This was written by Antoine Borromeo and edited by Elizha Corpus, with panels constructed with and by Aimary Rubio, all of Elizha Corpus Consulting.
We combed through the existing literature on the future of work, as well as what Filipinos value at work, to come up with the listed words in each table.
Running the stats on your Likert-scale ratings of how related or valuable the words are to the concepts, we came up with these rankings.
The top 3 indicated elements of the future of work are purpose, employee support, and automation/technology; while the bottom 3 are belonging (high level of connection with colleagues), monitoring of employees, and contingent workers/gig economy.
For the indicated elements of what Filipinos value at work, we have self-development/personal growth, positive and inclusive work environment, and societal impact on the job on top; and financial benefits, how challenging the job is, and, honor brought to family or community because of the job on the bottom.
We ran a Spearman correlation on the items to not only look at how they are related to one another within their concepts, but also across them. We wanted to see if what we value is related to our vision of the future of work. Apparently, it is.
After sifting through the qualitative data from Survey 1, we extracted frequently mentioned terms and grouped them into themes. Through these themes, we are able to see a story of how perceptions of what we value at work shape our perceptions of the future of work, at least in terms of (1) work conditions and (2) work characteristics.
Interestingly, however, when we talk about what we value in (3) the individual experience of work, there was no mention of how these translate into how we perceive the future of work.
If you value something, shouldn’t it be something that you would want to be manifested?
Do we not see the future of work coming up to par with the individual experience of work that we value?
What gives?
For more on this go to bit.ly/FutureOfWork1MyLearning
In cleaning the data, we had to omit duplicates and clerical inconsistencies. Thus, there are different demographics for different parts of the results For your reference and context, here they are.
The first survey’s literature-derived elements were reconciled and integrated with its participant-data-derived ones to come up with the glossaries for the second survey.
Comments