, December).American workers under pressure (Technical rep.)Minneapolis, MN: Author.

Staats, S., Partlo, C., Armstrong-Stassen, M., &Plimpton, L. (1994). Older working widows:Present and expected experiences of stressand quality of life in comparison with mar-ried workers. In G. P. Keita &J.J. Hurrell, Jr.(Eds.), Job stress in a changing workforce (pp.


181-196). Washigton, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Staff buyouts make careers harder to plan. (1995,December 31). Oakland Tribune, p. D3.

Study: 2020 begins age of the elderly. (1996, May21). USA Today, p. 4A.

Sue, D. W. (1994, Winter). U.S. business and thechallenge of cultural diversity. The DiversityFactor, 3, 24-28.

Sue, D.W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R.J.(1992). Multicultural counseling competen-cies and standards: A call to the profession.Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Develop-ment, 20, 64-88.

Sutherland, V. J., & Cooper G. L. (1995). Out ofthe frying pan into the fire: Managing blue-collar stress at work. In L. E. Tetrick & J. Bar-ling (Eds.), Changing employment relations: Be-

havioral and social perspectives (pp. 109-132).Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Tilly, C. (1990, March). Reasons for the continu-ing growth of part-time employment. MonthlyLabor Review, 10-18.

Trocki, K. F., & Orioli, E. M. (1994). Gender dif-ferences in stress symptoms, stress-producingcontexts, and coping strategies. In G. P. Keita&J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.),/oft stress in a chang-ing workforce (pp. 7-22). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1992). Statistical ab-stract of the United States. The national data book(112th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau.(1992). Women workers outlook to 2005. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

the changing ¥ace of work in the united states...

Documents