A Gender-Based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and Its

A Gender-based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and its

Effects on Work Attitudes of Israeli Schoolteachers

Zehava Rosenblatt

Faculty of Education, University of Haifa

Mt. Carmel, Haifa 31905

Phone +972-4-8344425 Fax +972-4-8240911

E-mail [email protected]

Ilan Talmud

Department of Sociology, University of Haifa


Phone +972-4-8240992 Fax +972-4-8240819


Ayalla Ruvio

Faculty of Education, University of Haifa


Phone +972-4-8263334 Fax +972-4-8240911


2



Abstract

Gender effects on job insecurity and other work attitudes (organizational commitment,

tendency to quit, resistance to change, perceived performance and perceived

organizational support) are investigated in this paper, taking Israeli schoolteachers as a

case in point. Using a multi-dimensional measure of job insecurity, it was found that

men and women significantly differed in their level and profile of job insecurity: Males

were more insecure and emphasized financial concerns, while females expressed

concerns about intrinsic facets of their jobs. Gender effects on work attitudes were above

and beyond the effects of job insecurity and other demographic characteristics for most of

the work attitudes studied. Moreover, the effects of job insecurity on work attitudes were

different for men and women: while for females all job attitudes were adversely affected

by job insecurity, for males only organizational commitment, intention to leave, and

resistance to change were affected. Gender theories were used to explain the differences

found in this study. Theoretical and managerial implications of the findings are

discussed.

3



Research on the organizational outcomes of job insecurity (JI) has proliferated in the past

two decades, following steadily increasing rates of downsizing and layoffs in private and

public sectors alike (Herz, 1991; New York Times, 1996). In particular, the effects of JI

on workers' health, work attitudes and work behavior have been widely investigated (see

review in Harrtley, Jacobson, Klandermans and Van Vuuren, 1991).

Generally, findings show that work attitudes and behaviors are adversely

affected by JI. For example, JI was associated with decreased trust in organizations

(Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989), decreased organizational loyalty (Loseby, 1992), and a

decrease in perceived organizational support (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio &

Rosenblatt, forthcoming). JI also affected organizational commitment, resistance to

change, and the intention to leave (Ashford et al., 1989; Davy, Kinicki & Scheck, 1997;

Kuhnert & Vance, 1992; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming).

Finally, perceived work performance (but not objective work performance) was

negatively associated with JI (Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996; Ruvio & Rosenblatt,

forthcoming).

However, most if not all of these studies have looked at workers population as a

whole, with no distinction between the two major sub-populations of males and females.

As stated by Hartley et al. (1991), most of the studies on JI "have focused almost

exclusively on male workers�The pattern of full-time employment without interruption is

predominantly a male pattern and, for example, it could be that males as a group react to

4

and cope with JI differently from women" (p. 202). The authors further assert that males

have traditionally been considered as more job-secure than females. This tendency is

subject to change, though, with the increasing entry rate of females into the workforce

pool (News & World report, 1995).

Research results regarding attitudinal differences in JI are less than conclusive.

Harpaz (1990a), in his study on Israeli work values, found no gender differences in the

importance attributed to JI. Similar results were reported by Scozzaro and Subich (1990).

Elizur (1994), however, in his study of work values in three countries (Israel, Hungary

and the Netherlands), showed that females ranked the importance of job security higher

than males did. Bridges (1989) and Tolbert and Moen (1998) also detected gender

differences but in the opposite direction than Elizur's: in their studies males attributed

significantly higher importance to job security than females did. These seemingly

contrasting results call for finer analysis and clear definition of the JI concept, in order to

search for fine-grained differences, if exist, in JI experience among genders.

For this end, a comprehensive conceptualization of JI is needed, encompassing, as

much as possible, a broad view of this concept. We found that Greenhalgh and

Rosenblatt's (1984) JI model answered this requirement. According to their theoretical

framework, JI was viewed as "perceived powerlessness to maintain desired continuity in

a threatened job situation" (p. 438). This definition reflects the assumption that JI is not

limited to events involving loss of the whole job only, but also to events involving the

loss of any specific work aspect, such as the loss of income, promotion opportunity,

location, colleagues, etc. According to this theoretical framework, the subjective feeling

of threat to one's job (JI) leads to adverse employee attitudes, and subsequently to

decreased organizational adaptation. The model further predicts that, in addition to

personality moderators, dependency factors such as occupational mobility and economic

status also intervene in the relationships between the subjective experience of JI and

5

reactions to JI. This model has been tested using various occupational groups (Ashford et

al., 1989), and its predictive and construct validity have been validated.

In contrast to traditional models of JI research, where the natural study sites are

characterized by real threat of job loss (e.g. Brockner, Grover & Blonder, 1988; Davy et

al., 1997; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992), Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) model can and

should be tested in stable conditions, where specific, not general, sources of JI can be

detected in what seems to be secure employment. For this reason, Israeli schools, which

were generally considered as one of the more stable working places, were selected as a

study site for the present study, and schoolteachers were used as the study population.

Israeli schoolteachers as a whole enjoy a high level of JI, protected by powerful

unions and benevolent work laws. In spite of recent privatization trends, most Israeli

schoolteachers work under collective contracts, characterized foremost by strong

protection against dismissals. Consequently, teaching as a whole is considered in Israel

as a relatively guaranteed employment arrangement (Lewin, 1992). A second reason for

selecting schoolteachers for this study is that, unlike other occupations, often studied in JI

research, female and male teachers rarely differ in their job title descriptions, thus the

school as an organization is a useful setting for examining gender models of JI. A third

reason for the choice of schoolteachers is their employment heterogeneity. Some of the

Israeli teachers work for kibbutzim, either as kibbutz members, who enjoy almost

absolute employment security, or as kibbutz hirees, who enjoy improved working

conditions and organizational climate that is assumed to contribute positively to their

sense of JI. These differences should give a broader perspective on JI of Israeli teachers.

One way to understand the differential experience of JI among teachers is through

the theoretical foundation of occupational stress research. The most obvious stress

components in the JI experience are uncertainty and ambiguity, which are further

aggravated by the low social visibility characterizing this psychological state (Davy et al.,

1997; Hartley et al., 1991; Jacobson, 1991). Job-insecure employees are unsure about the

6

continuation of their employment and havtypically no reference group to be associated

with and possibly draw support from, unlike the laid-off (in massive downsizing) or the

unemployed. Indeed, studies show that JI correlates with stress-related indicators such as

somatization, anxiety, anger/hostility, depression, and inter-personal sensitivity (Kuhnert,

Sims & Lahey, 1989; Kuhnert & Palmer, 1989; Kuhnert & Vance, 1992).

Studies on stress and gender differences yield various and often inconsistent

results. Martocchio and O'Leary's (1989) meta analysis of research on sex differences in

occupational stress reported that sex had no relationship whatsoever (in regard to both

physiological and psychological measures) with occupational stress. Similarly, no

differences were found between Israeli males and females in regard to stress in work

(unlike stress in life, see Etzion, 1984). In education, however, Long and Gessaroli

(1989) reported that males were more stressed than females, while Calabrese and

Anderson (1986) found that females were more stressed than males. In regard to coping

with stress, no difference was found between male and female educators (Gmelch, 1988).

Judging from these results, it would be hard to predict whether males or females

are more prone to JI. It is necessary, then, to turn into more basic gender theories of work

and occupations in order to get a better understanding and draw theoretical leads for a

comparative study on the JI experience of the two genders. Three gender theories will be

considered: macro-level patriarchy theory, theories of gendered occupations and jobs,

and the theory of gendered organizations.

Patriarchy Theory. According to patriarchy theory, The school as an organization, and

teaching as a profession are embedded in the gendered nature of society (Chodorov,

1978; Hartmann, 1979; 1981; Cockburn, 1986). Society is composed of "a system of

interrelated social structures through which males exploit females (Walby, 1986: 52-3).

In schools, males are more mobile upward in school hierarchies and enjoy higher status

than females. An overwhelming proportion of top school administrative jobs are held by

7

men, compared to their proportion in the general teaching population (Owens, 1995: 106;

Shakeshaft, 1986). Hence, males are a privileged class, experiencing more objective

opportunities in the labor market, and lower costs of quitting their jobs than females.

Consequently, males should experience less JI than females, and moreover, JI doesn't

modify males' attitudes and conduct (Walby, 1986; Witz, 1990).

This theory is consistent with Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) JI model

mentioned above. In the patriarchic society males are clearly more independent both in

terms of occupational mobility and in terms of economic status. Therefore, as predicted

by the JI model, their work attitudes and performance should not be affected by their JI

status.

Theories of Gendered Occupations and Jobs. Another approach to gender differences

includes models of occupational sex segregation and the theory of gendered occupations

(e.g. Weber, 1988; Parkin, 1974; Witz, 1990). According to the main premises of this

group of theories, teaching is a gendered profession. Because males monopolize or

expropriate certain lucrative professions, there is a "crowning effect" of female

employees to less prestigious occupations and jobs, resulting in occupation and job

segregation by sex, such as in teaching.

A major discriminant factor between male-dominated and female-dominated

occupations is income level. Accumulated evidence show that over and above wage

discrimination between sexes, occupational choice explains earning disparity: both males

and females in female-dominated occupation tend to earn less than their counterparts in

male-dominant occupations (Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). In "pink collar" profession,

accordingly, both sexes are discontent (Hunt, 1993). In addition, females are

discriminated against in both male-dominated and female-dominated occupations

(Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). In terms of JI, then, females should experience less job

8

security in general, but in female-dominated occupations, such as teaching, males should

also experience JI, at least in regard to the financial aspects of their employment.

Theory of gendered organization. The theory of gendered organization (Acker, 1990;

Talmud and Izraeli, 1998) claims that even within a female dominated profession, the

organization has "male" language, codes, and shared narratives which inhibit the

promotion of female workers. Thereby those token males inside the organization will

experience more opportunity to move internally (Lorber, 1994). The theory of gendered

organization thus claim that it is precisely gender affecting work attitudes (Bem, 1981).

The strong impact of gender can be illustrated in the Israeli kibbutz, where

females tend to occupy the majority of educational jobs (Palgi and Adar, 1997). It has

been repeatedly shown that in spite of the Kibbutz' egalitarian ideology, there is a

growing polarization between the sexes in the public-political sphere: education and

health committees are managed by females, while the economic domain is run by males.

Gender effects has been also demonstrated by Bamberger, Admati-Dvir, & Harel

(1995). In their study, conducted on Israeli employees of a unionized firm, they found

that even unions did not remove the gender effect, although females in the firm studied

were less exposed to earnings and promotion discrimination

Although school teaching is a feminine sex-typed occupation, where the majority

of employees are female, school management is clearly masculine, as stated above.

Female teachers have less opportunity than male teachers to be promoted into managerial

jobs such as principalship and superintendentship (the famous "glass ceiling effect"). In

this sense schools are gendered organizations, where males enjoy better opportunities,

thus are more job secure.

All three sets of theories lead us to infer that females in general, and female teachers in

particular, should experience higher levels of JI than males. Most studies show that

9

females are discriminated against, suffer inferior working conditions and enjoy less job-

related opportunities. Men, on the other hand, enjoy higher-status jobs and superior

income even within what seem to be feminine profession such as teaching. It was

hypothesized, then, that

Hypothesis 1. There will be differences between male and female teachers in

regard to the level of JI experience: females will experience higher levels of JI

than males will.

However, the different employment experience of males and females within

gendered occupations suggests that the classification of males and females as either job

secure or job insecure is a bit too crude. In particular, the inconclusive results reported

earlier in regard to males and females attitudes toward JI show that the nature of the

security/insecurity experience might be different for males and females. It is necessary,

then, to break the JI experience into specific facets, and possibly draw separate JI profiles

for males and females. Accordingly, it was hypothesized that

Hypothesis 2. The JI profiles of male and female teachers will be different:

males will put more stress on financial and promotional factors, while females

will put more stress on working conditions and on the content of work.

Moreover, gender is hypothesized to affect work attitudes over and beyond the

effect of JI. There is ample evidence to show that work values of males and females

differ. For example, in a seven-country (including Israel) study Harpaz (1990a) found

that males were significantly higher than females in their ratings of the opportunity to

learn and in autonomy (Harpaz, 1990a). Females rated higher values such as

interpersonal relations, working conditions, convenient work hours, interesting work, and

match between person and job. In another study focused on work values of Israeli

workers, Harpaz (1990b) reported that males valued instrumental aspects of work more

10

than females did, and had a greater obligation to work. Females, on the othehand, had a

stronger preference for social contact at work, and valued convenient work hours more

than males. These results show that while males tend to emphasize extrinsic work

factors, females emphasize intrinsic ones. Linking these findings to research on gender

differences, it is hypothesized that the two genders differ not only in their work attitudes,

and that these differences prevail over other indicators of work-attitudes differences.

Five work attitudes were investigated in this study: work commitment, resistance

to change, intention to leave, perceived performance and perceived organizational

support. These attitudes were selected for being relevant to school framework, and being

widely studied in JI literature. Based on these findings and on finding reported earlier on

gender differences in work values, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3. Beyond the predictive effect of JI and other relevant personal

characteristics, gender will be a significant predictor of the following work

attitudes: (a) organizational commitment, (b) intention to leave, (c) resistance to

change, (d) perceived performance, and (e) perceived organizational support. JI

effects on these work attitudes would be stronger for females than for males.

Finally, systematic gender differences are expected to exist in the way JI affects

work attitudes. As specified earlier, previous finding show that JI affects work attitudes

adversely, while work dependency mediates these relationships between JI and work

outcomes (Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt, 1984). For females, whose job dependency (in

terms of mobility and economic opportunities) is higher than males', the effect of JI on

work attitudes should be higher across the board. It is therefore hypothesized that

Hypothesis 4. There will be differences between males and females in regard to

the effects of JI on the work attitudes listed in Hypothesis 3 above: These effects

will be stronger for females than for males.

11

METHOD

Sample and population

The sample of the study consisted of 385 (263 females and 112 males) secondary-school

teachers in the northern part of Israel. Data collection was conducted in schools during

work time, and yielded 73% response rate. The background and personal characteristics

of these teachers are presented in Appendix 1. In terms of working place, most of the

teachers (273) in the study sample were affiliated with regular schools in cities, and the

rest (112) were affiliated with schools located in kibbutzim, either as kibbutz members or

as hirees of the kibbutz. Females had a higher tendency to work in kibbutzim (31.9% of

the female teachers compared to 23.2% of the men). Teachers differed in their sectoral

affiliation: 121 were affiliated with the private sector (21.3% of all females and 55.4% of

all males), and 264 (78.7% of all females and 44.6% of all males) were affiliated with the

public sector. Sector affiliation reflected contract type: all private-sector teachers worked

under individual contracts, and all public-sector teachers worked under collective

contracts. The mean age of the total sample was 40.3, females being slightly younger

(39.1) than males. Mean seniority at school and in the teaching profession was 10.2 and

14.7 years for the total sample, respectively. For males mean seniority was 11.0 and 16.1

years, and for females 10.4 and 15.1 years, respectively. In terms of education, 32.4% of

the total sample had a professional (teaching) degree acquired in higher education

institutions designated as teachers colleges, 53.7% had a BA degree, and only 13.9 had

MA degree or above. Females had relatively higher educational level than males (16.1%

had MA degree or above compared to 9.1% among males). The demographic figures for

the total sample resemble those found in other studies on teachers in the northern part of

Israel (e.g., Rosenblatt & Inbal, 1998).

12

Variables and measures

JI. This variable was measured by Ashford et al.s (1989) instrument, which is the

operationalization of Greenhalgh and Rosenblatt's (1984) conceptualization, adopted for

the population of Israeli schoolteachers (see Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). The instrument

included two parts:

or The total job sub-scale. This measure comprised of 5 items describing the loss

of various aspects of the job as a whole, such as layoffs, cut in work hours, and

undesirable changes in work schedule.

sr The job features sub-scale. This measure comprised of 21 items describing

specific job features. The features included work factors borrowed from the Job

Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) and other lists of work

characteristics, adopted to the teaching profession in a pre-test (Rosenblatt & Ruvio,

1996).

Responses for each item were along a scale of 1-5, and referred to the item's

importance to the respondent and to the likelihood that a negative (unwanted) change

might take place in the future. The composite score of JI was determined by the following

formula:

JI = � [mean job feature score (importance x likelihood) +

mean total job score (importance x likelihood)]

The range of possible scores on each of the sub-scales was 1-25, and that of the

composite JI score was 2-50. Reliability coefficients of the job features and the total job

sub-scales were �=.89 and �=.75 respectively, and that of the composite scale was

�=.90.

Organizational commitment. This 9-item scale was adopted from Mowday, Steers, and

Porter's (1979) conceptualization and measurement. Ashford et al. (1989), who used this

13

scale in their study on JI, reported a reliability of �=.91. In the present study, scale

reliability was �=.84.

Intention to leave. This 5-item scale was adopted from Walsh, Ashford, and Hill (1985).

It was also used by Ashford et al. (1989), who reported a reliability of �=.92. In the

current study reliability was �=.84.

Resistance to change. This 7-item scale was adopted from Georgiades (1967), who used

it for schoolteachers. Reliability in the present study was �=.72.

Perceived performance. This 4-item scale was adopted from Brokstein (1991), who used

it in a study of Israeli schoolteachers, with a reported reliability of �=.78. Reliability in

the current study was �=.73.

Perceived organizational support. This 17-item scale was adopted from Eisenberger,

Huntington, Hutchison and Sowa (1986), who used it for schoolteachers, with a reported

reliability of �=.91. Scale reliability in the present study was �=.82.

Demographic variables. The demographic variables specified above, including working

place (city or kibbutz), sectoral affiliation, age, marital status, seniority (at school and in

teaching), and education (degree) were measured and their association with JI and work

attitudes was analyzed.

All the attitudinal scales used in this study were 1-5 Likert scales, and all reliability

measurements used alpha Cronbach.

14

RESULTS

Results are reported next focusing on four topics: (a) gender differences in JI level

(hypothesis 1), (b) gender differences in JI profiles (hypothesis 2), (c) gender differences

in work attitudes (hypothesis 3), and (d) gender differences in the effect of JI on work

attitudes (hypothesis 4).

(a) Gender Differences in JI level

Results showed that the JI scores of females and males were significantly different (Table

1) either by the composite JI measure (t=-2.30, df=200, p=.02), or by the job features and

the total job sub scales (t=-2.10, df=199, p=.04; t=-1.86, df=195, p=.05, respectively).

Note that the average JI score of the total sample (18.05 out of 50) was relatively high,

considering the stable condition of the teacher's population studied. This score reflects

the multi-dimensional approach to JI in this study, where discontinuation of any work

aspect is considered as affecting JI.

(Table 1 about here)

The JI score of males was significantly higher than that of females, both in the composite

measure and in the two sub-scales. Hypothesis 1 was not supported, rather, the results

are in the opposite direction. Israeli male teachers were more job insecure than female

teachers.

In the following section we will go a step further to describe the nature the JI

experience reported by the different genders.

15

(b) JI Profiles of Males and Females

The different means and SD of the total sample, as well as those of the two sub samples,

for each one of the work aspects measured are presented in Table 2. Also presented are t-

tests for gender differences in regard to every single item in the composite JI measure.

( Table 2 about here )

The highest means for the total sample in the job features sub scale were the items pay

raise (mean 10.4), autonomy in performing work (mean 10.2), and maintaining pay level

(mean 10.1). The highest means in the total job sub scale were undesirable changes in

work schedule (mean 10.9) and cuts in working hours (mean 10.1). If we consider the

item cut in work hours as related to income loss, Israeli teachers could be characterized

as mostly worried about financial aspects of the job, but also about autonomy and work

schedule.

Although males' JI scores were higher than females' scores almost across the

board (except for the item team participation), these differences were significant for only

five job aspects: maintaining pay level (t=-2.90, df=185, p=.00), pay raise (t=-2.91,

df=179, p=00), significant impact (t=-2.22, df=182, p=.03), training (t=-2.02, df=175,

p=.04) and cut in working hours (t=-2.69, df=178, p=.01). Israeli male teachers could be

characterized by an emphasis on financial aspects of the job. In all these aspects males

scored higher than females. Israeli female teachers, on the other hand (when looking

vertically at Table 2), were mostly concerned about undesirable changes in work

schedule (mean 10.72), and autonomy in performing work (mean 10.03). They were also

concerned with pay raise (mean 9.80), maintaining pay level (mean 9.53), cut in work

hours (mean 9.46) and autonomy in work design (mean 9.33). Although all these means

were lower than those of the males, they reflected relative emphasis on both financial and

autonomy aspects. Hypothesis 2 was mostly supported, then, in particular in regard to

males.

16

At the other end of the job aspects spectrum, both males and females were least

concerned with the item physical demands of the job, involuntary early retirement, and

team participation. The first aspect is indeed less relevant to the work content of the

Israeli teachers. The second aspect is irrelevant considering the average age of the israeli

teachers (40 years), and the fact that this downsizing strategy is hardly used in Israel

among teachers. The third aspect — team participation — reflects, perhaps, the little

emphasis put in most Israeli schools on practicing team work (Sharan & Shahar, 1990).

(c) Gender Differences in Work Attitudes

In order to explore the initial levels of gender differences in work attitudes, a series of t-

tests were run on each one of the dependent variables. Results are presented in Table 3.

Females had significantly higher means in organizational commitment (t=2.05, df=180,

p=.04), perceived performance (t=3.44, df=179, p=.00), and perceived organizational

support (t=4.04, df=261, p=.00), but not in intention to leave, where males had

significantly higher scores (t=-2.32, df=194, p=.02). In regard to resistance to change

females' scores were higher than males' scores, but these differences were statistically

insignificant. Generally, then, females had stronger and more positive work attitudes

(excluding resistance to change) than males.

Next, the differential effect of gender on work attitudes will be examined as a

residual of the predictive explanatory power of JI and other personal characteristics.


For the purpose of detecting the net contribution of gender to work attitudes, a 2-step

forced-entry regression analysis was performed. In the first step, the following

independent variables were included in the regression model: (a) JI, measured in its

composite form. (b) Working place (city or kibbutz). The Israeli kibbutz is presumed to

represent the ultimate employment security, therefore, the intention was to investigate its

added predictive power. Working place was coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1

17

indicating city and kibbutz, respectively. (c) Sectoral affiliation. This variable was

strongly related to JI: private-sector teachers had individual contracts and did not enjoy

any formal job security, while public-sector teachers worked under collective contracts

that provided guaranteed employment (see Ruvio & Rosenblatt, forthcoming). Sectoral

affiliation was coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1 indicating private and public

sector, respectively. (d) Seniority in profession. This variable was preferred over

seniority in school, since in Israel employment was widely guaranteed by major public

employers (the government or local municipality), but not necessarily the job itself. (e)

Age.

In the second step gender (coded as a dummy variable, with 0 and 1 indicating

males and females, respectively) was entered alone, controlling for the other independent

variables listed above. Results are presented in Table 4.

(Table 4 about here)

Results showed that without the presence of the gender variable, overall JI was the

strongest predictor, having an adverse effect on all five work attitudes. These results

replicate findings in previous research (e.g., Ashford et al., 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio,

1996). In three work attitudes (organizational commitment, intention to leave, and

perceived organizational support) JI was the first variable presented in the regression

equation.

Work in a kibbutz (vs. city) predicted a decrease in resistance to change,

perceived performance, and perceived organizational support. These last two results are

puzzling. In step with Rosenblatt & Ruvio's (1996) findings, that the JI experience of

kibbutz teachers was mostly related to social and other intrinsic issues, kibbutz teachers,

compared to city teachers, probably tended to report on increased efforts, while being

assured of the kibbutz continuing overall support.

Sectoral affiliation predicted all work attitudes except organizational

commitment. Affiliation with the public-sector employees negatively predicted intention

18

to leave, and positively predicted resistance to change, perceived performance, and

perceived organizational support. The reaction of public sector teachers in regard to the

last two variables is similar to that of kibbutz teachers, perhaps owing to similar

confidence in overall objective employment security.

Seniority in the teaching profession and age predicted some of the work attitudes:

seniority predicted increased organizational commitment, increased resistance to change,

and increased perceived organizational support. Older age predicted decreased resistance

to change and decreased organizational support. The order these variables were entered

into the regression equations showed the following: when controlling for age, more

senior teachers regarded their schools as more supportive. Controlling for seniority,

older teachers were less resistant to change. R2 for all work attitudes is significant,

where the explained variance in organizational commitment, intention to leave, resistance

to change, perceived performance, and perceived organizational support was 7.5%, 13%,

11.4%, 5.8%, and 8.3%, respectively.

When gender was entered at the second step, it significantly contributed to three

work attitudes, above and beyond the effects of JI and the other demographic variables.

Females, more than men, were committed to their schools (�=.104, p<.05), perceived

their performance as higher (�=.170, p<.01), and perceived their organizational support

as higher (�=.144, p<.05). Intention to leave and resistance to change were not predicted

by gender. The R2 of all models was significant, with �R2 of 1.1%, 2.5%, .2%, 2.5%,

and 1.5% added to the explained variance in organizational commitment, intention to

leave, resistance to change, perceived performance and perceived organizational support,

respectively.

(d) Gender Differences in the Effect of JI on Work Attitudes

In order to explore the unique effects of gender on the relationshibetween JI and work

attitudes, two sets of stepwise regression analyses were performed. Each analysis

19

contained in fact one independent (JI) and one dependent variable (work attitude).

Demographic variables (other than gender) were not added in this analysis, since we were

interested at this point only in the contribution of JI to work attitudes, not in the

contribution of other variables. The analysis, therefore, was similar to correlational

analysis, but the model (based on Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt's 1984 conceptualization)

enabled causal inferences. Results are presented in Table 5.


Results show that females had a different pattern than males in their attitudinal reactions

to JI. For the female teachers, JI significantly affected all work attitudes measured (note

that for resistance to change, the p value was .07, for the rest of the attitudes p value

ranged between .00 to .02). For males, in two of the work attitudes measured —

perceived performance and perceived organizational support — JI had no effect. In

organizational commitment the effect was relatively weak (p<.09). Males' work

attitudes, then, in particular perceived performance and perceived organizational support,

were not affected much by JI. Hypothesis 3 was supported: the effect of JI on work

attitudes was stronger for females than for males.

DISCUSSION

The results supported the main thrust of this study, that gender affected both the

experience and the impact of JI on work attitudes. The two genders differed in their JI

level: male teachers were more insecure than female teachers. Moreover, the profiles of

the JI experience were different for the two genders: while males were mostly concerned

with financial aspects of the job and with making significant impact, females were

concerned with work content and work schedule, as well as with financial aspects. In

addition, males and females had different patterns in regard to the effect of JI on work

attitudes: for females, JI had a stronger and more positive impact on work attitudes than

20

for males. Generally, gender had an added effect, above and beyond JI and other relevant

personal characteristics, on most of the work attitudes. That means that the contextual

effect of gender cannot be reduced to work-level characteristics. Our interpretation is

that this effect is related to external societal forces, specifically, to the general role of

females in teaching, in schools, and perhaps in society as a whole.

The finding regarding males' higher JI scores (Table 1) indicated that gender

differences existed, but in an opposite direction to what was hypothesized. The

explanation for this finding possibly lies in the gendered nature of the teaching profession

and the school, but in a different way than expected. Indeed, as gender theories claim,

males enjoy better promotion opportunities in the teaching profession. However, salaries

and benefits of both sexes are lower compared to those in male-dominated occupations.

Therefore, males feelings of JI might reflect concerns about financial and material

aspects of the job, not necessarily the loss of the total job. The multi-dimensional

framework, then, is helpful in tapping the specific sources of JI, bringing them to surface

.

Another interpretation, from female's point of view, lies in the sex-labeling

theory. This model links individual occupational choice and preferences to occupational

sexual typification, thus maintaining that socially institutionalized gendered expectations

define the expected value of being employed within a given occupation. Being demanded

to exert efforts in accordance to domestic roles, it is "rational" for female teachers to

focus their attention on the perceived utility of working conditions such as long

vacations, institutionalized tenure, and working hours which are believed to be crucial to

their domestic duties. In a recent study on Israeli women (Yishai and Cohen, 1997) it

was suggested that female teachers' expectations were molded first and foremost by being

mothers. The teaching profession is particularly tailored to women's needs, according to

sex labeling theory, because it provides long vacations, easy substitution in times of

pregnancy, etc. (Oppenheimer, 1968; Lewin, 1992). It is precisely for these reasons that

21

females tend to choose this profession. Therefore, females who enter the teaching

profession for external reasons might not experience high levels of JI despite the

existence of objective JI indicators.

It should be noted that the gender differences in regard to JI might be contingent

on other factors, such as age and time. Tolbert and Moen (1998), for example, found that

the proportion of individuals assigning top rank to job security increased in time.

Similarly, Gomez-Mejia (1983) showed that gender differences in work values declined

with length of experience (and age) in the occupation. Another contingency factor might

be related to differences in the psychological contract experienced by males and females.

A psychological contract reflects the reciprocal obligations between the individual and

the organization (Rousseau, 1989). In gendered occupations and organizations, females

might perceive a low commitment of the organization to their continued employment,

therefore withdraw expectations for job security and avoid the experience of JI

altogether.

The findings pertaining to the different JI profiles of males and females were

perhaps the most original findings of this study (Table 2), demonstrating the added value

of the multi-dimensional approach to JI. These findings are supported by previous

research that found systematic gender differences in work values. For example, Scozzaro

and Subich (1990) showed that male-dominated occupations were perceived as offering

the greatest opportunity for pay and promotion, while female-dominated occupations

were perceived as providing the most feedback, pleasant co-workers, and better

supervision. Even as principals, Israeli females were found to emphasize more the social

aspects of work, while Israeli males emphasized the administrative aspects (Rosenblatt &

Somech, 1998). In accordance with gender stereotypes, than, female teachers inclined

toward "feminine" work values, while male teachers inclined toward "masculine" work

values. These tendencies can perhaps offer one explanation to Hofstede's comparative

22

study (1980), where Israeli work culture was featured as mid-way on the masculinity-

femininity continuum.

The results of the study showed that gender had a significant effect not only on

the experience of JI but on work attitudes as well (Table 3). Females were significantly

more committed and perceived their performance and organizational support as higher

than males did. These findings are in step with Scorzzaro and Zubich (1990), who

suggested that females had more positive attitudes toward work than males. The high

resistance to change among females is in contrast to the "optimistic" explanation, but this

specific difference was statistically insignificant. In regard to intention to leave males

showed higher scores. This result is supported by other studies on gender differences in

voluntary turnover. It was found, for example, that males in female-dominated

occupations have less return on human capital, thus tend to quit more easily (based on

Izraeli and Gajer, 1979; Gattiker and Cohen, 1997). Female teachers have lower

expected utility from quitting than males teachers, since their comparable worth is

measured not only against males in the school system, but also against females in other

occupations. Consequently their frustration level should not be high, and they tend less

to quit. Simpson and Simpson (1969) found that most of the female teachers (63%) who

left their occupations did so because of reasons not related to the position itself, while

only 26% of males who left the occupation reported such reasons.

As clearly demonstrated in the two-step regression analysis performed (Table 4),

gender in this study was found to uniquely explain three work attitudes (organizational

commitment, perceived performance, perceived organizational support) above and

beyond the explanation power of JI. These findings contribute to our understanding of

the organizational implications of JI, adding a powerful variable that was mostly ignored

in previous studies.

The results of this study also helped to distinguish between the different patterns

of the two genders in regard to JI effect on work attitudes (Table 5). Among female

23

teachers JI adversely affected all work attitudes (all relationships but the one pertaining

to resistance to change were statistically significant). This pattern was similar to the one

obtained in previous studies for combined samples of both males and females (e.g.

Ashford et al., 1989; Rosenblatt & Ruvio, 1996). Among male teachers, who were on the

whole more job-insecure than female teachers, JI affected only organizational

commitment, intention to leave, and resistance to change. For them, perceived

performance and perceived organizational support were apparently affected by other

factors than JI. Males, whose chances to reach top positions in the teaching occupation

are better then those of females, might perceive their organizations as unconditionally

supportive. Generally, males are less dependent than females on their jobs, therefore the

relationship between subjective JI and work attitudes is lower (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt,

1984).

The importance of research on JI lies, among others, in its relevancy. First, the

multi-dimensional approach to JI taken here views the experience of JI as relevant to a

wide spectrum of work situations and scenarios: insecurity about losing income,

insecurity about sacrificing autonomy, etc. Second, as stated by Jacobson (1991), the

population subjected to any degree of JI is considerably larger than the number of

workers who actually lose their jobs. The present study demonstrated that JI could be

explored in non-threatening occupations such as teaching. It is important to conduct

future studies on gender differences in other occupations and other social contexts as well

to establish the generalizability of the results obtained here.

More importantly, the results of the present study indicate that psychological

theories (such as theories on occupational stress) about individuals' behavior are not

sufficient to fully understand individual attitudes on the job; sociological theories (such

as gender theory) are needed as well. Research on organizational behavior is inherently

involved with various facets and various levels of human behavior. This study

24

represented a multidisciplinary effort to tackle the issue of gender differences in the

experience of JI, thus enriching and broadening our understanding of this important issue.

CONCLUSIONS

25

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations,

Gender & Society, 4, 2, 139-158.

Ashford, S., Lee, & Bobko (1989). Content, causes, and consequences of job insecurity:

Theory-based measurement and substantive test, Academy of Management

Journal, 32, 4, 803-829.

Bamberger, P., M. Admati-Dvir, and G. Harel (1995). Gender-Based Wage

And Promotion Discrimination in Israeli High Technology Firms: Do Unions

Make a Difference? Academy of Management Journal, 38, 6, 1744-1761.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender Schema Theory: A Cognitive Account of Sec Typing.

Psychological Review, 88, 354-364.

Bridges, J. (1989). Sex Differences in Occupational Values. Sex Roles, 20, 3/ 4, 205-

211.

Brockner, J., Grover, S.L. & Blonder, M. (1988). Predictors of survivors' job

involvement following layoffs: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,

3, 436-442.

Calabrese, R. L. and R. E. Anderson (1986). The Public School: Sources of Stress

and Alienation Among Female Teachers. Urban Education, 21, 1, 30-41.

Chodorov, N. (1978). The Reproduction of Mothering. Los Angeles: University of

California Press.

Cockburn, [Ilan, first initial] (1986). The Relations of Technology. In Crompton,

R. and Mann,

M.(eds.), Gender and Stratification, Oxford: Polity Press.

Davy, J.A. Kinicki, A.J. & Scheck, C.L. (1997). A test of job security's direct and

mediated ifficts on withdrawal cognitions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

18, 323-349.

26

Eisenberger, R. Huntington, R. Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived

organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 3, 500-507.

Elizur, D. (1994). Gender and Work Values: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Social

Psychology, 134, 2, 201-212.

Etzion, D. (1984). Moderating effect of social support on the stress-burnout

relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 4, 615-622.

Gattiger, U. and Cohen, A. (1997). Gender-Based Wage Differences: The Effects of

Occupation and Job Segregation in Israel. Relations Industrielles / Industrial

Relations, 52, 3, 507-530.

Georgiades, M. I. (1967). Attitudes towards change. A study of teachers to educational

innovations. M. Phil, Dissertation, University of London.

Gmelch, W.H. (1988). Educators' response to stress: Towards a coping taxonomy. The

Journal of Educational Administration, 26, 2, 223-231.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. Academy

of Management Journal, 26, 3, 492-499.

Greenhalgh, L. and Rosenblatt, Z. (1984). Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptua Clarity.

Academy of Management Review, 9, 3, 438-448.

Hackman, J. & Oldham, G. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Harpaz, I. (1990a). The meaning of work in Israel: Its nature and consequences. NY:

Praeger.

Harpaz, I. (1990b). The importance of work goals: An international perspective.

Journal of International Business Studies, 21, 75-93.

Hartley, J., Jacobson, D., Klandermans, B. & Van Vuuren, T. (1991). Job insecurity:

Coping with job at risk. London: Sage.

Hartmann, H. (1979). Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex. In Z.

Eisenstein (ed.), Capitalism, Patriarchy, and the Case for Socialist Feminism,

New York, Monthly Review Press.

27

Hartmann, H. (1981). The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a

More Progressive Union. In L. Sargant (ed.), Women and Revolution, Boston:

South End Press.

Herz, D. (1991). Worker displacement still common in the late 1980's. Monthly

Labor Review, 114, 3-9.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related

Values. London: Sage.

Hunt, G. (1993). Sex Differences in a Pink-Collar Occupation. Relations

Industrielles / Industrial Relations, 42, 3, 441-459.

Israeli & Gajer (1979) [Ilan??]

Jacobson, D. (1991). Toward a theoretical distinction between the stress components

of the job insecurity and job loss experiences. In Bacharach, S.B. (Ed.), Research

in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 9, 1-19, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kuhnert, K.W., & Palmer, D.R. (1989). Job security, health, and the intrinsic and

extrinsic characteristics of work. Group & Organization Studies, 16, 2, 178-192.

Kuhnert, K.W., Sims, R.R., & Lahey, M.A. (1989). The relationship between job

security and Employee health. Group & Organization Studies, 14, 4, 399-410.

Kuhnert, K.W. & Vance, R.J. (1992). Job insecurity and moderators of the relation

between job insecurity and employee adjustment. In J.C. Quick, L.R. Murphy, &

J.J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds.), Stress and Well-being at Work, Washington: APA.

Lewin, A. (1992). Married Women's Labor Force Participation and Part-Time

Employment in Israel. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association

conference, Pittsburgh, August.

Lim, K. G. (1996). Job Insecurity and Its Outcomes: Moderating Effects of Work-Based

and Nonwork-Based Social Support. Human Relations, 49, 2.

28

Long, B. C. & Gessaroli, M. E. (1989). The Relationship Between Teacher Stress and

Perceived Coping Effectiveness: Gender and Marital Differences. The Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, 35, 4, 308-324.

Lorber, J. (1994). The paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Loseby, P.H. (1992). Employment Security. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Martocchio, K. and O'Leary, A. (1989). Sex Difference in Occupational Stress: A

meta-Analytical Review. Jof Applied Psychology, 74, 3, 495-501.

Mowday, R. Steers, R. M. and Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational

commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

News & World Report (1995). Affirmative action on the edge, Feb. 13, 33-47.

Oppenheimer, V. (1968). The Sex Labeling of Jobs. Industrial Relations, 7, 219-234.

Owens, R.G. (1995). Organizational Behavior in Education. Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Palgi, M. and Adar, G. (1997). Women's Work in the Changing Kibbutz. In A. Maor

(Ed.), Women: The Emergent Power: The Advancement of Women at Work and

the Breaking Up of the Ceiling Glass, pp. 215-227, Tel Aviv: Sifriat ha-Po'alim,

(Hebrew).

Parkin, (1974). [ Ilan???]

Rosenblatt, Z. & Inbal, B. (1998). Skill flexibility among schoolteachers:

operationalization and organizational implications. Paper presented at the 1998

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, San Diego, California.

Rosenblatt, Z. and Ruvio, A. (1996). A Test of Multidimensional Model of Job

Insecurity: The Case of Israeli Teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

17, 587-605.

Rosenblatt, Z. & Somech, A. (1998). The Work Behavior of Israeli Elementary-School

Principals: Expectations vs. Reality. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34, 3.

(in press)

29

Rousseau, D.M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 2, 121-139

Ruvio, A., & Rosenblatt, Z. (forthcoming). Job insecurity among Israeli

schoolteachers: Sectoral profiles and organizational implications. Journal of

Educational Administration.

Scozarro, P. and Subich, L. (1990). Gender and Occupational Sex-Type Difference in

Job Outcome Factor Perception. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 109-119.

Shakeshaft, C. (1986). Women in Educational Administration. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Sharan, S. and Shahar, H. (1990). Organization and team work in educational institutions.

Jerusalem: Shoken (Hebrew).

Simpson, R. and Simpson, I. H., (1969). Women and Bureaucracy in the Semi-

Profession., In A. Eztioni (Ed.), The semi-professions and their organization:

teachers, nurses, social workers, pp. 196-265, New York, Free Press.

Talmud, I. & Izraeli, D. N. (1998). The relationship between gender and performance

issues of concern to directors: Correlates or institution? Journal of Organizational

Behavior. in press.

Tolbert, P.S., and Moen, P. (1998). Men's and women's definitions of "good" jobs:

Similarities and differences by age and across time. Work and Occupations, 25,

2, 168-194.

Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at Work. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Walsh, J. P. Ashford, S. J. & Hill, T. E. (1985). Feedback obstruction: The influence of

the information environment on employee turnover intentions. Human Relations,

38, 23-46.

Weber, (1988). [Ilan]

Witz, A. (1990). Patriarchy and Professions: The Gendered Politics of Occupationa

Closure. Sociology, 24, 4, 675-690.

30

Yishai, Y. & Cohen, A. (1997). Unrepresentative bureaucracy: Women in the Israeli

senior civil service. Administration and Society, 28, 4, 441-465.

31

TABLE 1

Job Insecurity Scores of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total Sample

(n= 385)

Female

(n= 263)

Male

(n= 112)

t (df,p)

X SD X SD X SD

Job Insecurity Scale 18.05 6.34 17.52 6.21 19.19 6.55 -2.30 (200, .02)

Job Features — Sub-Scale 8.93 2.97 8.71 2.91 9.42 3.08 -2.10 (199, .04)

Total Job — Sub-Scale 9.12 4.40 8.81 4.28 9.77 4.65 -1.86 (195, .05)

TABLE 2

Scores of Job Insecurity Sub-scales of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total

(n= 385)

Female

(n= 263)

Male

(n= 112)

t (df,p)

Job Features — Sub-Scale

or Geographic Location 8.6 (5.4) 8.56 (5.36) 8.90 (5.68) n.s.

sr Promotion Opportunities 8.3 (5.2) 8.00 (4.99) 9.14 (5.64) n.s.

6r Maintain Pay Level 10.1 (5.8) 9.53 (5.49) 11.53 (6.35) -2.90

(00. ,1185)

_r Pay Raise 10.4 (5.6) 9.80 (5.24) 11.77 (6.32) -2.91

(00. ,179)

_r Status 9.5 (5.0) 9.15 (4.73) 10.14 (5.42) n.s.

_r Autonomy in Work Design 9.5 (5.2) 9.33 (5.30) 9.89 (5.09) n.s.

_r Autonomy in Performing 10.2 (5.5) 10.03 (5.52) 10.66 (5.59) n.s.

32

Work

Mr Access to Resources 9.4 (5.4) 9.01 (5.24) 10.18 (5.52) n.s.

Sr Co-Workers 8.6 (5.1) 8.40 (4.78) 9.18 (5.83) n.s.

oDr Performance Feedback 9.2 (5.2) 9.08 (5.19) 9.49 (5.32) n.s.

oor Supervision 8.4 (5.0) 8.35 (5.26) 8.58 (4.65) n.s.

osr Physical Demands 6.7 (4.9) 6.58 (4.96) 6.98 (4.89) n.s.

o6r Interaction with Public 7.6 (4.2) 7.36 (4.15) 7.96 (4.42) n.s.

o_r Task Variety 9.3 (4.9) 9.26 (5.00) 9.58 (4.95) n.s.

o_r Complete Entire Work 9.5 (5.4) 9.30 (5.38) 10.30 (5.67) n.s.

o_r Significant Impact 9.4 (5.2) 9.00 (4.96) 10.41 (5.86) -2.22

(03. ,182)

o_r Self-Recognition of

Performance

9.1 (5.2) 8.98 (5.21) 9.19 (5.22) n.s.

oMr Team Participation 7.5 (5.2) 7.68 (5.56) 7.19 (4.15) n.s.

oSr Recognition from Principal 8.8 (5.5) 8.78 (5.45) 8.87 (5.71) n.s.

sDr Training 9.1 (5.1) 8.68 (4.69) 9.94 (5.85) -2.02

(04. ,175)

sor Special Assignments 8.1 (5.3) 7.96 (5.17) 8.01 (5.41) n.s.

Total Job — Sub-Scale

or Cut in Work Hours 10.1 (6.7) 9.46 (6.24) 11.65 (7.58) -2.69

(01. ,178)

sr Layoff 8.7 (6.5) 8.37 (5.99) 9.39 (7.73) n.s.

6r Involuntary Early Retirement 7.2 (5.2) 7.06 (4.92) 7.60 (5.59) n.s.

_r Undesirable Changes in Work

Schedule

10.9 (6.4) 10.72 (6.30) 11.38 (6.83) n.s.

_r Lower Level Class 8.6 (6.1) 8.45 (6.19) 8.81 (5.88) n.s.

33

34

TABLE 3

Work Attitude Scores of Female and Male Teachers (t-tests)

Total Sample

(n= 385)

Female

(n= 263)

Male

(n= 112)

t

Commitment 3.93 (.71) 3.99 (.67) 3.81 (.81) 2.05

(180, .04)

Intention to Leave 1.91 (.96) 1.83 (.94) 2.10 (1.03) -2.32

(194, .02)

Resistance to Change

2.83 (.81) 2.86 (.85) 2.74 (.72) n.s

Perceived Performance 4.35 (.44) 4.41 (.40) 4.23 (.49) 3.44

(179, .00)

Perceived Organizational

Support

3.48 (.62) 3.56 (.67) 3.30 (.52) 4.04

(261, .00)

Higher means are presented in bold letters.

35

TABLE 4

Effects of Job Insecurity, Demographic variables and Gender on Teachers' Work

Attitudes:

Two-step Regression

Commitment Intention to

Leave

Resistance to

Change

Perceived

Performance

Perceived

Organizational

Support

Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta

Step 1 JIS

(1)-.203*** (1).305*** (4).113** (3)-.113 ** (1)-.173 ***

Place n.s n.s (1).-.228*** (1)-.230 *** (2)-.131**

Sector n.s (2)-.115** (2).197*** (2).155** (3).133**

Seniority in

Profession

(2).198***

n.s

(3).264**

n.s

(5).207**

Age n.s n.s (5)-.169** n.s (4)-.275***

R_ .075*** .130*** .114*** .058*** .083***

Step 2 Gender

.104** -.074 .077 .170*** .144**

R_ .086*** .135*** .116*** .083*** .101***

* p< .01

** p < .05

*** p < .10

(numbers in parentheses indicate the order entered by the computer in the first step)

36

TABLE 5

Effect of Job Insecurity on Work Attitudes of Female and Male Teachers

Total Sample

(n= 385)

Female

(n= 263)

Male

(n= 112)

Commitment

Beta

R_

F (p)

-.18

.02

13.18 (.00)

-.19

.03

9.78 (.00)

-.16

.03

2.82 (.09)

Intention to Leave

Beta

R_

F (p)

.36

.13

56.38 (.00)

.37

.14

42.48 (.00)

.31

.09

11.37 (.00)

Resistance to Change

Beta

R_

F (p)

0.19

.02

7.74 (.00)

.11

.01

3.42 (.07)

.25

.10

7.49 (.01)

Perceived Performance

Beta

R_

F (p)

-.13

.02

6.77 (.01)

-.16

.02

6.45 (.02)

n.s

Perceived Organizational Support

Beta

R_

F (p)

-.18

.03

12.34 (.00)

-.21

.04

11.86 (.00)

n.s

37

APPENDIX 1

Demographic Characteristics of Female and Male Teachers

Female

(n= 263)

Male

(n= 112)

Total Sample

(n= 385)

Working Place

- Kibbutz

- City

84

179

26

86

112

273

Sector

Mo Private

Mo Public

56

207

62

50

121

264

Age 39.1 (8.6) 40.8 (8.9) 40.3 (8.7)

Married (%) 89 89 89

Seniority (Years)

- At School 10.2 (7.8) 11.0 (8.5) 10.4 (8.0)

- In Profession 14.7 (8.7) 16.1 (9.7) 15.1 (9.1)

Education (%)

- Prof. degree 26.8 45.9 32.4

- B.A. 57.1 45.0 53.7

- M.A. and above 16.1 9.1 13.9

Documents

A Gender-Based Framework of the Experience of Job Insecurity and Its