Análise crítica do modelo BPSO-96 de QVT a partir da teoria da atividade de A. N. Leontiev

Abstract

Este artigo, fruto de uma dissertação de mestrado cuja metodologia adotada foi a pesquisa teórico-bibliográfica, discute criticamente o que se convencionou denominar como Qualidade de Vida no Trabalho (QVT), a partir da teoria da atividade de A. N. Leontiev, tendo como objeto específico de análise o modelo Biopsicossocial e Organizacional (BPSO-96) de QVT. Para isso, revisa o conceito e a história da QVT, bem como apresenta uma síntese das críticas a ela já apontadas por diversos autores. Na sequência, define e analisa o modelo BPSO-96. O intuito é contribuir com os estudos críticos da QVT, demonstrando que se trata de uma estratégia de gestão cujo objetivo velado é o aumento da produtividade do trabalhador, por meio de métodos que manipulam objetiva e subjetivamente os motivos da atividade de trabalho e obscurecem em sua consciência seu sentido alienado. Dessa forma, este artigo visa contribuir para o processo de tomada de consciência dos reais objetivos e consequências dos programas de QVT para a classe trabalhadora, mostrando que, apesar de seu discurso pseudo-humanista, esta estratégia de gestão atende prioritariamente aos interesses de maior produtividade da organização.

Quality of working life: conceptions in Brazilian federal universities

“…However, they do mention the Brazilian legislation and the Subsistema Integrado de Atenção à Saúde do Servidor (Integrated Healthcare Subsystem for Civil Servants) suggests that the gap between what is expressed on the Web pages and reality is more likely because of the intention of seeming to comply with legal and governmental requirements regarding inspections and accountability. Anyway, there would be a gap between scientific knowledge about the QWL and institutional actions, corroborating considerations in the literature (Ferreira, 2011;Ferreira, Alves, & Tostes, 2009;Padilha, 2010;Pracidelli & Rossler, 2018;Sant'Anna et al, 2011). Knowing whether they consist of a mere publicity stunt without corresponding actions requires new studies addressing institutional actors (civil servants and managers), or through direct observation.…”

“…However, such omissions did not occur in universities that started to operate between 1985 and 2002, during the redemocratization of the country. Literature (González et al, 1996;Sant'Anna et al, 2011) associated the QWL movement and the redemocratization process, as well as Carvalho et al (2017) and Pracidelli and Rossler (2018), who dated the 1990s as the popularization period of QWL in Brazil. The Systemic and Preventive conception is more expressed on the Web pages of the institutions put into operation until 2002 than the other concepts, but the same occurs in institutions that were founded after 2012, suggesting that they have already started to operate while being aware of problems such as attracting professionals and ensuring the continuity of their permanence and productivity.…”

“…According to some authors (Ferreira, 2011;Pracidelli & Rossler, 2018;Sant'Anna, Kilimnik, & Moraes, 2011), addressing the QWL is a challenge in the sense of differentiating it from its vulgarization, which confuses with organizational marketing, public relations strategies, self-help, assistance and/or compensatory programs (for example, offering work-based physical activities and additional payments for hazardous duty). However, fortunately, we recognized that there are scientific approaches (Hackman & Oldham, 1975;Mejbel, Almsafir, Diron, & Alnaser, 2013), including Brazilian researchers (Carvalho, Domingues-Júnior, & Sant'Anna, 2017;Ferreira, 2015;Sant'Anna et al, 2011;Silva & Oliveira, 2017).…”

“…However, fortunately, we recognized that there are scientific approaches (Hackman & Oldham, 1975;Mejbel, Almsafir, Diron, & Alnaser, 2013), including Brazilian researchers (Carvalho, Domingues-Júnior, & Sant'Anna, 2017;Ferreira, 2015;Sant'Anna et al, 2011;Silva & Oliveira, 2017). This does not mean that the tendency for organizations to use QWL programs with the intention of reconciling the interests of capital and labor has been overcome; this trend was considered by some authors (Padilha, 2010;Pracidelli & Rossler, 2018) as illusory and responsible for deepening the alienation of work. On the contrary, the mentioned implications require a critical view of the concepts and/or theoretical models in vogue.…”

“…However, all alternative and humanist initiatives, inserted in the capitalist environment, tend to be incorporated and, in the case of QWL, as a way to increase productivity. Therefore, we follow the evaluation (Ferreira, 2011;Padilha, 2010;Pracidelli & Rossler, 2018) that QWL, in its common sense and assistentialist perspectives, tends to represent a theatricalization of humanization. These authors prefer, however, the continuity of the implementation of QWL programs to the omission in the theme.…”