Study title

Practices of Working Life 2012: Employers

Alternative Title

MEADOW 2012: Employer Survey: Finnish Data

Dataset ID Number

FSD2955

Persistent identifiers

https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD2955
https://doi.org/10.60686/t-fsd2955

Data Type

Quantitative

Authors

• University of Tampere. Work Research Center (WRC)

Other Identification/Acknowledgements

• Nieminen, Markku (Statistics Finland. Interview and Survey Services)

Abstract

The survey focused on organisational practices and organisational change in Finland. Data were collected from private and public sector employers through telephone interviews. The contents of the survey were influenced by the MEADOW (Measuring the Dynamics of Organisations and Work) tool created to collect data on change at work and in organisations at the European level, both from employers and employees. Another influence were the national MEADOW surveys in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. This dataset forms the Finnish employer-level MEADOW survey. However, some parts of the Finnish survey differ from corresponding surveys in the other Nordic countries as the Finnish data contain more information on, for instance, organisational change and ways to implement changes, as well as on the role of employees in those changes and employee well-being. Both employer-level (FSD2955) and employee-level (FSD2954) surveys have been archived and the data can be combined using the organisation number variable.

First, the interviewees were asked about their job in the organisation, and how long they had been doing it. Main characteristics of the organisation were investigated with questions on the number of employees in Finland and elsewhere, years of operation, type of organisation, main products or services, and main customer groups. The share of employees with temporary, part-time or employment agency contracts were surveyed. Further questions studied changes in staff numbers in the past two years and the reason behind employment growth or decline. Organisational structure was investigated by asking about the number of organisational levels, organisation into divisions or departments, team work practices, team autonomy, and involvement of non-managerial employees in improvement and development work.

Questions on flexibility at work charted whether non-managerial employees could telecommute or choose when to start or end their daily work. Quality monitoring practices, customer satisfaction monitoring, and the use of ICTs such as online services and the social media were studied. One topic focused on collaboration with other organisations and the outsourcing of activities or production, and changes in these practices. The respondents were also asked whether the organisation had encountered difficulties in hiring or retaining staff, what percentage of employees had an annual performance appraisal or had undertaken training, whether meetings were held between line managers/supervisors and the staff they are responsible for, and whether the organisation had written down goals for employee well-being and had nominated a person or group responsible for well-being issues.

One theme pertained to whether national or international areas accounted for the largest share of the private company's turnover, and whether the organisation had made major changes in their operations because of certain factors such as enviromental regulations, labour costs, increased competition, changes in demand, budgetary constraints etc. Innovative performance was investigated by asking about the productivity of the organisation compared with the competitors, new or significantly improved products or services introduced in the past two years, and new or significantly improved processes or marketing methods introduced. Some questions covered organisational changes in the past two years, type of change and whether a consultant had been hired and for what. The respondents were asked whether the organisation had a strategic plan in written form and what were the goals aimed at.

Keywords

businesses; employees; employers; employment contracts; flexible working time; high-growth companies; innovation; occupational life; organizations; private sector; process development; product development; public sector; quality control; well-being at work; workers participation

Topic Classification

• Social sciences (Fields of Science Classification)
• Working conditions (CESSDA Topic Classification)
• Business/industrial management and organisation (CESSDA Topic Classification)

Series

Individual datasets

Distributor

Finnish Social Science Data Archive

Access

The dataset is (B) available for research, teaching and study.

Data Collector

• Statistics Finland. Interview and Survey Services

Data Producers

• Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation

Time Period Covered

2012

Collection Dates

2012-05-02 – 2012-06-20

Nation

Finland

Geographical Coverage

Finland

Analysis/Observation Unit Type

Organization/Institution

Universe

Private companies and public sector organisations employing at least 10 persons (excluding agriculture and forestry employers)

Time Method

Cross-section

Sampling Procedure

Probability: Stratified

The sample was drawn from the Business Register maintained by Statistics Finland. The Business Register includes information from both the Register of Public Corporations and the Register of Enterprises and Establishments.

For the private company sample, the population was stratified into strata according to organization size and industry. Two samples were drawn from each stratum, one for high-growth companies and one for other private companies. The reason for a separate sample for high-growth companies was to obtain a sufficient number of such companies in the sample. High-growth companies were defined as companies which had experienced an annual employment growth of 15% or more during the years 2007-2010.

The public sector organisation sample represented central government agencies, and municipality, joint municipality and Evangelical Lutheran parish organisations. For the municipal sector (local authority), there were separate samples for 1) municipalities with fewer than 300 employees, 2) units of four administrative departments/sectors in bigger municipalities (general administration, education and culture department, social and health services, technical functions department), and 3) municipally owned companies.

Collection Mode

Telephone interview

Research Instrument

Structured questionnaire

Response Rate

76.1

Data File Language

Downloaded data package may contain different language versions of the same files.

The data files of this dataset are available in the following languages: English and Finnish.

FSD translates quantitative data into English on request, free of charge. More information on ordering data translation.

Number of Cases and Variables

121 variables and 1561 cases.

Data Version

4.0

Related Datasets

FSD2954 Practices of Working Life 2012: Employees

Completeness of Data and Restrictions

The variable K62, which charted willingness to participate in subsequent survey rounds, has been removed from the archived data.

Weighting

The data contain a weight variable matching the sample to the distributions of the target population, that is, private companies and public organisations employing at least 10 persons.

Citation Requirement

The data and its creators shall be cited in all publications and presentations for which the data have been used. The bibliographic citation may be in the form suggested by the archive or in the form required by the publication.

Bibliographical Citation

University of Tampere: Practices of Working Life 2012: Employers [dataset]. Version 4.0 (2017-06-05). Finnish Social Science Data Archive [distributor]. https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:fsd:T-FSD2955

Deposit Requirement

Notify FSD of all publications where you have used the data by sending the citation information to user-services.fsd@tuni.fi.

Disclaimer

The original data creators and the archive bear no responsibility for any results or interpretations arising from the reuse of the data.

Other Material

See downloadable files at the top of the page.

More information on MEADOW methodology and research

The MEADOW web site provides information on the project and the MEADOW Guidelines.

Related Materials

Aho, Simo & Mäkiaho, Ari (2013). Organisaatioiden ja työn dynamiikka työnantajien näkökulmasta. MEADOW-tutkimuksen I väliraportti. Helsinki: Tekesin katsaus; 299.

Related Publications

Aho, Simo & Mäkiaho, Ari (2013). Organisaatioiden ja työn dynamiikka työnantajien näkökulmasta. MEADOW-tutkimuksen I väliraportti. Helsinki: Tekesin katsaus; 299.

Aho, Simo & Minkkinen, Jaana & Mäkiaho, Ari (2013). Organisaatioiden ja työn dynamiikka työntekijöiden näkökulmasta. MEADOW-tutkimuksen II väliraportti. Helsinki: Tekesin katsaus; 300.

Aho, Simo & Minkkinen, Jaana & Mäkiaho, Ari (2014). Organisointikäytännöt, innovatiivisuus ja työhyvinvointi. Työnantaja- ja työntekijähaastatteluja yhdistävään MEADOW-aineistoon perustuva tutkimus. Helsinki: Tekesin katsaus; 310.

Alasoini, Tuomo & Aho, Simo & Minkkinen, Jaana & Mäkiaho, Ari (2013). Organisaatioiden ja työn dynamiikka Suomessa - MEADOW-tutkimuksen välituloksia. Työpoliittinen aikakauskirja 57(4), 39 - 52.

Voipio, Anssi (2015). Do high-involvement management practices enhance employees' innovative behavior? Helsinki: Aalto University School of Business. Department of Economics. Kansantaloustieteen pro gradu -tutkielma.

Lindström, Sara & Janhonen, Minna (2015). Kasvuyritys työpaikkana. Kasvuyritysten ketterä henkilöstöjohtaminen - toimintamalleja pk-yrityksille (KetteräHR). Helsinki: Työterveyslaitos.

Lindström, Sara & Janhonen, Minna (2015). Naisten ja miesten käsityksiä henkilöstöjohtamisesta, työhyvinvoinnista ja työn muutoksista kasvu- ja muissa yrityksissä. Helsinki: Työterveyslaitos.

Rantanen Flores, Mirva (2017). Aineeton pääoma suomalaisissa työorganisaatioissa. Resursseja vai eriarvoisuutta? Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto. Yhteiskuntatutkimus. Sosiaalipsykologian kandidaatintutkielma.

Ogbonnaya, C. & Messersmith, J. (2018) Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: mutual gains or conflicting outcomes? Human Resource Management Journal. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12203